Wednesday, June 15, 2016


On Saturday, Hilary Clinton gave a speech touting the glory of abortion. She sees it as a fundamental human right and praised the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood. She had the audacity in the same speech to speak of the care of children. There is a terrible disconnect in her horrible pro-death stance for the innocent unborn who are perceived to be a burden to their parents. Life can be extinguished if that human life stands in the way of something perceived to be more important.

Then on Sunday, there was the heinous crime carried out by a terrorist who agrees with the ideologies of radicalized Islam. Those innocent human lives in the womb of a night club were killed because the killer thought these lives were less than human because they didn't live up to his radicalized religion's expectations.

How many abortions took place over the weekend and no one sheds a tear or cries out for justice?

Does not Hilary Clinton see the connection between her Saturday speech and the ideology of empowering women to choose to kill their child in the womb if they deem that life less than human and the Islamist terrorist who felt the same way about the people he shot in the womb of that night club?

The Catholic Church is right. Human life must be protected from the womb to the tomb. Those who promote a contrary ideology are the problem causing terrorism not the solution to the current terror crisis.


Seeker said...


Fair winds and following seas...

Rood Screen said...

Through Moses and Aaron, God established a nation with its own homeland, but without imperial ambitions.
Through the Holy Apostles, God established an eternal kingdom with zeal for souls, but without imperial ambitions.

Mohammad established an empire that has been extending it's imperial reach with coercion and violence, motivated by religious ambition, for centuries. Therefore, Mohammadism is incompatible with the Christian values of the West, and so should not be tolerated here.

TJM said...

If Pius XI were alive today, he would condemn the modern Democratic Party as he did the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists in Mit Brennender Sorge, Non Abbiamo Bisogno, and Divini Redemptoris. But today's Church is politically correct, cowardly, and unfit, hence, the loss of their spiritual power, the power of Christ. We have a Pope who writes about "global warming." Disgusting.

John Nolan said...

Spot on, Father. Islamist terrorism is something fairly new to the West, but those with longer experience of terrorism remember the Baader-Meinhof and Red Brigades atrocities, and above all the threat posed by Irish republican terrorism (PIRA and INLA) for nigh on three decades, and its mirror-image in the 'loyalist' murder groups, although their terrorism was localized and essentially reactive.

The UK and the Republic of Ireland have effectively a joint citizenship and no restrictions on travel. Even at the height of the IRA atrocities no-one suggested that this should change. Donald Trump's call for Moslems to be banned from the US may strike a populist chord but is surely misguided.

I might regard Islam as a false religion spawned of the devil, but that does not mean that I despise Moslems, any more than I despise Protestants who are ipso facto heretics; I have sworn allegiance to a Protestant monarch and after Mass on Sunday we not only sang the Domine Salvam Fac which prays for the Queen, but in honour of her 90th birthday we sang the National Anthem as well.

I work alongside Moslems, Hindus and Sikhs who have no more problems with British society than do the rest of us, and the problems they have are often shared with their Christian brethren. It's often forgotten that imperialism (Roman as well as British) thrived because it respected local customs and beliefs. In WW2 far more Indians fought with us than fought with the Japs. With independence just a few years away, they knew which empire to trust.

There is a problem with so-called radicalization and alienation of young people which must be addressed. But immigrants are here because they want to be here; and this applies a fortiori to the United States.

I don't approve of homosexual behaviour either; but I take no consolation from the fact that a 'gay' nightclub was targeted. It makes the act neither worse nor better.

Anonymous said...

Father, you have hit it right on, that is, the disconnect. The hypocrisy of all those House Democrats on gun control, but then not lifting a finger to curtail abortion in this country. Perhaps 30,000 or so a year in this country die from firearms---but over a million die from abortion annually. Accordingly, one might think the latter is much more a threat to life than the former...but you would not know that from the Democrats...interestingly, while Hillary claims to be a Methodist, I read somewhere at the denomination's recent annual meeting, they voted to withdraw from the ironically-named "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights." Supposedly the growth of Methodists outside the Western World is credited for that shift---you don't typically see African Christians, regardless of denomination, supporting abortion on demand.

The tragedy too is how many New York Catholics supported Hillary in her 2000 and 2006 Senate races?

I remember my dad used to say, nothing good happens after Midnight (and before sunrise)...unfortunately we saw an example of that in Orlando. In another time, cities would be mostly silent at that time of morning as folks slept in anticipation of Mass Sunday morning. You have to think that places staying open that late (or early) only increases the odds of criminal activity.

Jusadbellum said...

With all due respect John, Islam is not like either the IRA or loyalist hit squads. It's a totalitarian political system with religious aspects or overlays. Like Communism it is not racial but ideological but its adherents have similar psychological and emotional depravities as the price for full membership that make them decidedly less rational and possessed of self control.

We did not import millions of Soviet Marxists "qua" Marxists into the US during the cold war. We differentiated between Russian people who couldn't help it and Communists who could. So too we can certainly differentiate between Egyptians or Iraqis and Muslims.

Islam does not have any theological grounding backing up would-be moderates claimed devotion to pluralism and equality under the secular law. It's entire drive is to reign supreme and take any setbacks as just that - temporary alliances to allow the 'believers' time to subvert the status quo.

Thus importing untold millions into the US will certainly 'transform' the country. Once they have a thriving and self-sustaining population they will only seek increased hegemony over non-believers. Theirs - like Communists - is not a live and let live world view. Being "nice" to them won't save us.

Rood Screen said...

John Nolan,

I don't think any reasonable person suggests that Moslems should be entirely excluded from our nation's life, but surely we Americans can take some time to consider together the extent to which we can accommodate their way of thinking and acting.

Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are pagans, but easily tolerated. Moslems, on the other hand, are inherently dangerous, but perhaps together we Americans can find a reasonable way to tolerate some of them as neighbors.

rcg said...

Jusad, i think you see the issue, but it is still not homosexuals or Moslems as a group. Keeping out all Moslems is the same mistake as letting them all in. If we have free travel across borders we can apply equal scrutiny to all and sort out the bad ones. Our predeliction for protected refugee status makes us vulnerable the what Europe and the US endure today. If we allowed them all to apply and accept them on their merits and for reasonable stay limits we would much better off on all sides of the border.

Victor said...

Dialogue: "Moslems, on the other hand, are inherently dangerous..."
That is what they said about the papists trying to enter USA 125 years ago: "The Irish need not apply." I see nothing has changed in the mentality of Americans. If you are not like the group, you are not welcome. Sounds the same as many Muslim countries, that if you are not Muslim you are not welcome.

Justabellum: Worse still is the self-righteosness that Americans have about them these days, without noticing that they are worse than what they accuse others of. "It's entire drive is to reign supreme..." So why are US troops all around the world if not for America to reign supreme? And why is America so insistent on conquering the world with its ideology of immorality?

TJM said...

Victor, surely you jest. Comparing the Irish to the blood-thirsty, totalitarian Muslims, is reprehensible. The Irish wanted desperately to fit in, the Muslims do not. The Irish were not trying to impose their laws and customs on the US, in stark contrast to the power mad Muslims. Get a grip on reality.

Jusadbellum said...


You have a good point. The US is the world's hegemon for good or for ill. Give me an idea what the world will look like when (not if) we cease being the world's super-power. You think the Chinese will fall over themselves to avoid being racist/sexist/chauvanistic/etc. like we have these past 30 years? You think they'll be shamed by Abu Grahib style prison scandals? Or they'll let their human rights issues bog down their rules of engagement?

You think they'd tolerate Mexican illegals burning Chinese flags while waving Mexican flags while holding signs reading "make China Tibet again"?

If all they did was machinegun every such protester they'd be acting "with self control".

The historical fact is, there is always a top dog. But not all dogs are the same.

Victor said...

I have met and interacted with hundreds of Muslims, and not one of them was blood thirsty. So I compare the Muslims with the Irish, both not welcome in USA.
Have you ever met a Muslim, by the way?
Furthermore, almost all the Muslims I have met are ordinary peace loving people, and yet their faith in God is almost extreme in the view of what faith means to most Americans. It puts to shame the faith of most of the Catholics I know today.
The problem with terrorism is certainly political, but it is also fueled by the immorality that the West, particularly USA, is trying to force on all the people of this planet.

Anonymous 2 said...


Those who refer to “the blood-thirsty totalitarian” and “power mad” Muslims who “want to impose their laws and customs on the U.S.,” and who intimate that all Muslims (not just some extremists) fit this description (did you make any exceptions?) and are “inherently dangerous” (as Dialogue suggests) need to get a grip on reality. They might begin by actually getting to know some Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Now the news is that the man who did the shooting was himself gay. That certainly changes the narrative, don't you think?

I imagine the media's narrative will still be to get around to how religion is the real culprit here (besides the availability of guns), only now it will be how religion tormented a poor Muslim man who found himself afflicted with something considered a sin. Or whatever.

But what occurs to me is how a significant change in one fact can alter our conclusions about a situation we are judging from afar.

Interesting this Orlando shooting becomes an example of how we often judge and opine publicly (and sometimes stridently), without realizing we have only some of the facts.
And isn't it further interesting that the Gospel for last Sunday caught a Pharisee negatively opining based on what he knew of a woman who was washing Jesus' feet, and Jesus, who had all of the facts concerning her, used the situation as a lesson for not only the Pharisee, but for us? Did we learn anything from Mass last Sunday?

We all look to the media to give us the facts about these public crimes and incidents (and even political figures?) but also must realize they may not be uncovering, or maybe are even deliberately hiding, facts that would make us significantly change our opinion. It's just something to keep in mind.


Anonymous 2 said...


Did you live in the U.K. during the IRA terror campaigns? I did and so did John Nolan. You do not know whereof you speak. We do.

Also, did you notice when he wrote: “I work alongside Moslems, Hindus and Sikhs who have no more problems with British society than do the rest of us, and the problems they have are often shared with their Christian brethren”? Again, he knows what he is talking about because he lives there. Do you?

You claim that “Islam does not have any theological grounding backing up would-be moderates claimed devotion to pluralism and equality under the secular law.” Really? And what, do you suppose, the “moderates” are invoking? And on what basis, do you suppose, did the Ottoman Empire introduce moderate reforms during the nineteenth century? – a process by the way that would have led to a very different world not had not the West engaged in its insane civil war in 1914-18 and then betrayed the Arabs in the Sykes-Picot agreement after the War as it broke up the remainder of the Ottoman Empire.

Anonymous 2 said...

Quite right, Bee. Well said! Part of me would even be in favor of a news blackout until all the relevant facts are in.

By the same token, it will be interesting to see what the black box from the Egypt Air disaster reveals. Of course, Trump knew immediately that terrorism caused the crash. Perhaps he will turn out to be correct, perhaps not. As far as I know, no terrorist organization has yet claimed responsibility. Time will tell. The point is, of course, Trump could not know at the time despite his arrogant certitude.

Anonymous 2 said...


You make an excellent point. Indeed, the devout Muslims I know challenge me through their example to try to be a better Catholic than I am. I am even prepared to accept that their example is divinely inspired even though I do not share their faith and believe that the Christian faith, in particular our Catholic faith, is the fullest revelation of the Truth and that Muslims like everyone else owe their salvation to Jesus Christ.

rcg said...

A2, you have a good spirit in your posts but I urge caution that you are edging close to apologetics for Islam. It is a shame that our clergy have so often fallen for its lies. The power of the Evil One is in the Koran and that fact is what cummutes a Muslim's earthly judgement. Hamlet had the chance to kill the king during vespers and di not because he feared the king would enter heaven by virtue of his momentary grace. Hamlet decided to wait until the spot of sin returned to the soul of the king before murdering him so that he mght go to Hell, making Hamlet an even greater monster. Our thirst for justice is limited by our mortal nature and tempts us to acts that satisfy the goals of Satan. Islam is the relgion of Lucifer and I cannot fight that monster directly. So I will make every effort to steal those living souls he counts as his own and enjoy his howls of pain.

TJM said...

Thanks for the laughs, guys. Islam is an evil religion, based on conquest and pedophilia and abuse of woman (a Danish woman was raped but sentenced to prison for having sex), young boys (used as sex toys for married men in Afhganistan) , and gays (throwing them off tall buildings for sport). I live in a major metropolitan area and know tons of Muslims. Fortunately, most of them want NOTHING to do with Islam BUT are deathly afraid of publicly criticizing the "Religion of Peace." Even American journalists are rank cowards when it comes to Islam but "valiant" when it comes to attacking Chrisrianity. Europe is going and we may be next unless we demand that they conform to Western Civilization and ditch Sharia law. When you speak of Islam you sound like Obama (abortion king) zombies

Jusadbellum said...

The Turks allowed for separation between Mosque and State only AFTER wiping out the 20% of their population who where Christians. Once 99% of Turks were Muslims secularism in the state didn't threaten Islam.

As for IRA... No I didn't live there. But that's of no disadvantage to the question at hand with respect to how different Islam is vs. the IRA or Orangemen.

As for moderates....most Nazis and most Communists were not KGB/GRU or Gestapo agents. Most were common, law abiding civilians trying their best to raise their families amid the sorrows and trials of life. They swore allegiance to their flag and supreme leader, did their basic level best to 'obey the law' and so didn't fight either the ideology or the individuals in power.

If you had taken any random sample of Nazis in 1940 or Communists from Moscow in 1960 you would have found them basically decent people so long as the topic of conversation didn't stray into their go-to hot button topics.

No one thought then, and no one thinks now that all of them were oozing with horribleness like the Portrait of Dorian Grey!

But it doesn't matter because the vast majority of Nazis and Communists were incapable of reforming their respective regimes inasmuch as the ruthless bastards who ran the show were at all times willing and ready to kill anyone who threatened to topple their apple carts.

Of 1.2 billion Muslims on earth, 600 million are women who are largely helpless. 300 million are boys under the age of 12 and so are likewise helpless to do anything. We're dealing with the rest: 300 million men ages 13 to 80 who ARE the ones who call the shots in Islam.

Of this population international surveys and polls and the sheer number of disparate guerilla, terror, and factional militias suggest that we're dealing with over 100 million radicalized men who don't just steam roll their respective regimes via politics, they do so via 'kinetic' means as well.

The Muslims we'll meet in the West are refugees - in the main - but they are not Alphas, they're not standing up to the Mullahs or hot heads for the same reason few of the Nazis and Communists stood up to THEIR hot heads.

Terror works! That's why we have an FBI. That's why locals struggle to deal with gangs, Mafias, cartels, and local Hatfields/McCoys.... most people are not alpha males willing and able to kill for any reason much less defense of the innocent. It's easier to kill for the sake of lust/greed/power/ambition than it is to risk one's life and limb to defend innocent 3rd parties against utterly ruthless barbarians.

Thus it's of little consolation that "most" Muslims are peaceful when there's little strategy and little talk about the 100+ million men who are actively leading that religion/politics/culture and enforcing their rules or carrying out their fatwahs.

Anonymous said...

John Nolan, you seem to be totally unaware of the Muslim problem in the UK. From what I have read of the problems in England and France there is no way I would live in those countries now.

Are you aware of the Rotherham child sex exploitation? "The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.[7] Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.[6]"

Have you heard of: Operation Trojan Horse refers to an organised attempt by a number of associated individuals to introduce an Islamist or Salafist ethos into several schools in Birmingham, England.[1][2][3] The name, based on the Greek legend, comes from a leaked letter discovered in March 2014, alleged to be from Birmingham Islamists detailing how to wrest control of a school and speculating about expanding the scheme to other cities. Around a month later, Birmingham City Council said that it had received "hundreds" of allegations of plots similar to those illustrated in the letter, some dating back over 20 years.[4] Tahir Alam, former chairman of the Park View Educational Trust which ran three schools in Birmingham, was found to have written a 72-page document for the Muslim Council of Britain in 2007 detailing a blueprint for the "Islamisation" of secular state schools.[5][6]

Have you heard of the soaring rape figures in Europe since the influx of refugees from the Middle East?

The increasing incidents of violence and heinous crime, such as dousing people with petrol and striking a match are coming from immigrants from countries where that type of behavior happens. Why should we have to pay for expensive court hearings and to keep these people in prison when we have people without homes living on the street?

It is up to governments to protect their citizens and I believe the UK government, French Government, Angela Merkel and others are responsible for endangering their citizens, leaving women particularly vulnerable to rape, by allowing unchecked immigration for what the immigrants themselves are saying is merely to provide unskilled, cheap labor, and of course these policies have led to a rise in nationalism in Europe and elsewhere.

To avoid those problems in the US Donald Trump is absolutely right to suspend all immigration from countries with a record of terrorism until such time as individuals can be proved not to have ties with such groups.

Anonymous 2 said...


Thank you for your kind sentiment. I appreciate that. But we disagree about Islam, I am afraid. And the fact that I am not willing to say, with you, that “Islam is the religion of Lucifer” but instead seek to adopt a balanced approach that also sees the good in that religion does not make me an apologist for Islam, but it does align me with the official position of the Catholic Church as stated in the documents of Vatican II and in the Catechism. You may wish to reject the Church’s position on Islam and indeed may even consider it as further evidence of our clergy “fall[ing] for its lies” but I cannot join you in this.

But we agree about the power of Lucifer. However, I see his evil hand not only in the actions of ISIS and others who commit heinous atrocities in the name of Allah but also in various extremist reactions to such acts and/or the perceived threat posed by ISIS, reactions that are perhaps even sometimes justified in the name of the Judeo-Christian God in the minds of the perpetrators.

No, far from being an apologist for Islam, I seek to advance a proper understanding of that religion, to the extent my limited knowledge and powers permit, and thus a more realistic understanding of the threat we face and of the best ways to combat this threat.

Anonymous 2 said...


“Islam is an evil religion, based on conquest and pedophilia and abuse of woman (a Danish woman was raped but sentenced to prison for having sex), young boys (used as sex toys for married men in Afhganistan) , and gays (throwing them off tall buildings for sport).”

These sweeping generalizations about Islam is so “over the top” that it is difficult to know where to begin to address the kernel of truth that is buried beneath the mountain of hyperbole.

Anonymous 2 said...


Can you please cite some sources for your claims about Turkey and about the numbers of radicalized Muslims, so that we can have some focus for discussion.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM: Grammar alert – These sweeping generalizations about Islam_are_ so “over the top” etc.

Rood Screen said...

The Irish were indeed dangerous in the US in the 19th century, and against Great Britain throughout the 20th century, but for pressing social and political reasons. The Apostolic Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church certainly did not encourage the Irish to join street gangs or to plant bombs. It should be noted that the Irish have never tried to dominate other nations.

The more general fear of Catholics in the USA was linked to a philosophical revulsion against an American owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign (the pope), a fear that was misplaced but understandable, and to the fact that for several decades around 15% of the US population was foreign born.

Mohammad was a warrior-prophet, and adherents of his religion spent centuries conquering Christian lands in the name of Islam. I encourage everyone to read a biography of Mohammad and a history of Europe.

Rood Screen said...

If you "get to know" a murder, a rapist, a racist, a drug dealer, etc., you'll find that, apart from the few genuine psychopaths, they, like most human beings, can be likable, and even acceptable. The Christian practice of reconciliation depends upon the goodness of even the wickedest of sinners, and allows us to see that goodness even prior to any conversion.

It is certainly good to "get to know" Moslems, homosexuals, pagans, foreigners, communists, etc., and even to befriend such persons. But personal knowledge and friendship need not replace discussion of the ideas contained in various cultures, religions, philosophies and desires, especially if those ideas are threatening.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Islam is an evil religion,the Koran a recipe for evil. Pray tell, when did our Lord exhort us to kill non-believers as part of the Christian Faith? I rest my case. You may wish to live in pc-ville if you wish,I do not.

TJM said...

Trump is absolutely correct to advocate the suspension of immigration of Muslims until things get sorted out, a wise decision with much precedent in the US. However, our evil, corrupt, anti-Christian national media continues to perpetuate lies after lies about immigration and fails to mention that several US presidents by executive order suspended immigration during times of war and crisis including: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and even Bill Clintoon!!! Our media will get us killed. If the plane that plowed into Twin Towers had only taken out the New York Slimes building, we would be far better off today. Father Z doesn' call the Slimes "Hell's Bible" for no good reason. The Slimes is an enabler of radical Islam

Anonymous said...

TJM and JusadBellum, Anonymous 2 is going through the same routine of trying to whitewash Islam. Unfortunately, for him the rape crisis in Europe is growing so fast that even he won't be able to deny the truth for much longer. Story after story of women being bashed and raped by group of migrant men and called "whores", is being reported in Germany, Sweden and Denmark with horrific photos of the victims.

Sweden is also now admitting that there has been a cover up of assaults and attacks by refugees that happened at a music festival in Stockholm:

"Meanwhile, reports have emerged of attacks on women in Malmö on New Year’s Eve.
Groups of refugees molested concertgoers at We Are Stockholm, Europe’s largest youth festival, in the summer of 2014, according to internal police memos obtained by Dagens Nyheter, a daily newspaper."

A Gatestone report of the situation with sexual assaults and molestation by refugees in Sweden:

A few pictures for Anonymous 2 to have a look at. And John Nolan may be shocked when he sees the statistics of rape in Britain:!

"The largest ethnic groups coming to Sweden are Afghan, Iraqi, Somali and Syrian – the same groups that are now coming to the U.S. as refugees, although in smaller numbers as a percentage of total population.

She said Swedish politicians may be surprised to learn that many of these foreign men think women who run around in bikinis are fair game, but they cannot admit that the difference has anything to do with being raised under Islam.

“Of course, they cannot admit – to Swedes – that this completely alien view of women has anything to do with Islam, because then they would become victims of their own claim that everyone who criticizes Islam is an ‘Islamophobe,'” Carlqvist writes.

Cover-up gets harder for media to pull off

For many years, she said, it was possible to cover up the abuse, partly because the Swedish media chose to call the perpetrators “youth gangs,” and never mention that they were almost always immigrants from Muslim countries."

Quite frankly, men like Anonymous 2, in denying the attacks on women by Muslim men, are in fact aiding and abetting the abuse of women. It has been pointed out that to bring men brought up in an Islamic country into countries like Sweden where for the Swedes nudity is normal is stupidity.

I agree with Donald Trump that immigration has to be suspended and some sort of assessment has to take place. Aside from the danger posed to the US by ISIS terrorists entering the US - as ISIS have claimed and that has been proven in France and Belgium - there needs to be some sort of education of these immigrants to avoid the rape and assaults that are happening in Europe.

Shame on all those who are covering up what Islam is doing to Europe and the UK.

Anonymous 2 said...


Please show me where I have ever denied a credible report of attacks on women by Muslim men.

By the way, here is another article from the same newspaper you link (The Guardian), only two days later, in which the author acknowledges the folly of the cover-up by Swedish police, while at the same time explaining that the truth that was covered up was somewhat different from the one you are asserting:

We have already had a lengthy exchange on another thread several months ago about the need for caution when interpreting the statistics on rape and sexual harassment in Sweden.

And in any event, just because a Muslim man may commit an objectionable act does not mean that it is permitted by Islam, especially if that man had been consuming alcohol (also haram or forbidden). In short, he may be doing such things not because of his religion but in spite of it.

In short, we can certainly have a conversation about the problems posed by immigration from certain Muslim majority countries such as Afghanistan or Syria provided that (a) the relevant statistics are properly digested, and (b) we distinguish this question analytically from Islam as a religion.

Anonymous 2 said...


I would suggest that many of those attacking Muslims and Islam live in their own pc-ville. One of the more insidious rhetorical tricks employed nowadays is to accuse one’s political opponents of doing exactly the same thing one is doing oneself, in part to divert attention away from the fact that one is doing it. For example, in much of Trump world, it is non-pc to challenge that world’s orthodoxy that Obama is a Muslim and was really born in Kenya or that we must suspend Muslim immigration, and if anyone dares to challenge these views they are shouted down or branded as a dangerous progressive liberal with their head in the sand (witness the attacks on this blog, for example). Yes, there is political correctness on the left. But there is most definitely political correctness on the right as well. For my part. I reject both.

Anonymous 2 said...


You rest your case too soon: To the extent violence has been practiced in Islamic history, those perpetrating it can at least point to certain passages in the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad as justification, even though the proper interpretation of the relevant sources regarding the precise circumstances and conditions for the practice of violence may be disputed. Yet, some (such as Marc and apparently also you here) emphasize that our example is Jesus and he did not condone such violence. So, we should have done better than the Muslims historically, right? But we haven’t. So, what’s our excuse? And of course, this includes killing non-believers, which we have done in spades.

Rood Screen said...


When has the Catholic Church condoned killing innocent non-Christians?

Anonymous 2 said...

Dialogue (and TJM):

I think you may have missed my point. Perhaps I did not make it clearly enough, so let me try again.

The people of Christendom and its secular successor, the modern West, have acted very badly historically, committing all kind of violence and atrocities. In this respect we have done no better, and perhaps even far worse, than the people of Islamdom. Here is one example among hundreds, if not thousands, that I read just last night:

“The Black Prince, the epitome of medieval chivalry, murdered 3,000 of the citizens of Limoges, including women and children who kneeled down before him and begged for mercy. At Agincourt in 1415 the heavily armored Frankish cavalry that had for 300 years swept all before it was suddenly ineffective as the lowly English yeoman with his longbow cut down the French nobility like grass. After the battle Henry, the English king, ordered his soldiers to murder all their prisoners by cutting their throats, and at the siege of Rouen in 1418-19 he let 12,000 French women and children starve and freeze to death beneath the city walls, trapped by the besieging army. These were his subjects but, for the besieged garrison, they were simply more mouths to feed, so they were left to die.”

Roger Osborne, “Civilization: A New History of the Western World” (2006) (page 237).

Yet how can this be, if (as TJM suggests) we are supposed to follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, unlike the Muslims who have only the evil Qur’an and the nefarious example of Muhammad (TJM and others’ ascribed view, not mine) to guide them?

Perhaps you will say it is because we are sinful, fallen creatures. True enough. But surely we should have had more success than the Muslims (who are not only fallen, sinful creatures but also have a misleading guide, which some here say is from Lucifer), given the superior guidance we have received.

Moreover, some of the atrocities committed have indeed been committed, not in spite of the Church but in its name and at its behest, including the killing of non-believers. Do I really need to elaborate about the Church sponsored killings of heretics, apostates, pagans, or even Jews or Muslims? Or must we conjure with the word “innocent”? If elaboration is needed, here it is:

My point, of course, has to do with motes and planks.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. While I do not agree with everything on Mark Humphreys' website and do not especially care for his strident tone, it rather vividly suffices to make the point that needs to be made in the present context.

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous 2,

You have spoken very clearly. Your repetitive point is that Christians have committed grave evils, just like Moslims. No reasonable person doubts this. Judas betrayed Christ to the murderous authorities, and Saint Paul was complicit in the murder of Saint Steven. Etcetera. I understand your point perfectly well. Perhaps if you give it another go, you'll begin to understand mine.

George said...

It seems like Mark Humphreys and others like him have made the rather startling and unexpected discovery which is that,down through the history of Christendom, some Christians have behaved in ways decidedly non-Christian. Christians though, through their missionaries did much more good than harm. The Muslims killed, conquered, and subjugated peoples(or attempted to) explicitly in the name of their religion and prophet.

Here are some of the things I read on Mr Humphreys site:

The Crusades (mainly 1095-1272)
"Rudolph J. Rummel estimates the Crusades killed 1 million innocent civilian men, women and children (not in combat). Much (but not all) of Christianity's killing is in the past. Christianity had a long run as the world's most violent religion. But I think it is clear that the world's most violent religion is now Islam."

"Jesus never killed anyone, and Christianity took 300 years before the killing began.Whereas Islam began with killing of unbelievers right from the start."

"For the first century of its existence, Islam was absolutely soaked in blood. The killing only slowed down as the Islamic empire finally ran into boundaries in the 8th century, after about a century of expansionist, imperialist, unprovoked Islamic aggression."

"Even after the initial expansion slowed, the killings did not end. Slaughter (jihad) and oppression (sharia) are part of the core doctrines of Islam. Killing for Islam is not a modern idea, and it will never end until some sort of reformation takes place within the religion. Medieval Christianity was equally violent, but Christianity has since reformed."

"For many years now, Islam has been the most violent religion in the world."

George said...

Here are some more of the things I read on Mr Humphreys site:

Dr. Bill Warner is the American author of several books, including "Sharia Law for non-Muslims" and "Factual Persuasion: Changing the Minds of Islam's Supporters". He currently operates the website, After leaving college he began a more intensive study of the foundational texts of the the world’s major religions, and has now been studying Islam for over 30 years.Before he began writing and publishing books about Islam, Warner was an applied physicist trained in quantum physics, and a University professor; he holds a PhD in both Physics and Mathematics.

In his book Tears of Jihad. He claims that Islam is the greatest killer of all time, worse than Christianity, fascism or communism.

Bill Warner interview, Feb 2007

"First, let's see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul's letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great's army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school."

George said...

Whenever anyone brings up the Crusades, I will remind them that the Islamists had overtaken and occupied all of North Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic, and along with that, the Iberian peninsula, and all that for a period of around 300 years before the first Crusade was even formed and started on its way to liberate the Holy Land. It would be another 400 years before they were driven completely from Spain. During that time the Muslims had also managed to occupy the entire island of Sicily. In addition, they also made forays into mainland Italy where among other unholy acts, they destroyed monasteries and churches. Little toleration for opposing religions is another thing we can notice historically about the adherents of the Muslim faith in areas they ruled and presided over. It is true that vestiges of Catholicism had managed to survive for a period of time during the of the Muslim rule over North Africa, at least until the more fundamentalists of that faith began to assert their power and influence.When the French invaded and eventually captured Algeria in the mid 1800's, no adherents of the once extant Catholicism were in evidence. This was an area of the world which once had 400 bishoprics, which and given the Church one of her greatest saints and theologians(St. Augustine), and three of her popes(Miltiades,Pope Gelasius I and Pope Victor I). Possibly as many as a million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslims of North Africa. In the Middle East,an area of the world where Christians predate Muslims by centuries, how many Christians have been killed or have had to flee because of jihadi persecution.

I would like peace with the Islamists. I pray that it will come about some day.
This goal is much more difficult though, not only because of those of the Islamic faith who still believe in violence toward unbelievers, but also because many in the West have abandoned God and His Holy teachings, and so there are not the effective prayers to heaven that are necessary to bring about the change of heart and mind that is so much needed today.

Anonymous 2 said...


I understood your point implied by your question to be that the Catholic Church has never condoned the killing of non-Christians.

Well, apart from the additional point that the Catholic Church has certainly condoned the killing of fellow Christians, my response, which addressed the “grave evils” committed by Christians, also included reference to some of those same grave evils (specifically the killing of non-Christians) that were condoned by the Catholic Church. These are included in the listings on the Humphrys website.

Anonymous 2 said...


Yes, Humphrys is an equal opportunity critic of religion. I have no problem with raising awareness of the evils committed in the name of God. As Pope Francis says, it is a blasphemy to kill in the name of God. But in this enterprise we also have to be committed to search for truth and thus must possess the virtue of academic integrity.

This is my sense: Western scholars have had many centuries to evaluate the data regarding the historical record of Christianity. Although any particular finding can, and should, be challenged in the light of new or contrary evidence, I suspect that the findings regarding the historical record of Christianity are generally more reliable than the claims currently being bandied about by Western “scholars” regarding the historical record if Islam. Why might these latter claims be less reliable? Because they are being formulated during a period of hysteria about the threat from Islam and because they are typically made by those belonging to an entire anti-Islam industry (much of it for profit) that has sprung up in the West. Humphrys seems to buy into their claims rather uncritically. But one cannot be too harsh in blaming him because their loud and strident voices seek to drown out anyone challenging them.

Let us consider Bill Warner, for example. Here Warner (whose real name is Bill French) heads the list of the top ten anti-Muslim “inner circle” in the United States:

And here is a challenge to his claimed statistics of 270 million historical victims of “political Islam,” or more precisely to Pamela Geller’s repetition of these statistics (Pamela Geller is also, of course, another member of the “inner circle”):

George said...

A Christian is not without hope.

We are living in perilous times, especially spiritually so. A faithful Christian though, being truly such, is never without hope. I don't know that there has ever been time when so may have shed their blood for being of the True faith. Our hope, though, is in "the blood of the martyrs being the the seed of the Church". The blood shed by those because of their faith has great spiritual value. It is given this value from the Treasury of Divine grace which was filled by the merits of Christs Passion and Death. It compensates in an inestimable and extraordinary way for the lack of prayer and devotion of those of little or no faith. Along with the continued prayers and sacrfices of the faithful, it will help bring about a change of heart and mind, a conversion and repentance, which is sorely needed today. Our Lady in her apparitions has called for prayer and penance and promised that her Immaculate Heart will eventually triumph, and this of course by the grace of God, and when that comes about, it will truly be new and glorious day dawning on the earth.

Anonymous 2 said...

And still I ask the question: If we fallen and sinful Christians—who (unlike the fallen and sinful Muslims) have our Lord Jesus Christ as our primary guide to teach us and to show us how to live—have also been guilty of such barbarous atrocities, despite this teaching and this example, how do we explain this?

Isn’t the answer that in the case of both religions it is not the religion and its sacred texts that are to blame but ourselves, because we bring our own psychological and cultural baggage with us as we seek to practice the religion and to interpret and apply its sacred texts? Moreover, as part of this process we remake God in our own image. And the hand of the Devil is not to be discounted in this process either. Our original sin, which involved succumbing to the original temptation to decide for ourselves what (and of course therefore who) is good and what (and who) is evil, and thus remaking God in our own image (Oh, He won’t really mind) has continued down to the present day.

Marc said...

A2, when Christians kill people, Satan is involved in leading the person to act contrary to the teaching of Christ and to murder. The same is true for a Muslim. The difference is that Satan authored the Muslim "holy" book that provides justification for the act of murder whereas Christ teaches (in today's Gospel, actually) that a person who murders or is even angry is liable to judgment. In other words, God tells everyone not to murder. Satan, in one of his books called The Koran, tells people to murder.

Anonymous 2 said...


“Satan authored the Muslim ‘holy’ book”

I don’t believe that. Nor does the Catholic Church. In fact, I don’t believe it precisely because the Catholic Church does not believe it. Why do_you_believe it?

Anonymous said...

Satan authored the Qur'an? This blog has just entered the alternate dimension of "Bat Sh*t Crazy."

Marc said...

Satan is the father of lies. The Koran is a book of lies about God. Therefore, Satan is the author of the Koran.

The entire book is meant to strip people away from the truth of Christ into anti-Christ errors.

All the gods of the Gentiles are devils.

If you anonymi spent half the time standing up for and studying the actual Church of Christ as you do the false religion of the liar Mohammed, you would already know this stuff.

George said...


What do you make of the folllowing?

“The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.’” (Abu Dawud, Book #38, hadith #4447, [other haddith collections give reference as book 40, hadith 112])

“The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: (1) ‘Kill the one who does this and the one who lets it be done to him.’” (Sharia law, Reliance of the Traveller, p17.3 [page 665 in English translation.])

Is not the prophet quoted above Mohammed himself? Do these passages not give license to the Jihadists? Who is there to convince them otherwise that they will listen to and heed? I think we are witnessing and experiencing the rise of evil brought about by man's sinfulness which is so prevalent and commonplace in the world today.

And then there is the matter of the New York Times article this week in which the writers seem to contend that Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans 1:18-32 "calls for the execution of gays”. Saint Paul never condoned or called for violence by Christians against homosexuals or anyone else.

St Paul:
"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, eartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Anonymous 2 said...


I don’t know what sources you have been studying to reach your conclusions but these are the Catholic sources that guide me in my thinking and approach to Islam, Muslims, and my students:

Of course, I also have books in my possession that advance the kinds of positions you articulate. I have not looked at them for a while, but as I recall they tend to be written by evangelical Protestants and seem to be part of an industry of such literature.

Here is a question for you to ponder: Could one of Satan’s lies be that he is the author of the Qur’an? Think of how much fun he would have (indeed arguably has had historically) from all the dissension, wars, and mayhem that must inevitably ensue from such a view.

Marc said...

A2, we know with absolute certainty that God didn't author the Koran. And we know with absolute certainty that Mohammed was a false prophet who placed himself above Christ and taught that Christ was not God. Now this false religion claims over one billion adherents an continues to antagonise the Church founded by Christ, as it has been doing nearly since it's invention.

How you don't see Satan's hand in this false religion is amazing to me.

I don't own any Protestant books on this or any other subject, and I never have, so I don't know what books you're talking about.

Diogenes said...

Back to Hillary, with a little-known fact:
Abortions historically have dropped under Democratic presidents and risen under Republican presidents.
Abortions in the US reached their historical peak under Reagan.
Under Obama, they have hit a historic low, basically back to the time immediately after Roe v. Wade.
There's a lot to be said for education, economic opportunity and access to health care that reduce the number of women seeking abortion.
Hate abortion? Vote Democratic.
Want more abortions? Vote Republican.
Discuss. Or not.

TJM said...


Abortion, an intrinsic evil, is part of the Abortion Party's (formerly the Democratic Party) platform. St. John Paul II made it fairly clear that you could not ordinarily vote for Dems and forbad Catholic politicians from voting for pro-abortion laws.

Diogenes said...

TJM, I have read what John Paul II wrote and it does not say what you claim it does.
For one thing, he does not mention Democrats at all.
For another, he made it clear that abortion is one of many issues that voters must consider.
And for a third, there are no "pro-abortion laws" passed by Obama or Hillary or anyone else. There are court decisions that one may respect, or not, or work to overturn, or not. People who are opposed to abortion can do many other things to reduce their number, such as making sure that young mothers get access to health care, counseling, adoption services, etc.
People of good faith can disagree on that.
But if after 44 years, you still think that a Republican president or Republican Congress will overturn Roe v. Wade, you're being played for a chump.

Anonymous 2 said...


I am aware of this view and the hadiths upon which it is based. What I make of them is this:

(1) The reliability of the hadiths in question is controverted. Some Islamic schools and scholars have traditionally rejected them and many continue to reject them. Others accept them as reliable. The first section in the following Wikipedia article elaborates on the relevant sources as well as the differing positions in medieval and modern Islamic jurisprudence. The third section discusses the wide variety of approaches under the laws of Muslim majority countries today and the fourth section discusses “radical Islam”:

(2) Even among those schools and scholars who accept the death penalty (for males) for homosexual anal sodomy, my understanding is that the Shari'a legal process requires several strict conditions to be satisfied before the punishment can actually be inflicted. The now infamous Sakeleshfar lecture at the University of Michigan in 2013 elaborates (please see 51 minutes to 1:02 minutes):

Moreover, although the position regarding ISIS is murky (in part because of a lack of objective, dispassionate reporting I suspect), it seems that even ISIS requires some sort of legal process to be followed.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

Anonymous 2 said...


I infer, therefore, that you reject the USCCB documents I linked including the many quoted pronouncements by Pope Saint John Paul II and by Pope Benedict on Islam and Muslims? Is that correct?

Also, did you reach your views purely through your own reasoning or are you relying on certain sources with which you agree? If so, what are those sources?

Marc said...

Anonymous 2, I haven't read the USCCB documents, so I have no opinion of them.

I don't really know what you mean by sources. I am Catholic, so I believe that Islam is a false religion, and Mohammed was a false prophet. My source on that would be the Creed, which pronounces that there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. Islam is a false religion.

I don't know what point you are trying to make... As a Catholic, you are required to believe that Mohammed was a false prophet and that the Koran is not a real holy book.

I recognize that you may or may not think that Mohammed was inspired by Satan to write the Koran, but when people start talking about seeing angels and then writing down what they say, and you look at what they've written and it's a book of lies about Christ, it's pretty clear that either the person was crazy and didn't see an angel or the person was sane and saw a demon. Or, of course, the person was lying about seeing an angel in the first place.

So do you think that Mohammed was a real prophet, a liar, insane, or had conversations with a demon in writing his book?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, no doubt what St John Paul II the Great and Pope Benedict says about Islam was no doubt aimed at their conversion either that or they just plain flat out got it wrong. Anyway, they are not dogmatic statements and so Catholics are not bound by them.

On an earlier post you have reminded us of Pope Benedict's statement: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The Islamic response to that being to murder some nuns thus proving that the statement is correct. Benedict was condemned at the time - including by that great august paper The New York Times, which is now encouraging attacks on Christians by stating what they have about St Paul. Of course others consider that Benedict has been proven right especially by ISIS.

Being in denial of the abuses being perpetrated by Islamic men in Europe, England and now the US does not help your case when we are all capable of reading. You are just denying facts. Video facts captured on cell phones, etc. As one article said, the cover up is becoming harder to pull off. But the denial of the slayings in Orlando and the media and others putting the blame on Christians is beyond belief. It shows really the desperate denial of liberals of the fact of what is happening in the US. The credibility of the media is now stretched beyond belief. All they are doing, of course, is to make Donald Trump's statements about them correct:

"The New York Times, which is losing a fortune, which is a failing newspaper, which probably won’t be around much longer … but I think the New York Times is one of the most dishonest media outlets I’ve ever seen in my life,” the businessman said. “They have an agenda that you wouldn’t believe.”

All the New York Times has done is to cause more Christians to vote for Trump ...

Gene said...

Islam is a false religion...period. If you are a Christian, that is what you must believe. All other religions beside Christianity are false and worship false gods. That is not a difficult concept to understand. It is Biblical and it is Catholic...or was until the Enlightenment (which was a return to darkness). Islam is particularly offensive because it claims a part of Biblical history as its own and denies that Christ is the Son of God. Now, why waste your time trying to "understand" a religion like that? Once again, guys like Anonymous 2, nice guy though I am sure he is, are enemies of the Church just as surely as an army of Muslims marching on the Vatican. They are appeasers, rationalizers, theological fifth columnists and, as academics, are in the dangerous position of being able to subvert the faith and beliefs of our children. They should be scorned and rejected.

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc, Gene, Jan, and Like-Minded Others:

Here are two well-known documents that are at the beginning of the first link I provided. These positions are also reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2Co 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.

The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture.

The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.

Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.

Therefore, the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion. Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the sacred Council earnestly begs the Christian faithful to ‘conduct themselves well among the Gentiles’ (1P 2:12) and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace with all men (cf. Rm 12:18), and in that way to be true sons of the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 5:45).


You may choose to reject these two documents, all of the reinforcing subsequent pronouncements of the post-Vatican II Popes, and the relevant portions of the Catechism. I do not. Unlike you (apparently), I choose to submit to the authority of our Popes and Bishops, to the authority of the tradition as currently represented and formulated in these authoritative sources.

Marc said...

A2, how do you think those documents relate to this discussion about the invention of Islam and the Koran?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, Nostra Aetate [which is a contentious document and not accepted by many in the Church as it is considered to deviate from past teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation] obviously was written long before the rise of ISIS. No doubt because of the violence and slaughter of Christians Pope Benedict:

"quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The pontiff then added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul"."

Cardinal Brandmuller has stated that Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae "do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them". Therefore, Marc, Gene, myself and others of like mind are free not to accept these documents, just as you are free to accept them.

Also, as you point out Nostra Aetate states, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions". As regards Islam, there is plenty that is not religious and not holy - under age marriage and polygamy being just a couple of things of note. Obviously the Catholic Church rejects those tenets of Islam. Do you?

Gene said...

There may be some generalized philosophical truths in other religions, such as awareness of a Creator, etc, but there is nothing Holy in them at all and that is Biblical. There is none Holy but JHWH and His son Jesus Christ. Vatican II is a pitiful, and not even theologically credible, ecumenical effort which compromises both Biblical truth and Catholic doctrine. Guys (and gals), I'm a former protestant and even I can see this...or, perhaps, because I am a former protestant I can see it.

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc. Jan, and Gene,

I referred to “these two documents, all of the reinforcing subsequent pronouncements of the post-Vatican II Popes, and the relevant portions of the Catechism.” I will let Pope Benedict answer all of your responses to my previous comment (this extract from a 2012 pronouncement can also be found on the first link I provided):

Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, September 14, 2012 (excerpt)

Interreligious dialogue

19. The Church's universal nature and vocation require that she engage in dialogue with the members of other religions. In the Middle East this dialogue is based on the spiritual and historical bonds uniting Christians to Jews and Muslims. It is a dialogue which is not primarily dictated by pragmatic political or social considerations, but by underlying theological concerns which have to do with faith. They are grounded in the sacred Scriptures and are clearly defined in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. . . and in the Declaration on the Church's Relation to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate. . . . . Jews, Christians and Muslims alike believe in one God, the Creator of all men and women. May Jews, Christians and Muslims rediscover one of God's desires, that of the unity and harmony of the human family. May Jews, Christians and Muslims find in other believers brothers and sisters to be respected and loved, and in this way, beginning in their own lands, give the beautiful witness of serenity and concord between the children of Abraham. Rather than being exploited in endless conflicts which are unjustifiable for authentic believers, the acknowledgment of one God – if lived with a pure heart – can make a powerful contribution to peace in the region and to respectful coexistence on the part of its peoples.

23. The Catholic Church, in fidelity to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. . . , looks with esteem to Muslims, who worship God above all by prayer, almsgiving and fasting, revere Jesus as a prophet while not acknowledging his divinity, and honour Mary, his Virgin Mother. We know that the encounter of Islam and Christianity has often taken the form of doctrinal controversy. Sadly, both sides have used doctrinal differences as a pretext for justifying, in the name of religion, acts of intolerance, discrimination, marginalization and even of persecution . . .

24. Despite this fact, Christians live daily alongside Muslims in the Middle East, where their presence is neither recent nor accidental, but has a long history. As an integral part of the Middle East, Christians have developed over the centuries a type of relationship with their surroundings which can prove instructive. They have let themselves be challenged by Muslim devotion and piety, and have continued, in accordance with their means and to the extent possible, to live by and to promote the values of the Gospel in the surrounding culture. The result has been a particular form of symbiosis. It is proper, then, to acknowledge the contribution made by Jews, Christians and Muslims in the formation of a rich culture proper to the Middle East. . .

In my view, the rise of ISIS makes it more, not less, imperative that we try to remain true to the spirit of the Vatican II documents on Islam and all the many subsequent reinforcing papal pronouncements such as the one above. Of course, as you suggest, you may be free to reject them but you should not then also fault me for accepting them.

Gene said...

Pope Benedict is quite simply wrong about Islam. His statements are un-Biblical and based upon a false understanding of Islam and its origins. Too bad about that.

Marc said...

A2, none of that has anything to do with the creation of Islam or the Koran.

George said...

When two or more nations enter into some sort of compact or mutual understanding, the eventualization of any agreement is brought about by an acceptance of certain basic principles all sides can agree on.
Country A, a representative democracy, can finalize an agreement with Country B, a communist, authoritarian one, without compromising its moral position as being superior to B.

This is the correct way to read Nostra Aetate. The Church seeks harmonious relations with other faiths to mutually co-operate on things that are recognized as common to our shared humanity and so benefit the community at large. In doing so, it is correctly understood in the light of faith that the Catholic Church does not give up its rightful claim as containing the fullness of the Truth.
The Catholic Church is God's, One, Holy, and Apostolic established institution on earth whose precepts and teachings are His Divinely revealed Truth. Just as the United States has been the hope and realization of countless millions to be free of oppression and tyranny, the Church has been and continues to be the hope and realization of many more to be free of the oppression and tyranny of the Evil One, and to be for these many the gateway to Eternal salvation. Adherents of other religions including Islam don't accept this of course. Catholics true to the Faith are nothing if not hopeful. It should be our hope and prayer that despite our past conflicts, differences and difficulties, there will come a time where we will in all places co-exist in harmony with even those of the Islamic faith, as remote as that possibility seems at the present time. We can also continue to pray for the conversion others, especially those who have fallen away from the Church for this is what our Faith obliges us to do.

Unknown said...

I'm more interested in knowing what A2 makes of the Qur'an's claims that Muhammed rode from Mecca to Jerusalem (in a single night, no less--just under 1000 miles) and thence to heaven on the back of Al-Buraq.

It either happened, or did not.

Anonymous 2 said...


Let’s put it this way then: I find it rather unlikely that the these Vatican II documents and the numerous reinforcing subsequent papal pronouncements would have been expressed in such terms if their authors thought that Muhammad was, as you put it, “a liar, insane, or had conversations with a demon in writing [the Qur’an]” [He did not write it by the way; he was illiterate and “recited” it, with others writing down what they heard].

No, your three hypotheses are not exhaustive of the possibilities that can be envisaged by a capacious moral imagination. What do you think some of these other possibilities could be?

Alternatively, please point us to a post-Vatican II document that characterizes Muhammad as you do.

Anonymous 2 said...


We believe that Jesus Christ is the gateway to salvation for all humanity, past, present, and future. We also believe that this salvation may be attainable even for those who in their ignorance of the Truth, do not know this, although it is important to pay attention to the “nuances” in this position. I hope it is clear that I am far from being a relativist or indifferentist in this respect. The Church made the positon clear in its 2006 document Dominus Jesus, authored by the future Pope Benedict:

Lulu said...

Gene asserts: "Islam is a false religion...period. If you are a Christian, that is what you must believe."

No, that is not what any Christian "must believe."

The Catholic Church does not believe this. In NA we read: "Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery..." and "Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world..." and "other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites."

Summing up the attitude of the Catholic Church toward non-Christian religions: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions."

Does this deny that, in some religions, there are elements that are not "true and holy"? Certainly not. Does this formulation sound a bit different from the conciliar language of the previous 1000 years? You betcha.

This was intentional, and the intention was not to destroy the Catholic Faith. Recognizing the differences between the era of Vatican Two and the eras of the previous Councils, the Fathers of Vatican Two made a choice to use the ars laudandi, used extensively by the Fathers of the Church. Previous Councils had as a goal "winning the argument" or "proving your opponent wrong." Knowing that this tactic - dialectic - was less effective than it had been when it was used to bring a halt to the Protestant Reformation... ahem.

So, you can choose to ignore of question NA, and you can choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese. But our choices do not reality make.

Anonymous 2 said...


The Qur’an does not claim all this. The Qur’an contains the briefest outline of the Night Journey and the details are supplied by the hadiths.

The first question should not be what I make of it but what Muslims make of it.

On all this, see:

George said...


"We believe that Jesus Christ is the gateway to salvation for all humanity, past, present, and future. We also believe that this salvation may be attainable even for those who in their ignorance of the Truth, do not know this, although it is important to pay attention to the “nuances” in this position."

Yes, but this all happens in some mysterious way through the grace which comes down from heaven into and through the Holy Catholic Church and even reaches beyond her.
It is the gateway to Eternal salvation for all who are saved, whomever they are, wherever they may be.

Anonymous said...

Lulu, Cardinal Brandmuller has stated that NA does not "have a binding doctrinal content" and is open for discussion. Therefore, Catholics do not have to accept what is in that document and, furthermore, because it is not dogmatic it is not declared free of error. Thus, Catholics are free to dissent from it and to have a differing opinion about Islam, Buddhism and other religions that do not recognize Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world. As He Himself said, "Nobody comes to the Father except through me". That sums it up as far as I am concerned.

Gene said...

NA is Vat II nonsense and is in no way binding for Catholics to believe. It is completely un-Biblical, indifferentist, and Pelagian. There is nothing Holy in other religions...nothing. There is no ultimate truth, either...only partial truths and pantheistic, animistic, or existential nonsense. Read your Bible more and NA less.

Lulu said...

Jan - You can have all the opinions you want about whatever religion you choose. What is stated in NA about other religions is not, however, opinion. It is factual.

You are entirely free to have your own opinions. You are not, however, free to have your own facts.

Anonymous said...

Lulu, it is also factual that Our Lord said that "Nobody comes to the Father except through Me", so please try and square that with your views on Buddhism, Islam and other non-Christian religions. NA may be factual, according to you, but many other Catholics find that it is problematic because it has broken with the teaching of the Church and has also all but destroyed the mission of the Church given to Her by Christ to go out and convert all nations.

Gene said...

Once again, NA is not factual and does not even reflect a proper understanding of world religions or Holy Scripture.

Anonymous 2 said...

Here is another one that did not make it through, so here it is again:


But NA is not necessarily inconsistent with our Lord’s claim that “No-one comes to the Father except through me.” Have you read the 2006 document Dominus Jesus (see my comment in this thread at 1:06 p.m. on June 22 for a link)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the definitive teaching of the Church and is a dogma of the Church - that is the problem with NA. There is quite a good summary on Wiki which sets out the history of the teaching - and you'll find where the rupture comes at Vatican II.

A couple of quotes:

Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." The same council also ruled that those who die in original sin, but without mortal sin, will also find punishment in hell, but unequally: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem) St. Augustine teaches that those who are visibly outside of the Church, and even those in heresies and pagan superstitions can possess charity, and be really within it.

Of course, the Church allows for baptism of desire and the fact that God can and does save who He wills.

But the teaching of the Church is plain and I have no doubt that some time in the future NA will be at a minimum revised.

Lulu said...

Jan - The teaching of the Church is clear. But you have decided to ignore that clarity as it is expressed in NA and DI. That's too bad, since it leaves you with an incomplete understanding of the Church's teaching.

George said...

The thing that constitutes the most significant problematic difference between Catholicism and Islam is the difference in the founders of the two religions.

Who was Mohammed? What kind of person is presented to us in his writings and actions? This is the challenge that Muslims have to continue to wrestle with which we as Catholics, when it comes to our founder Jesus Christ, will never have to contend with. There is nothing wanting to be found in the teaching of Christ, the Word of God, who is Truth incarnate, Who is without defect or blemish. There is no looking back to change anything about He who is changeless, or to correct anything of He who is without error.
We should pray that those of the Islamic faith will convert but lacking that, we should pray that they reject those teachings which are antagonistic to others and which exhort those of that faith to subjugate and to unjustly impose on the God-given rights and freedoms of those not of that faith.

Anonymous 2 said...


I am not sure we disagree here. Dominus Jesus arguably_is_the revision or clarification you envisage. Again, have you read it? I think you would find it very illuminating if you haven’t.

Anonymous 2 said...


You are partially correct but not completely so I suspect, because there are different understandings/interpretations of the life and actions of Muhammad among Muslims just as there are different understandings/interpretations of the life and actions of Jesus even within the orthodox canon (let alone within a broader range of writings such as the Gnostic Gospels).

George said...

Anonymous 2

I myself found Dominus Jesus to be a well written and well thought out document
which also contains a large number of scriptural references. This is not to say that everything contained therein is binding on the faithful.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Anonymous 2, I have read parts of Dominus Jesus and it is a clarification. But Benedict has gone even further:

"The last 50 years have caused a great crisis of faith

VATICAN ( - Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is saying belief that all men are saved has crippled missionary efforts and caused many Christians to leave the Faith.

An interview of the former Pope, conducted last year, is being published today in L'Osservatore Romano. In it the former pontiff is reaffirming the dogma that there's only one true Church outside of which there is no salvation.

Discounting false churches that are founded on "assembly of men who have some ideas in common," Pope Benedict says they cannot be "the guarantor of eternal life."

Contrasting self-created institutions with the Catholic Church, Benedict clarifies, "The Church is not self-made; She was created by God, and She is continuously formed by Him."

He refutes the modern notion that all men are saved, commenting that men of today have "the sense that God cannot let most of humanity be damned."

Pope Emeritus notes that starting in "the second half of the last century," mankind believed "God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized" or even let them go to a place of "purely natural happiness," which the Church calls Limbo.

Benedict contrasts the zeal of "the great missionaries of the 16th century" who "were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost" with the lackluster missionary efforts after the Second Vatican Council, when "that conviction was finally abandoned" by many.

The former pontiff affirms that the lost conviction that the Church is necessary for salvation causes "a deep double crisis."

"On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment," he says. "Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

Benedict also notes that many Catholics were scandalized by this presumption into leaving the Church, explaining, "If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals."

He then attacks the faulty attempts to "reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it."

So, Lulu, should be able to see that rather than me not having the full understanding of the Church's teaching she needs to bone up.

George said...

Anonymous 2

I always come at things from a Catholic perspective, because that is the Faith and Creed that I hold to. Jesus, not Mohammed, is the Son of the Living God-the Word Incarnate. For one of faith, there are no legitimate different understandings/interpretations about that. You do believe that don't you?

Gene said...

Here is some clarification regarding the Muslims that I think is very important:

The Orlando Shooter was a Muslim.
The San Bernadino Shooters were Muslims.
The Chattanooga Shooter was a Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims’

This should clear things up.

Anonymous 2 said...


Thanks for sharing this report. I have four responses:

(1) Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV is not saying anything here that is inconsistent with Dominus Jesus;

(2) Of course people cannot save themselves; salvation is only through Jesus Christ;

(3) I do not know, and nor does Pope Benedict, how many people are saved; only God knows;

(4) Even though it may not be necessary to become formally Christian (or Catholic) to be saved, this should not remove the motivation for missionary activity for two reasons: (a) Because a person’s ultimate fate may well be more secure within the Church; and (b) Because Christ commanded us to do so and this should be motivation enough. In today’s pluralistic world, however, there can be a legitimate disagreement about the means to be employed in such activity. In my own view, denigrating and attacking another’s religious tradition is not calculated to win over hearts and minds but will only cause the object of derision to raise barriers and close their ears. Respectful and sympathetic dialogue promises greater success.

Anonymous 2 said...


You have now greatly narrowed the scope of your claim from “writings and actions [of Muhammad]" compared with the “teaching of Christ.” There have been (and still are) legitimate disagreements about how to understand/interpret these things, as the history of both Islam and Christianity makes clear.

Anonymous 2 said...


Peruse these two lists – of non-state terrorist attacks world-wide and of terrorist attacks in the United States. They make for chilling and very sobering readings and help to put matters in broader perspective:

Clearly, Muslims have no corner on the evil of terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2,

1. It is a strengthening of Dominus Jesus

2. That is what Catholics have to believe

3. Agreed.

4. I will let Benedict answer that:

"Benedict XVI: There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma. While the fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages could still be of the opinion that, essentially, the whole human race had become Catholic and that paganism existed now only on the margins, the discovery of the New World at the beginning of the modern era radically changed perspectives. In the second half of the last century it has been fully affirmed the understanding that God cannot let go to perdition all the unbaptized and that even a purely natural happiness for them does not represent a real answer to the question of human existence. If it is true that the great missionaries of the 16th century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost – and this explains their missionary commitment – in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council that conviction was finally abandoned.

From this came a deep double crisis. On the one hand this seems to remove any motivation for a future missionary commitment. Why should one try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it? But also for Christians an issue emerged: the obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life began to seem uncertain and problematic. If there are those who can save themselves in other ways, it is not clear, in the final analysis, why the Christian himself is bound by the requirements of the Christian faith and its morals. If faith and salvation are no longer interdependent, faith itself becomes unmotivated."

Anonymous 2 said...


Thank you for the response and the quote. It enabled me to track down the transcript of the actual interview and also, significantly, Father McDonald’s post on the interview dated March 21, 2016, which I had not seen before and which reproduces the passages missing in most English translations of Pope Benedict’s interview. These passages seem highly relevant to our possible response to the “crisis” that Pope Benedict describes. Thus, after rejecting two other positions, Pope Benedict continues:

“Finally, let’s recall, above all Henri de Lubac, and with him, several other theologians who have emphasized the idea of vicarious substitution. For them, the pro-existence of Christ is the expression of the fundamental figure of Christian existence and of the Church as such. It is true that the problem is not fully resolved, but it seems to me that this, in fact, is the key insight that thus impacts the existence of the individual Christian. Christ, as the unique One, was and is for all and Christians, who in Paul’s awesome imagery make up Christ’s body in this world and thus participate in this “being-for.” Christians, so to speak, are not so for themselves, but are, with Christ, for others. This does not mean having some sort of special ticket for entering into eternal happiness, but rather the vocation to build the whole. What the human person needs in order to be saved is a profound openness with regards to God, a profound expectation and acceptance of Him, and this correspondingly means that we, together with the Lord whom we have encountered, go towards others and seek to make visible to them the advent of God in Christ.

It’s possible to explain this “being-for” in a more abstract way. It’s important for humanity that there is truth in it, that this be believed and practiced. That one suffers for it. That one loves. These realities penetrate with their light into the whole world as such and sustain it. I think that in the present situation it is become always more clear and comprehensible for us that which the Lord said to Abraham, that is, that ten righteous men would have been enough to save a city, but that the city destroys itself if such a small number is not reached. It is clear that we need to reflect on the question in its entirety.”

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, re your post to Gene. I had a look at your lists and what is obvious is that Muslims are THE ONLY RELIGION in this modern day and age that are killing people in many different countries around the world. In fact, while the list of atrocities committed is indeed large MUSLIMS MAKE UP THE MAJOR GROUP of individual groups or organizations killing people by comparison in your list:

List of non-terrorist incidents - 35 incidents listed between 1900 and 1969:

Ku Klux Klan - 2
UVF - 4 - between 1950 - 69

Until I looked at your list I didn't realize there had been so many Islamic incidents on US soil. No wonder Trump has said immigration should be shut down until the situation is clearer and people can prove where they come from.

Islamic extremism

April 14, 1972 (New York, NY): Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.

1973 - 1974 (Oakland, CA): Series of shootings by a radicalized group claiming affiliation to "Nation of Islam".

March 9, 1977 (Washington, DC): Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B'nai B'rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.

January 25, 1993 (Langley, VA): A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.

February 26, 1993 (New York, NY): Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.

March 1, 1994 (Brooklyn, NY): A Muslim gunman targets a van packed with Jewish boys, killing a 16-year-old.

March 23, 1997 (New York, NY): A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State building where he shoots seven people in a Fedayeen attack.

September 11, 2001 (New York, NY): Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.

September 11, 2001 (Washington, DC): Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.

September 11, 2001 (Shanksville, PA): Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.

June 25, 2006 (Denver, CO): Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.

July 28, 2006 (Seattle, WA): An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.

June 1, 2009 (Little Rock, AR): A Muslim shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.

November 5, 2009 Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.

September 11, 2011 (Waltham, MA): Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim terrorists.

February 7, 2013 (Buena Vista, NJ): A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

April 5, 2013 (Boston, MA): Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

September 25, 2014 (Moore, OK): A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.

July 16, 2015 Chattanooga, TN A Muslim stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.

December 2, 2015 San Bernardino, CA A Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead.

June 12, 2016 Orlando, FL Omar Mateen shoots and kills 49 people and injures 53 more at a gay bar, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, yes, indeed, Benedict rejects out of hand the notion of salvation without the Christian faith. He says, in particular, "Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, according to which all religions, each in their own way, would be means to salvation". But here are the two positions he completely rejects which many hold in the Church these days. Thus - except for exceptional circumstances known only to God - it is necessary for Jews, Muslims and others to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior:

"Lately several attempts have been formulated with the purpose of reconciling the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the possibility of salvation without it. Here I will mention two: first, Karl Rahner’s well-known thesis of anonymous Christians. He maintains that the basic and essential act at the root of Christian existence, which is decisive for salvation, in the transcendental structure of our consciousness, consists in the opening to the Other, to unity with God. In this vision, the Christian faith would raise to consciousness what is structural in man as such. Thus, when a man accepts himself in his essential being, he fulfills the essence of being a Christian without knowing what it is in a conceptual way. The Christian, therefore, coincides with the human and, in this sense, every man who accepts himself is a Christian even if he does not know it. It is true that this theory is fascinating, but it reduces Christianity itself to a purely conscious presentation of what a human being is in himself and therefore overlooks the drama of change and renewal that is central to Christianity.

Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, according to which all religions, each in their own way, would be means to salvation and in this sense, in their effects must be considered equivalent. The kind of critique of religion used in the Old Testament is, in the New Testament and in the early Church, essentially more realistic, more concrete and truer in its examination of the various religions. Such a simplistic reception is not proportionate to the magnitude of the issue."

Anonymous 2 said...


Without wishing to deny the extent and seriousness of terrorist attacks or plots by Muslims, I posted the links with these lists to provide perspective and I encourage readers to look at them. The purpose, again, is not, to minimize terrorism by Muslims. Instead it is to demonstrate that the evil of terrorism proceeds from a dark place in the human heart that transcends any one religion or ideology and that no religion or society is immune to the risk of falling into such depravity. For confirmation you can look at the list of terrorist acts and plots in the United States and notice the headings of the various categories and the entries under them:

• Organized KKK violence
• Left-wing extremism and anti-government
• White supremacy
• Antisemitism
• Puerto Rican nationalism
• Palestinian militancy
• Black radicalism
• Jewish extremism
• Right-wing extremism and anti-government
• Anti-abortion violence
• Islamic extremism

On religious terrorism in the world specifically see also, for example:

Anonymous 2 said...


Pope Benedict is very careful with the language he uses and, assuming that the English translation is faithful to the original, we need to read very carefully what he says in this section of his interview. Even after such a careful reading we likely need to do some hard thinking to understand his intended meaning.

Anonymous said...

Well, Anonymous 2, after carefully reading the following statement of Benedict who, as you say, has chosen his words carefully, how do you interpret it?

Benedict XVI:

"Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, according to which all religions, each in their own way, would be means to salvation"?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, I have had a look at your lists and, undoubtedly, extremism can arise in every religious group. However, the numbers of violence reported on those sites pale into insignificance when looking at the site on terrorism which lists the Islamic atrocities. Overwhelmingly, Islamists are shown to be the biggest threat to peace and are a religious group that have shown the same trait since the inception of Islam - driven by violent passages in the Koran that urge that those who will not convert to Islam be killed and promising heaven to the perpetrators of violence.

People commenting on why they voted out of the EU have stated categorically that the EU immigration policy was the reason for their vote: they state whole areas of Britain have been taken over by Islamists who have not assimilated into the UK but push sharia law etc.

This is why Trump will win the US election because the media and commentators, polls etc, have seriously underestimated that the average man/woman in the street is heartily sick of all the PC garbage that has been pushed on them for 30/40 years and now unfettered immigration with little or no documentation allowing violent extremists to enter the country unchecked.

Anonymous 2 said...


“People commenting on why they voted out of the EU have stated categorically that the EU immigration policy was the reason for their vote: they state whole areas of Britain have been taken over by Islamists who have not assimilated into the UK but push sharia law etc.”

To the extent the immigration of Islamists was indeed a reason for their vote, such a statement betrays a profound ignorance of the EU. The immigration of Muslims into Britain occurs mostly independent of the EU. EU based immigration has mostly to do with the free movement of persons within the EU and, as I understand it, there was a perceived problem with the large numbers coming to the U.K. from the relatively new Eastern European members of the EU.

In fact, the Brexit vote as a whole betrays a profound ignorance of the EU. This is not to deny that the “EU elites” have over-reached. But it has been one of the great benefits of the U.K. being a member that it has been able to resist and put a brake on such over-reaching by introducing a good dose of British horse sense into EU decision-making. I certainly hope that everyone is able to find a way for the UK to remain despite the vote. They are certainly looking for ways. It is important for the EU, for the U.K., and for the US and the rest of the world that they succeed.

I would be interested to know what John Nolan thinks of it all.

Anonymous 2 said...


I am not quite sure exactly how to understand Pope Benedict’s position. He seems to be seeking a position in which it is not essential to salvation to become Christian without at the same time removing the motivation for missionary activity. The key seems to be the thought that “What the human person needs in order to be saved is a profound openness with regards to God, a profound expectation and acceptance of Him, and this correspondingly means that we, together with the Lord whom we have encountered, go towards others and seek to make visible to them the advent of God in Christ.” One way to understand this perhaps is that Christian witness and evangelization efforts help people to achieve the necessary openness, expectation, and acceptance because God becomes more real to them as a result. But I still need to think some more about it and also to learn more about the thought of Henri de Lubac.

Perhaps other readers will have some insights on all this.

Anonymous said...

I am presently reading GIRLS AND SEX, navagiting the complicated NEW LANDSCAPE by Peggy Orenstein. If I were the parent of a Teenage Boy or Girl in these times The Moslems would be the least of my worries!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, you may be interested in these comments of Nigel Farage - note I have only taken his comments about immigration, the US, etc. If you wish to read the whole article it is here:

"Freedom, independence, democracy, not being a slave to somebody else is something on which you can't put a price," he said. "And what we did last Thursday is we voted to take back our country, to take back our laws, our courts, our borders, our pride and our self-respect.


Speaking directly to U.S. citizens, Farage asked them to consider the following scenario when evaluating how to feel about the British exit: "Imagine if NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) was a political union. Imagine if a court in Mexico could overrule anything that Congress did. Imagine if you have free movement of people with Mexico. How you you feel?" he asked. "You wouldn't like it.""

In the last 10 years there have been changes in the law in Britain, etc, with the widespread overarching of the EU that has affected the British Army and many other bodies - rules, etc have had to be changed to reflect that. I am sure John Nolan will confirm that.

Also, from what I understand, the EU has planned other measures such as an EU Army, and a super state that would take control of the banks, etc. I think Britain made the right move. But in any event it sounds very much as if the EU is a failed experiment with countries like Britain forced to take on the debt of countries like Greece. A huge weekly sum has had to be paid to the EU as well.

Angela Merkel has also been demanding that member states - like Britain - take large quotas of refugees because of the problem that she herself created by inviting everyone to Germany. She also can be blamed for the rise of the extreme right which no doubt will gain power in Germany before too long if what is being said is to be believed. When extremes are permitted to happen then, unfortunately, extreme countermeasures come into play.

Gene said...

I am for anything that is a blow against globalism and egalitarianism...both forms of totalitarianism. I like regionalism, national sovereignty, and racial/cultural identity and heritage. Borders are good, boundaries are excellent, and there is nothing wrong at all with exclusivity and exceptionalism in their proper form.

Anonymous said...

"Angela Merkel has also been demanding that member states - like Britain - take large quotas of refugees because of the problem that she herself created by inviting everyone to Germany."

Merkel did not create the refugee crisis. The Syrian civil war, rising from the despotic regime of the Assads, created the refugee crisis.

Gene said...

So, why make it our crisis? Let the Muslims stew in their own creation. If they eliminate each other, so much the better for the rest of the world.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan and Gene:

Do you really think Brexit would have happened without the economic crisis of 2008 and ensuing deep recession and without the destabilization of the Middle East?

Also Nigel Farage’s comparative thought experiment about NAFTA is sneaky and terribly misleading. Can you see how? This will require you to learn both about the EU and NAFTA. Happy researches!

Anonymous 2 said...


It is our crisis. We are directly responsible for the whole blooming mess. Do I have to remind you, yet again, that we were the ones who destabilized the Middle East with the ill-considered invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Gene said...

Anon 2, I simply do not care. Islam and Muslims are the enemy of the Church and of civilized nations everywhere. I would welcome the spectacle of their richly deserved thermo-nuclear obliteration.

Anonymous said...

"I would welcome the spectacle of their richly deserved thermo-nuclear obliteration."

Quoting the High Priest, "What further need have we of witnesses?" of Gene's rejection of Catholic teaching?

And the claim, "Oh, this is only hyperbole" simply doesn't fly. You've said it, now be a man and stand behind your words.

Gene said...

I do stand behind my words. If one could push a button and disappear all Muslims tomorrow, the world would be better for it. That is not a rejection of Catholic teaching...the Church once felt the same way. It is one sinner's political opinion. Since Muslims are avowed and aggressive enemies of the Church, I do not feel that it is a sin for me to state such.

Gene said...

Japan has just approved blanket surveillance of Muslims in their country. Everybody is beginning to get it but us...

Anonymous said...

Gene - You do not stand behind your words. As recently as a June 22 you said, "As for my relationship with Fr. MacDonald, heated discussion and the use of hyperbole on a blog are to be expected and do not indicate a low regard for the person in question."

That came after you had accused Fr. McDonald of being unorthodox, of being cowardly, or being insane.

You hide behind "hyperbole" there... And you do it in other posts on this blog. Shall I list them?

Gene said...

Just because one uses hyperbole on occasion does not mean they use it all the time. When one says to another, "Have you lost your mind" or something similar, that is hardly saying they are insane. I do not hide behind hyperbole, although I do employ it just as many others do. Example: Hyperbole: "I guess Fr. MacDonald must have lost his mind to defend this Pope so uncritically."
Not hyperbole: Kavanaugh is an intellectually dishonest, unbelieving, deceiver." See, there is a difference.

Anonymous said...

You have hidden behind "It was just hyperbole" as the quote shows.

You can try all you want to run away from your own words, but it doesn't work.

And you call someone else a "deceiver"?

Gene said...

I have made plenty of direct, non-hyperbolic statements that indicate my beliefs pretty clearly. You really are hung up on this hyperbole thing, aren't you? LOL!

Anonymous 2 said...


“That is not a rejection of Catholic teaching...the Church once felt the same way”

What a great standard to follow! Let’s just do everything the Church used to do and to feel. Perhaps we can begin by executing heretics—you know, people who believed as you used to. Hmmm, if we had a time machine . . . .

Anonymous said...

Gene - LOL! No, I'm not hung up at all.

You are the one who makes an absurd statement, throws and insult, tosses out an accusation, etc., and then retreats behind "I didn't mean that!!! It was just hyperbole!!!"

Stand behind your words or quit wasting them.