Re: Isis And Current Violence, Should Vatican Condemn Islam?

[Nihil Obstat]

Just thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion and perhaps respectful debate.

I was reading this article on Rorate Caeli this morning. The gist of it is essentially that the world has, in general terms, experienced a brief period of relatively calm and secularized Islam, but that now we are seeing Islam reveal its 'true colours', so to speak. It seems that their opinion would be that the current violence we are seeing will greatly increase over the next several years, and that we will again see an iteration of Islam that looks towards conquering 'infidels' on a global scale.

 

So, I think that is interesting, But that is not the idea of my thread here, per se. It is more like context with regards to where my thoughts are coming from this morning. My main question is whether or not you think that Pope Francis, in response to the current 'Islamic' violence in Syria and Iraq (and wherever else), should issue a condemnation of Islam, and if so, what form this condemnation should take. I included five options that I think should capture the majority of responses, but please go into detail if you think your opinion is not accurately represented.

 

My general opinion is that Islam, simply by virtue of being a false religion, is worthy of explicit and complete condemnation. I think that such a condemnation may be prudent at this time, as Islam seems to occupy a permanent place in our global psyche, and as people worldwide look towards the Catholic Church as a moral authority, at least to varying degrees.

I am not sure whether such an explicit condemnation would put Christians at risk of further suffering. Certainly it does not seem that it could get any worse for the Christians in Mosul, but perhaps in areas that are somewhat on the fence between uneasy peace and an outbreak of violence. On the other hand, would an official Catholic condemnation of Islam, along with strong support for Christians who are affected by violence, be a valuable expression of solidarity and spiritual care?

 

Anyway. I am approaching this from an unemotional perspective, and critiques of my preliminary position are welcomed. 

Edited July 21, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[mortify ii]

It's far more likely that you'll be condemned for celebrating the Traditional mass than a condemnation against Islam

[Nihil Obstat]

Who cares about what is likely? :hehe:

[beatitude]

I am just embarking on a vocation visit to a secular institute founded in the spirituality of Blessed Charles de Foucauld.

 

He attributed his reversion to the Church from agnosticism largely to the influence of Muslims he met in North Africa, and he chose to spend his life among them after he was ordained a priest (unwillingly, as he felt undeserving to be anything more than a simple monk - he accepted the priesthood in obedience to his spiritual director). He became known as a marabout (holy man) to everyone in the surrounding region, and eventually he got his wish to be known simply as 'the little brother'. Today, at least one-third of the Little Sisters of Jesus (a religious community founded in his footsteps) are meant to serve in Muslim-majority countries, and all of them have a special responsibility to pray daily for Muslim people. It's in their constitutions. The secular institute shares something of this spirituality.

 

This being the case, I definitely don't agree that the Vatican should be condemning Islam. We should preach the truth of the Gospel, but is it necessary to make condemnations of other religions to do that? It should be obvious that murdering and persecuting people is antithetical to Christianity and that we condemn it wherever it happens, and if it isn't, then we're doing something wrong. It should also be very clear what we believe the truth to be. The idea of condemning a whole religion (and by extension, its adherents) only seems to appeal to a certain subset of people - people who are also keen to decide that the most violent and bloodthirsty people are the 'true Muslims', while Muslims who aren't violent are somehow secularised, not really representative, we'll just brush those off. It saddens me to say it, but I don't usually read Rorate Caeli any more because their posts give me the feeling that they really, really want an enemy. They always seem to be after condemning something or other, and I don't view this approach as helpful at all in either evangelism or peacemaking.

[marigold]

I think I agree with beatitude. It's easier to condemn something/someone than to preach the gospel.

However I do also think something public should be done concerning the situation in Syria and Iraq. I don't know what that would look like though.

[Nihil Obstat]

You seem to be making connections I have not made.
Are you saying that we should not condemn error? Is Islam not a grave error?

[Nihil Obstat]

I am just embarking on a vocation visit to a secular institute founded in the spirituality of Blessed Charles de Foucauld.

 

He attributed his reversion to the Church from agnosticism largely to the influence of Muslims he met in North Africa, and he chose to spend his life among them after he was ordained a priest (unwillingly, as he felt undeserving to be anything more than a simple monk - he accepted the priesthood in obedience to his spiritual director). He became known as a marabout (holy man) to everyone in the surrounding region, and eventually he got his wish to be known simply as 'the little brother'. Today, at least one-third of the Little Sisters of Jesus (a religious community founded in his footsteps) are meant to serve in Muslim-majority countries, and all of them have a special responsibility to pray daily for Muslim people. It's in their constitutions. The secular institute shares something of this spirituality.

 

This being the case, I definitely don't agree that the Vatican should be condemning Islam. We should preach the truth of the Gospel, but is it necessary to make condemnations of other religions to do that? It should be obvious that murdering and persecuting people is antithetical to Christianity and that we condemn it wherever it happens, and if it isn't, then we're doing something wrong. It should also be very clear what we believe the truth to be. The idea of condemning a whole religion (and by extension, its adherents) only seems to appeal to a certain subset of people - people who are also keen to decide that the most violent and bloodthirsty people are the 'true Muslims', while Muslims who aren't violent are somehow secularised, not really representative, we'll just brush those off. It saddens me to say it, but I don't usually read Rorate Caeli any more because their posts give me the feeling that they really, really want an enemy. They always seem to be after condemning something or other, and I don't view this approach as helpful at all in either evangelism or peacemaking.

Also, I am sure this was not your intention, but the part I have bolded here is very much an ad hominem argument.

[KnightofChrist]

Part of the Gospel, or preaching the Truth is condemning false religions, as false religions. It even teaches us that false religions are not just man made but lead by demons.

 

The ideology behind these mass-murders and attacks should be condemned. It is not enough to condemn evil actions, but the evil ideology behind the actions.  

 

I do think doing so would enflame the 'radicals' and they would likely increase their attacks. I think they look for any reason to increase their attacks, and to murder innocence. 

[Lilllabettt]

Just thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion and perhaps respectful debate.

I was reading this article on Rorate Caeli this morning. The gist of it is essentially that the world has, in general terms, experienced a brief period of relatively calm and secularized Islam, but that now we are seeing Islam reveal its 'true colours', so to speak. It seems that their opinion would be that the current violence we are seeing will greatly increase over the next several years, and that we will again see an iteration of Islam that looks towards conquering 'infidels' on a global scale.

 

So, I think that is interesting, But that is not the idea of my thread here, per se. It is more like context with regards to where my thoughts are coming from this morning. My main question is whether or not you think that Pope Francis, in response to the current 'Islamic' violence in Syria and Iraq (and wherever else), should issue a condemnation of Islam, and if so, what form this condemnation should take. I included five options that I think should capture the majority of responses, but please go into detail if you think your opinion is not accurately represented.

 

My general opinion is that Islam, simply by virtue of being a false religion, is worthy of explicit and complete condemnation. I think that such a condemnation may be prudent at this time, as Islam seems to occupy a permanent place in our global psyche, and as people worldwide look towards the Catholic Church as a moral authority, at least to varying degrees.

I am not sure whether such an explicit condemnation would put Christians at risk of further suffering. Certainly it does not seem that it could get any worse for the Christians in Mosul, but perhaps in areas that are somewhat on the fence between uneasy peace and an outbreak of violence. On the other hand, would an official Catholic condemnation of Islam, along with strong support for Christians who are affected by violence, be a valuable expression of solidarity and spiritual care?

 

Anyway. I am approaching this from an unemotional perspective, and critiques of my preliminary position are welcomed. 

 

 

not sure what you would hope to gain.

[Nihil Obstat]

not sure what you would hope to gain.

Nothing concrete, I think, but that is not terribly unusual. What is ever 'gained' by an encyclical? Rarely anything material. Instruction of the faithful, moral guidance, encouragement, pastoral concern. Not really measurable, at least not directly.

So,,, what would I hope to gain? I, presuming to speak for those Christians who suffer from violence, would hope for the assurance of the Church's ongoing concern, the promise of Her prayers and intercession, a reminder of the Church's ultimate authority even in the face of persecution. Compassion during their enormous suffering.

For those Catholics who are confused, misguided, lax, I would hope for pastoral reminders of the need for spiritual conversion, and clear teaching during a time when clarity is sometimes rare. A re-affirmation of the positive need for evangelization and opposition to error.

 

In short: spiritual, pastoral care. The duty of all bishops.

[Lilllabettt]

Nothing concrete, I think, but that is not terribly unusual. What is ever 'gained' by an encyclical? Rarely anything material. Instruction of the faithful, moral guidance, encouragement, pastoral concern. 

 

 

I guess I fail to see how issuing a condemnation of Islam as a false religion would provide those things.

 

I, presuming to speak for those Christians who suffer from violence, would hope for the assurance of the Church's ongoing concern, the promise of Her prayers and intercession, a reminder of the Church's ultimate authority even in the face of persecution. Compassion during their enormous suffering.

 

I don't know. I don't think our people are the type to be rallied by a speech about how wrong the other "side" is. But if they were I don't know, I think that would be a little bit embarrassing. Reminds of the mullahs who work crowds into a froth with their "death to america" stuff.  Everyone involved with that looks foolish and undignified. 

 

 

 

In addition, I don't get how condemning Islam as a false religion could be interpreted as a sign of compassion and prayer for people who are suffering. How are they related? I don't get it. 

 

For those Catholics who are confused, misguided, lax, I would hope for pastoral reminders of the need for spiritual conversion, and clear teaching during a time when clarity is sometimes rare. A re-affirmation of the positive need for evangelization and opposition to error

 

.

 

Meh. Serious doubts about whether condemning Islam as a false religion would be efficacious in clarifying things for confused misguided or lax Catholics. My guess is that most people, catholic and not, already know the Church thinks Islam is the wrong religion. If you're worried about syncretism and relativism there was an encyclical on that, Dominus Iesus. But once again I don't think syncretism with Islam is a widespread problem among lax and confused Catholics. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, the assumption I am working from here is that a new condemnation of the errors of Islam would be part and parcel with an expression of concern over growing violence, and prayers for the Christians affected by it. A modern day Mit brennender Sorge, perhaps. It has been some time since I read that, but I recall that it is simultaneously a condemnation of Nazism, and a defense of the Church in Germany.

Will try to respond point by point later, but I will be on my phone for the rest of the night so it will not be possible today.

[Lilllabettt]

okay. take your time. I am all for condemning violence and calling for prayer. I don't know what would be gained by combining that with a condemnation of Islam as false religion. Which, and I don't know if this was your point, but it makes me uncomfortable whenever we draw comparisons between an ancient religious tradition and Nazism.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, I think the comparison holds inasmuch as they are both false and ultimately harmful systems. I certainly would not want to imply that peaceful Muslims are morally equivalent to committed Nazis.
If we were to narrow our scope to a condemnation specifically of violence committed in the name of Islam, then I think the comparison is highly appropriate.
But I am being careful to distinguish between the objectively false belief system, and its adherents who carry varying levels of subjective responsibility for those errors.

[Nihil Obstat]

What was the ultimate benefit of Mit Brennender Sorge? If anything it increased the persecution of Christians in Nazi Germany, did it not? But did it have value apart from that?