A priest's anti-Muslim comments reveal US Catholics' Islamophobia problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KMC said:
I would also make the point: There is no basis for making moral equivalencies between the three monotheistic religions other than political correctness.
Click to expand...
Is the Church being “politically correct” in it’s teaching as expressed in the CCC?
 
Personally, I don’t agree that Islam is the greatest threat facing America. If anything, many Muslims probably have a closer conception of the moral order and certain elements of the common good with the Catholic conception than a good chunk of the US. In my experience, however, most–like most Catholics–are indistinguishable from any other American, for better or worse.

As a general point, at least under Catholic doctrine, religion is something that can be taken into account when regulating immigration, just as it can when regulating religious freedom (see CCC 2109 for this principle in that context).

As the Catechism notes: “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions” (CCC 2241). In fact, the whole point of public authority is " to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society." (CCC 1898).

The common good is “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (CCC 1906) and, among other things includes a society’s “spiritual goods” (CCC 1925). St. John XXIII summed this up as follows:
  1. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)
  2. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
  3. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)
Click to expand...
Inasmuch as a religion denies faith in Christ or draws souls away from His Body, it does not help one obtain salvation. For example, a country that was blessed to be united in the true faith could legitimately limit the immigration of non-Catholics if there were a sufficient risk that this unity would be substantially broken and souls led astray. This kind of situation, however, is clearly nowhere near the situation in the US and would not override the general principle that the whole earth was given by God for the sustenance of all men (the basis of the right to immigrate). Given the current makeup of society, accepting those who at least honor God as Creator is probably a net gain IMO, all else being equal. Of course, there are a myriad of other factors at play as well in the immigration debates.
 
Last edited:
You would as soon turn to a Protestant for an education on Catholicism as you would an ordained Catholic Deacon? Strange.

Note: i had to look up Paisley and am assuming you meant this guy
 
Last edited:
Feanor2 said:
40.png
KMC:
I would also make the point: There is no basis for making moral equivalencies between the three monotheistic religions other than political correctness.
Click to expand...
Is the Church being “politically correct” in it’s teaching as expressed in the CCC?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean. CCC 841 says “the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims”

What does that have to do with drawing moral equivalencies? You’re not saying following Islam is equivalent to following Christianity, are you?
 
I was responding to the poster questioning whether Christianity, Judaism, and Islam were the three Abrahamic religions. The Church has stated that they are.
 
Genesis315 said:
Given the current makeup of society, accepting those who at least honor God as Creator is probably a net gain IMO, all else being equal. Of course, there are a myriad of other factors at play as well in the immigration debates.
Click to expand...
Is a person’s support of Sharia, or FGM, or violent jihad one of the “myriad of factors” you are referring to?
 
KMC said:
But how would you even recognize a ‘distortion of Islam’, per your prior post?
Click to expand...
By studying the Qu’ran, and the published works of reputable scholars - both Muslim and non-Muslim. In time - and only after honest labour - one can easily recognise distortions and half-truths, no matter the source.
 
Islam is, like Christianity, a missionary religion.

Whereas Christians believe their mission is to “make disciples from all nations”, Muslims view their mission more politically - to bring humanity to Submission (“Islam”) to Allah’s message given via Mohammed.

Since that message has made and is making converts globally on a large scale - and since the Koran is, in the opinion of Christians, badly (and perhaps dangerously) flawed - it is clearly a Christian duty to oppose that Message and be wary (nay, afraid) of it.
 
Last edited:
Niblo said:
40.png
KMC:
But how would you even recognize a ‘distortion of Islam’, per your prior post?
Click to expand...
By studying the Qu’ran, and the published works of reputable scholars - both Muslim and non-Muslim. In time - and only after honest labour - one can easily recognise distortions and half-truths, no matter the source.
Click to expand...
But there is no single authoritative body.

If we look at Protestantism as an example, they have no method of coming to any kind of agreements on what is or is not a “distortion” or “half-truth”. They have a mantra: “In the Bible, the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.” Yet, they can’t come to agreement on the necessity of baptism, the real presence, salvation, etc.

What I do know, is that virtually no Christian denomination says their Scriptures teach violence.

As far as Islam goes, a statistically significant number of Muslims believe their scripture does allow violence against non-believers. Those who claim that is a distortion (I’m glad they do), have no authoritative way to justify their position.
 
TonyB2 said:
it is clearly a Christian duty to oppose that Message and be wary (nay, afraid) of it.
Click to expand...
Two of the key messages of the Qu’ran is that can be no compulsion in religion; and that Jews and Christians who believe in God, and who do good works, are the ‘best of creation’; guaranteed Heaven. This is a solemn promise, and the Exalted does not renege on His promises.

Another key message is that each of us has been given a path to follow; and all are called to submit to the Exalted’s Will…to do His bidding. This is a message familiar to you - I know - since every day you pray: ‘Thy Will be done…’.
 
Islam permits violence solely in defence of oneself, or others; even then there are limits. As soon as the threat has ended, defensive action must cease. Aggressive violence is not permitted under any circumstance.

I can elaborate, if you wish, but have no time this evening.
 
Niblo said:
40.png
TonyB2:
it is clearly a Christian duty to oppose that Message and be wary (nay, afraid) of it.
Click to expand...
Two of the key messages of the Qu’ran is that can be no compulsion in religion; and that Jews and Christians who believe in God, and who do good works, are the ‘best of creation’; guaranteed Heaven. This is a solemn promise, and the Exalted does not renege on His promises.

Another key message is that each of us has been given a path to follow; and all are called to submit to the Exalted’s Will…to do His bidding. This is a message familiar to you - I know - since every day you pray: ‘Thy Will be done…’.
Click to expand...
By the way, thank you for your responses…I find this helpful.
Some Muslims adhere to hadith 4294 (book 19)…which seems at odds with what you are saying about “no compulsion in religion”. Perhaps when you have time later, you can help with this one.

Again, thank you for the answers.
 
Niblo said:
Islam permits violence solely in defence of oneself, or others; even then there are limits.
Click to expand...
So, crashing a couple of airplanes into the World Trade Center was a self defense move? How about the Copts that were beheaded on film? What are these limits you speak of?
 
Ok?
Because Spencer is not a muslim he can not possibly know what he is talking about?
I’ve yet to hear him say anything erroneous on the topic. He seems unpopular among certain groups not for his scholarship on the issue but for being truthful perhaps.
 
Last edited:
From my vantage point, those who desire open borders for the USA, as well as those who haven’t dug into the issue on their own enough to realize that what he states is factual truth.
 
I’m sorry that you consider 9/11 to be a “cherry picked” event. Maybe you could provide a few cherry picked examples where a Muslim nation/organization has done a significant work of mercy?
 
A “demagogue”, or effective at making his points with a little conviction?
I also did not presume anyone’s inabiility to see potential problems in Islam or any other faith. I would, however, propose that Islam is a controlling political system rather than a religion. People certainly follow that system religiously, no doubt, but when I see a system in which one who is “in control”, as I personally have, who breaks the rules (sharia), yet punishes people who are not “in control” severely for doing the very same thing, and, the number of those in control is infinitely less than those controlled, it fits my criteria for a political system that uses religious fear and zealotry to control a nation or nations.
 
Clearly I am unfamiliar with Irish Evangelicals. My bad. However, the idea of preachers rolling on the floor in fits does amuse me a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top