I
ishii
Guest
Of all the wars and conflicts going on in the world today, how many involve Muslims? How many do not? Shouldn’t their actions also be a cause of doubt?
Ishii
- Status
Ishii
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, they may be a cause of doubt. But there are also a lot of people who don’t correctly understand the moral principles of their own religion, not only in Islam but also in Judaism, Catholicism, and the several denominations of Protestantism, to name a few. This may take various forms of intolerance, not only explicitly violent means.
I
ishii
Guest
Meltzerboy - If you have a Muslim who takes their faith seriously and to its logical conclusion you get Mohammad Attha. If you have a Christian who takes their faith seriously and to its logical conclusion you get Mother Theresa.
Ishii
S
SirStephen
Guest
A few observations in one post –
You are correct. But in being correct, issues of fact must enter the discussion to determine what are and are not the moral principles of a given religion - or, more appropriately as it relates to Islam, legal doctrines. By resting on “one god,” the practice, fully intentional, is to get Jews and Christians to “mirror-image” their own principles regarding their canons of the “one god” onto those of Islam on the assumption that they must be similar. Of course, this is making ones assessment on the principles of Islam based on a conclusory - self referencing - assumption. You assume that those who wage jihad - what non-Muslims often call terrorism - don’t understand their own moral principles. In this you would be wrong and you would know this if you read actual real published Islamic law.
Also, on the discussion concerning the translation from Latin to English concerning the word “the” in document like Lumen Gentium, there is something to this argument because in many of the subsequent Vatican documents posted on the Vatican website, the affirmation is to the common belief in “a” (read “a” not “the”) monotheistic god - strongly suggesting a common commitment to the concept of monotheism.
Also, as noted from earlier postings, this is one of the reasons the Vatican documents and the CCC refer to Muslims and not Islam. It restricts its treatment only to those Muslims who “PROFESS” to belief in the faith of Abraham and then only to the faith of Abraham as stated in Genesis as this is the only Abraham that has status as being revealed from a Catholic, other Christians, and Jewish point of view.
meltzerboy
New member
I’m no Islamic scholar but I recall reading or hearing once that the term “jihad” has at least two different meanings, internal and external. Is that the case? Further, are we entitled to group all Muslim movements, that is, Sunni, Shia, and others in the same category regarding Islamic Law and the interpretation of the Law? Also, do you regard yourself as an expert in Islamic Law?
In Judaism, there is the Law and there is the interpretation of the Law, which may vary from one movement of Judaism to another and differ to a degree even within a single movement. I believe a similar situation exists within Islam, in which, unlike Catholicism, there is no single authoritative Church and Magisterium.
S
SirStephen
Guest
You are making my point with regard to both the need to read REAL Islamic law and on the necessity of avoiding “mirror imaging” (YOU: “In Judaism, there is …”). This is NOT about Judaism (and also not about Christianity of any stripe). I know a few Rabbis who pull their hair out then they hear this. Just as a non-Catholic is entitled to group all Catholics by the fact that they say they are Catholic and hence can be held to – or at least measured againt - the validated release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can hold Muslims, in this case Sunni Muslim, to those texts that provide some indices of official status. (85 to 90% of Muslims are Sunni) For example, there is the approved translation to English of the authoritative text of Islamic law, al Misri’s Umdat al-Salik. American convert Nuh Ha Mim Keller translated it into English as *Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. *
I will use it as an example for two reasons. First, the organization with which the Vatican conducts its formal outreach to the Islamic World, al Azhar, states that Reliance “corresponds to the Arabic original and corresponds to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a).” Second, because this same text was approved by the president of both the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Fiqh Council of North America. Both the IIIT and Fiqh Council are identified/known organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The Fiqh Council of North America is a subordinate organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This is the organization that the USCCB, and most Diocese, conduct outreach with when undergoing Catholic Muslim outreach in America.
Hence, whether it’s the Vatican or the USCCB or individual bishops, we know they are engaged with organizations and entities that can be tightly associated with this authoritative translation of Islamic law to English. Hence, it is important to remember that they are working with entities that hold themselves to the what Book R “Holding Ones Tongue,” Section r8.2 states regarding lying:
This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, … The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” (page 745)
The question is whether it is obligatory for Muslims to bring Islam to the World and whether that creates an obligation on the part of Muslims, for example, in interfaith outreach. This is not the only citation on this topic available. I am not accusing anyone of lying but am pointing out that there should be some due diligence that would require our agents in outreach to know the doctrinal requirements of the other side. Of course, you will not find a duty to lie in the Catechism. Moving to jihad, in Book O “Justice”, Section o9.0 “Jihad”, the following is the Islamic legal and doctrinal definition of jihad:
Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. (page 599)
meltzerboy
New member
I have read that lying for the purpose of conversion to Islam is not permissible and, I repeat, I have also read that jihad is a more complex concept than you credit its being. There is a different sense to the word that refers to an inner wrestling and conversion of one’s soul, which has nothing to do with waging war against non-Muslims. Whether the other, more common meaning of jihad, at least to non-Muslims, is acceptable to all or most of the faithful and whether it is subject to degrees of interpretation, I do not know. I would appreciate it if a knowledgeable Muslim would respond to this. Meanwhile, thank you for your comments.
S
SirStephen
Guest
Yes, and that’s why its important to read REAL Islamic law so that you might disabuse yourself of what you’ve read if you haven’t actually read REAL Islamic law. By this is meant something that was written by Muslims who are recognized within the Islamic domain as being qualified to write on an issue when the subject matter is written for a Muslim audience (i.e., nothing written for a non-Muslim audience).
All of Islamic law on Jihad flows from the top level definition I provided. In fact, it was the introductory definition leading to a 9 page exposition on Islamic law of jihad in a book of Islamic law that, as noted, is authoritative. I am very familiar with what is out there in the popular discussion. I also know what REAL Islamic law says. I could go from* Reliance of the Traveller* to the Distinguished Jurists Primer, a translation of the Maliki Ibn Rushd’s treatment on Islamic law that includes Book 10, Jihad - all 30 pages of it. Incidentally, Ibn Rushd is more famously know in the West by his nom de plum, Averroes. If not that, I could go to the Hanafi book of Islamic law, the Hidaya, which includes a 60 page discussion on Jihad. None of it is about the “greater jihad.” In fact, the only time the “greater jihad” is discussed in Islamic law is to make it clear that it has no status in Islamic law - and that it is based on, at best, weak hadith (nothing Quranic) whereas the duty of jihad as warfare is heavily weighted and sourced in the Quran and the most authoritative hadith. It’s not even close.
REAL published Islamic law is the gold standard of Islam. Next to it, everything else is at best derivative and at worse - faux. Islamic law does not say what you think it says. HINT - I just cited some for you in the last note. I could also cite current dawah manuals (text relating to how to convert non-Muslims) that makes it clear that you do not convert them to Islam at the end-state but rather convert them to Islam of early Mecca and bring them to Medina once converted. (I know this last sentence may sound like jibberish but it wouldn’t once you were aware of the role of Mecca and Medina in the “Milestones” process. (Check out the monograph by a man named Shamim Siddiqi who wrote Methodology of Dawah Ilallah in American Perspective) So, yes, if a Muslim believed that the only way to convert a non-Muslim was to lie to him, this would be acceptable.
You speak of “degrees of interpretation” as if you read REAL Islamic law and seek to make an argument based distinctions you’ve read when it seems clear that you’ve not really read REAL Islamic law so that you are not in a position to argue degrees of interpretation. I say this because this is the postmodern trap we find ourselves in - narratives designed to impede factual analysis and to use them against those who do. Hence,
*"]I didn’t read any Islamic law because only those who speak classical Arabic can truly know the true meaning of Islam" (even as 80% of Muslims don’t speak Arabic at all) - just think about the consequences of this syllogism for being a true for Jew or Christian (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek?);
- "There are a thousand different interpretation of Islamic law (so what’s the point of reading any of it)(as if this was the product of an analysis when in fact its a conclusory assumption designed to keep people from undertaking minimum due diligence;
- Because there is no truth there are no facts and hence everything is a matter of interpretation so I can argue “interpretation” without reading anything about Islamic law (or anything else) because I can always just say “its a matter of interpretation” (because there are no facts)
S
shocktrooper
Guest
“We adore God always as a Trinity…our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims - they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural.”
Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan…in discussion on LG16.
Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan…in discussion on LG16.
meltzerboy
New member
Jews and Muslims may not have Christian faith in the Trinity but surely that does not mean they have no (supernatural) faith. Each has their own faith based on the principles and teachings of their own religion, and they all worship the same G-d by means of that faith as well as the application of their reason. In short, I respectfully disagree with the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think the infallible “along with us” makes the article in the translation moot. I do not know Latin enough to know if the article is even significant. I know in other languages, the definite article (or lack of)is just a matter of grammar and unimportant.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am serious, am not attempting to be silly and do not appreciate my integrity being called into question.
I reiterate that Cardinal Dolan, the Catechism, the previous popes and Vatican II did not once make a statement about the authenticity of any Islamic revelation or belief. Only the one common belief is mentioned. If I am only sticking with Church teaching, there is no need for me to consider beyond what has been divinely revealed to the Church.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
This is an interview with the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan. He discusses this topic.
churchmilitant.tv/fullpreview/?vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a
God bless.
churchmilitant.tv/fullpreview/?vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a
God bless.
L
larsont7
Guest
I saw this as well. Bishop Schneider does an excellent job distinguishing what is meant by worshipping God in a natural way (Jews, Muslims, etc.) vs. a supernatural way (Christians). He is even asked specifically about Cardinal Dolan’s comments about this topic. Highly recommended viewing.
BTW, Bishop Schneider’s book “Dominus Est” is fantastic. Under $10 at Amazon and well worth the money to enrich your love of the Holy Eucharist.
S
SirStephen
Guest
Part I of II
It is not my intent to be personally insulting.
Throughout this string, you have more than once intoned my character despite my providing reasoned, citable, factual answers where your responses amounted to little more than repeating your mantra, without discernment – blind acceptance of what “Cardinal Dolan, the Catechism, the previous popes and Vatican II” said along a rigid line of construction that you failed to even defend. Islam is what it’s revealed sources say it is and statements about the nature of Allah in Islam that fail to account for Islam’s self definition are severely suspect – and ultimately irrelevant to the issues driving this discussion. There is good reason to believe that Vatican II had no intention of making a “divinely revealed” claim about the status of Allah in Islam. (Are you really claiming that the Church claims your view to be “divinely revealed”?) It is my belief that Vatican II used overly positive language in an effort at outreach that modernists now use to trap the Church in a rhetorical corner – and that Pope Benedict began the unwelcome job of getting the Church out from under. Yes, I am asking if you are serious!
Earlier, someone raised the question on the use of the definite vs indefinite article in the translations from Latin to English of some of the V-II documents and this relevant line of discussion was derided. It should not have been. From Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium, there is substantial difference between “acknowledge the Creator” and “acknowledge a Creator” and there is good reason to believe that it was the later meaning that was intended in the Latin. For example, the Vatican office responsible for interreligious dialogue with Muslims often restricts its language to “dialogue among monotheistic religions” that is not only silent of “same god” but puts monotheistic in the plural. For example, the “Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue, Final Declaration Of Annual Meeting Of The Joint Committee For Dialogue Of The Permanent Committee Of Al-Azhar For Dialogue Among The Monotheistic Religions And The Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue” (Cairo, 25-26 February 2008), (vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html)) opened its statement with -
“Final Declaration - Believing in the role of monotheistic religions in providing a firm foundation for the values of peace, truth, justice, …”
This was in a direct communiqué between the relevant Vatican Council and its al-Azhar counterparts that used language that is a far cry from language that makes claims of a common god and, arguably, actually distances itself from your construction. Hence, the indefinite article “a” as opposed to the definite article “the” more accurately reflects official current Vatican documents presuming to speak on the issue. Translations matter.
This also helps explain the ongoing distinction in V-II documents between referencing Islam as opposed to Muslims. In a July 13 blogpost at Unam Sanctam Catholicam discussing Arch-Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s call for clarification of V-II (unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com), the Arch-Bishop made the following comment:
“This could also be interpreted in a wrong manner, in a way of the Anglican Branch theory that there are several branches of Christianity who are all means of salvation. Therefore we also have to clarify this expression. We have to say perhaps, nevertheless, God can use other Christians, but individually because they are baptized…Remember what St. Augustine said, what the non-Catholics have, they took from the Church. He even said they have stolen it from our house. What they have, this is Catholic, not theirs. Therefore, we have to explain this. Otherwise, it could be understood wrongly.”
Along with the Arch-Bishop’s distinction between natural vs supernatural belief cited earlier by Stormtrooper, I believe the Bishop is re-illuminating the historic line that centers on the historic doctrine of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) as amplified by Pope Pius XII’s 1949 letter to Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing explaining that it “is necessary for salvation by divine command, not by intrinsic necessity. The Church, as Christ’s mystical body, is the sole ark of salvation, but direct membership in her through the sacraments is only the ordinary means of salvation." Expanding on Bishop Schneider’s reference concerning non-Catholic Christians to other faiths writ large, this is the understanding by which Lumen Gentium was meant to be understood. Hence, that which is genuine in Islam is from God and Muslims who are drawn by this Truth, Catholic Truth, not Islamic truth, who, through not fault of their own, …
S
SirStephen
Guest
Part II or II
When read along the Bishop Schneider/Extra-Ecclesiam/Cushing Line of reasoning, the relevant Lumen Gentium language in Paragraph 16 on Muslims that “there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham” is now put in its proper context. Validating this explanation even more, when the language concerning Muslims in Paragraph 16 is read in the context of the paragraph itself, the proper context becomes even more apparent. Paragraph 16, Part II “On the People of God,” of Lumen Gentium (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) begins by noting that the paragraph is directed towards those who have not received the Gospel:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
In effect, IMHO, Lumen Gentium was simply a restatement of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in as positive terms as doctrine would allow – but no more than could be allowed (and in keeping with the “Richard Cushing Error” – Google it!). As Arch-Bishop Schneider noted that Pope John XXIII said that the purpose of the council “was to protect and deepen, not make new doctrines,” and Pope Benedict XVI said that Vatican II is not to be understood as a rupture but in continuity with past Church doctrines, and as “same god” language is novel as used in current narratives, the meaning of the language regarding Muslims in Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium should be tightly construed in a manner that is in keeping with its use in the document itself and in keeping with historic doctrines on the issue. When done in this way, it simply does not support the “same god” narrative.
When read along the Bishop Schneider/Extra-Ecclesiam/Cushing Line of reasoning, the relevant Lumen Gentium language in Paragraph 16 on Muslims that “there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham” is now put in its proper context. Validating this explanation even more, when the language concerning Muslims in Paragraph 16 is read in the context of the paragraph itself, the proper context becomes even more apparent. Paragraph 16, Part II “On the People of God,” of Lumen Gentium (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) begins by noting that the paragraph is directed towards those who have not received the Gospel:
- Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
In effect, IMHO, Lumen Gentium was simply a restatement of extra ecclesiam nulla salus in as positive terms as doctrine would allow – but no more than could be allowed (and in keeping with the “Richard Cushing Error” – Google it!). As Arch-Bishop Schneider noted that Pope John XXIII said that the purpose of the council “was to protect and deepen, not make new doctrines,” and Pope Benedict XVI said that Vatican II is not to be understood as a rupture but in continuity with past Church doctrines, and as “same god” language is novel as used in current narratives, the meaning of the language regarding Muslims in Paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium should be tightly construed in a manner that is in keeping with its use in the document itself and in keeping with historic doctrines on the issue. When done in this way, it simply does not support the “same god” narrative.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not my mantra. It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. I do not have blind acceptance and I have defended this throughout this thread. Those posts have not been deleted, so I do not repeat them. If I have some new thought, I will add it.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know who wrote this blog, but I note Michael Voris is quoted. I simply cannot respect a criticism of Lumen Gentium’s formulations from anyone who is so poor at quoting Cardinal Dolan. I view it as hypocritical to criticize the wording of Lumen Gentium and them incorrectly paraphrase the Cardinal to make it appear he said something he did not.
Cardinal Dolan quotes:
“You love God, we love God and he is the same God,”
“Your love of marriage and family, your love of children and babies, your love of freedom — religious freedom particularly– your defense of life, your desire for harmony and unity and your care for others, your care for God’s creation and your care for those who are in need,” the cardinal said, were Islamic values also shared by Catholics and areas where there could be mutual cooperation.”
He likened Muslims to earlier waves of Roman Catholic immigrants who some 150 years ago faced the same challenge of “how to become loyal, responsible, patriotic Americans without losing their faith.”
Things he did not say.
“Then Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith”
This traditionalists blog said: “The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God.”
We know from Holy Scripture that this is not true, as we have the patriarchs whose worship was pleasing to God. Therefore, the statement above can not be true. I know the context we have the implication that this is only for today, but again, it shows that perhaps throwing stones as the formulations in Lumen Gentium should be done with caution lest our own statements turn out worse. However, I think AB Schneider has a very valid point on the need for further clarification. Without a doubt there are those that take statements like those made by Cardinal Dolan and interepret them as some sort of indifferentism. Sometimes this is done to make it easy to criticize him. Sometimes it is done to support and indifferent attitude.
S
SirStephen
Guest
And there is your ad hominem attack again. The Arch-Bishop’s discussion was recorded, that is what he said, and I quoted it correctly. What you seem to have a problem with is being completely outclassed in a discussion. Nothing in what I said was sourced to Voris, but if it had been, and Voris was correct, what would your point have been?
For the record, unlike Catholics 150 years ago, the lead organization of the Islamic community in America today, the Muslim Brotherhood through their front groups like CAIR (actually formed out of the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine, aka Hamas, that calls for the killing of all Jews and is still an officially designated terrorist organization by the US Government), ISNA, MSA, MAS, ICNA, does call for the destruction of America and the American way of life to be replaced, through jihad, with Islamic law. Argue as you will, American MB documents were admitted into a federal court of law that explicitly said that (most notoriously, the “Explanatory Memorandum”). Also, and most emphatically, Islam does not now nor has it ever called for freedom of religion in any Western sense of the term and this is just plainly erroneous and ignorant to say otherwise. When Islam says “tolerance,” that term is completely controlled by Qur’an Verse 9:29, that sets the foundation for this view, and means tolerated as submitted second class citizens “until they submit and feel themselves subdued”. This statement, from what you say is the same god, applies to “people of the book” and requires jihad if they fail to do so. If you restrict yourself to REAL Islamic law and inter se communications of the Muslim Brotherhood (what the MB is saying when the discussions are internal and not the message given to the gullible interfaith crowd), you will find that this is all that they have ever said.
It is a sad commentary that the USCCB’s outreach to the Islamic community is almost completely with groups known to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. There is going to come a time when this will become apparent to the public, it already is to the those with some discernment. As the American Bishops silence Catholics for speaking on the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood at the behest of their out reach friends - the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Catholic Bishops Conference came out and endorsed the removal of Morsi because his Muslim Brotherhood was attacking Catholics and Catholic Churches in Egypt (members4.boardhost.com/acnaus/msg/1372977656.html):
“The first instances of Islamist violence against Christian institutions have already taken place in this context, according to Father Greiche. ‘Attacks were carried out against a Catholic church near Minya yesterday and the day before that. The building was slightly damaged and particularly Christian businesses in the surrounding area were affected.’”
While Catholics all over the world are being attacked just like this, note Boko Haram in Nigeria for example, the USCCB would seek to stifle discussion of this as, they have said, this interferes with the atmosphere that our outreach partners need to do successful outreach. For a rapidly growing number of people, this “atmosphere” is one in which the price of outreach with the Muslim Brotherhood turns out to be that their Catholic counterparts suppress discussions of what their fellow members are doing to Christians and non-Muslims in other parts of the world. Talk about being played.
Of course, what the Muslim Brotherhood succeeded at doing is getting the American Catholic leadership to associate Catholic history with the Islamic and then mirror image it in discussions and then use it against fellow Catholics who may diverge from that narrative. In the Jewish community, it is to get leaders in that community to equate halacha with shari’a and then defend shari’a as if it were halacha.
I caught your loathing of what you called “traditionalist Catholics.” Doesn’t that type of attack - ad hominem - show a lack of integrity (in the form of a lack of intellectual rigor) as, yet again, you fail to address the issue based on its merits? Pope Benedict (emeritus) is a traditional Catholic, is that why you simply discount everything sourced to him in this discussion?
P
pnewton
Guest
You use that phrase twice. I did no such thing, nor do I loathe traditionalist Catholics. You are mistaken about your link not including Michael Voris. It does. Also, I do not think I mis-characterized the blog. If I am mistaken, I will take a second look. They do seem to be some what traditionalist though. I did not argue their POV in any case but listed the actual quotes from both Cardinal Dolan and from that blog to point out the differences.
You go on about the evil done in the name of Islam. That is not the issue. I think everyone here (and at the USCCB) is in complete agreement that the taking of human life and the attack on Christians by Muslims is evil. I do not understand the relevance though.
I have no objection to changing when someone can show better reasoning. It is difficult on this topic because the Catholic Church has pretty much covered it all. As far as out-classed, I am in no class at all compared to a mind like that of the great John Paul II.
I have no idea what this refers to or what bishops you refer to, but I will note the no Bishop has the power or authority to prevent any exercise of free speech in America.
- Status