Catholic Catechism para. 841 on Islam vs. Robert Spencer's view on Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcarollo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The MB is a perfect example of what Spencer is saying. Also it should be noted that this Coptic Pope has spoken a bit more in the social political realm with human rights. As a result he is blamed for the entire issue.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The MB is perfect example of what Spencer is saying. Also it should be noted that this Coptic Pope has spoken a bit more in the social political realm with human rights. As a result he is blamed for the entire issue.
Click to expand...
Is your comment linked to the website you just posted? What does MB stand for?
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
The Moslem religion is

I. Not the “People of the Book” they don’t believe in the Old or New Testament, only the writings of Mohammed and the Quaran. They might link themselves to Abraham, but since Mohammed did not invent the Religion until the 7th Century how could they link themselves to Abraham, the only thing they could say is “Like the Jews and Christians we believe in One God” they borrowed Jewish teaching and Catholic teaching, where do you think they get there prayers beads from yes us Catholics, they borrowed a lot of our teachings as you can tell when you talk to them, they talk a lot about the " people of the Book" where they got some of there teachings from while at the same time a large proportion want to kills Jews and Christians, look at the way they go on in Moslem Countries, they only behave themselves in Non Moslem Countries because they wont get away with it, do we go around bombing Mosque’s, planting bombs, they are a violent religion its a shame they did not take Jesus teaching’s on board, Love one another, etc they want to dominate the world like they did before the Battle of Lepanto, bury your head in the sand, at your cost and letting evil take a foothold.
Click to expand...
Much of the Quran is lifted directly from the old testament. Genesis and Exodus are pretty well directly included. ANything from the first century is lifted from Gnostic versions of the story.

Having read multiple translations of the Quran, and having read the Gnostic Gospels, it’s pretty easy to see that the borrows were from Gnosticism.

Gnostic Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity in Arabia in the 6th and 7th centuries; even today, some Gnostic Christianity is still practiced by certain small sects.Note that the Gnostics didn’t have the same emphasis on love thy neighbor as the Jews or the Orthodox Christian. They did have strong beliefs about caring for the poor faithful, but not for others; Islam has inherited this.
 
Right Islam also brings a different inclusive wider range argument to the table as a whole. They argue Islam as a whole with sharia law permeates the middle east. While this may be debatable, this is not true in the West. Enter Western thinking and its complexity in relation to Christianity and even further Christian, Judeo.
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
I personally am not one bit confused, I think the Church is trying as always not to cause waves especially for our brethren living in Moslems Countries and don’t hold to ideals of Our Lord Jesus, ie = Love one another
Click to expand...
No. At the time the Vatican II texts were written there was no concern about Christians being widely persecuted in Islamic countries. Moreover, ascribing some sort of underlying realpolitik motive to Holy Mother Church is not usually accepted as a proper method of exegetes for Church documents. The Church does not play realpolitik in drafting her documents and, even if it were the case, it would not matter in their interpretation. We interpret the texts based on the words of the texts; even if there were extrinsic political considerations or motivations, these are never taken into account while interpreting a Church document - ever. You must follow the text and what it says; otherwise, people could produce the most fantastic interpretations of documents based on whatever theory they like based on any number of seemingly plausible covert motives. Protestantism is one example.

If there are no grounds for an interpretation in the text, then there are no grounds for the interpretation - period.

The Church teaches exactly what she teaches about Islam and Muslims: that much, no more and no less. Everything else is private opinion and private interpretation, including Spencer’s.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Government agencies- I’m sure speaking at/giving a class for a government agency can be used as confirmation that an individual is an expert on the field. I mean it’s not like said agencies have no clue as to what they are talking about and therefore somehow invite someone they consider to be an “expert” to lunch a day after another agency places them on a watch list. Oh wait, foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/radical-muslim-clerics-pentagon-lunch-top-dod-lawyers-executive-director-cair/

And it’s not like the various government agencies routinely make incompetent mistakes when it comes to religion. It’s not like we’ve seen in the last year threads concerning pro-life groups, Christian based groups, and Christianity itself labelled by various governmental organizations as threats or terroristic in nature. Oh wait…

Non-government agencies- Should be rather self-evident as to why you really can’t count these as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam. If it’s not self-evident, let me know and I’ll track down some examples of similar anti-Catholic and/or “The Church is Wrong about X” “experts” as counterpoints.

I have a MA in Political Science (which, unlike Mr. Spencer’s MA actually focused on Islam; the politics and political impact of) and have been studying the politics and the history of the Middle East since my undergrad years and throughout my military career. None of that makes me an expert on politics, let alone Islamic political theory and history. I fail to see how Mr. Spencer’s rather broad degree (Religious studies-sorry, but that’s like saying a “Survey of Western history” class makes you an expert on Roman history) whose thesis did not focus on Islam (Catholic history).

The same people who would view those organizations as confirmation of Mr. Spencer being an expert would also believe the “studies” that “prove” smoking is good for you that just happen to be published by doctors/organizations who just happen to receive all/most of their funding from Big Tobacco. I’m sure it’s just a happy coincidence that Mr. Spencer’s works just happen to confirm/reinforce the political message/aim of the organizations that pay him/promote his works/“review” his works. Yep, same type of happy coincidence that allows me to go out and smoke and know that it’s actually a healthy habit. After all, doctors and official sounding organizations that I have no real interest in questioning their motivations or source of funding on since it allows me to retain my preconceived conclusion about smoking have stated it’s healthy.
Click to expand...
I am glad I am not the only one who noticed this.
 
stpeterslist.com/11460/6-books-on-islam-by-catholic-scholar-robert-spencer/

"Opus Dei Father C.J. McCloskey, a Church historian and research fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington, referred to Robert Spencer as “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country.”

“Robert Spencer is a careful observer of Islam and a courageous voice on behalf of Christians. In Not Peace But a Sword he shows us how to take Islam seriously without falling into alarmism, hatred, or bigotry, and provides a needed corrective to media disinformation.”
  • Scott Hahn
“A great many Catholics know only a Disney-fied version of Islam, and still cling to the dangerous illusion that Muslims and Christians share much in common. But as Robert Spencer ably demonstrates, beneath the surface similarities lies a deep and possibly unbridgeable gulf. This is must reading not only for Catholics but for all Christians.”
  • William Kilpatrick, author of Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West
“Robert Spencer carefully examines the challenge posed to Christianity by an increasingly militant Islam. His case is calm, lucid, accurate, and uncompromising in its presentation of the facts of history. He provides an honest and unflinching account of the roots of Christian/Muslim tensions, a robust defense of Jesus Christ and Christianity in response to Muslim claims, and a sobering wake-up call to all Christians.”
  • Patrick Madrid
🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
stpeterslist.com/11460/6-books-on-islam-by-catholic-scholar-robert-spencer/

"Opus Dei Father C.J. McCloskey, a Church historian and research fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington, referred to Robert Spencer as “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country.”

“Robert Spencer is a careful observer of Islam and a courageous voice on behalf of Christians. In Not Peace But a Sword he shows us how to take Islam seriously without falling into alarmism, hatred, or bigotry, and provides a needed corrective to media disinformation.”
  • Scott Hahn
“A great many Catholics know only a Disney-fied version of Islam, and still cling to the dangerous illusion that Muslims and Christians share much in common. But as Robert Spencer ably demonstrates, beneath the surface similarities lies a deep and possibly unbridgeable gulf. This is must reading not only for Catholics but for all Christians.”
  • William Kilpatrick, author of Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West
“Robert Spencer carefully examines the challenge posed to Christianity by an increasingly militant Islam. His case is calm, lucid, accurate, and uncompromising in its presentation of the facts of history. He provides an honest and unflinching account of the roots of Christian/Muslim tensions, a robust defense of Jesus Christ and Christianity in response to Muslim claims, and a sobering wake-up call to all Christians.”
  • Patrick Madrid
🤷
Click to expand...
A list of quotes from non-Islamic scholars and academics (and for clarity, “non-Islamic” means people whose education actually doesn’t deal with Islam; it does not mean “individual’s who aren’t Muslims”) praising the work of another non-Islamic scholar or academic about a field they actually aren’t experts on.

Good job. I guess that means if I can dig up quotes from non-theologian scholars and academics praising Mr. Dawkins’s (who isn’t a theologian) works concerning Christianity and religion (two subjects he isn’t an expert on) than we must of course conclude that Mr. Dawkins is an expert on Christianity and religion.

I guess the new method of determining who or who isn’t an expert isn’t based on that person’s actual qualifications, but on how many other people we can find (who don’t have to be qualified either) who call him one. 🤷
 
Ocg you have higher standards than the rest of us.

"A great many Catholics know only a Disney-fied version of Islam, and still cling to the dangerous illusion that Muslims and Christians share much in common. But as Robert Spencer ably demonstrates, beneath the surface similarities lies a deep and possibly unbridgeable gulf. This is must reading not only for Catholics but for all Christians.”
  • William Kilpatrick,
This above is the issue which imho is indeed a problem. And particularly with 841. What do you think is that a good point?
josie_L said:
Oldcatholicguy, I agree with what the Church had/has to say on the topic of Muslims, and I would never disagree with her, but as I mentioned before I do not believe there is a disagreement in the views uttered by the Church and those expressed by Robert Spencer. If your only reason for not reading Robert Spencer’s books are due to his qualifications then, so be it. However, you realize that anyone who is willing to speak out on the atrocities committed by radical Muslims does not need the qualifications that you speak of, i.e., just look at the poor Coptic population in Egypt and how they are suffering (and all Christians, in fact, living in Muslim majority countries). The evidence is there for all to see, with or without Robert Spencer. The thing that I like about Robert Spencer is that he brings to light the stealth jihad that is happening right under our noses, i.e., in Western lands like the U.S… There are not many authors who are doing this, mainly, because they fear for their lives. I’m pretty stumped as to who besides the few that I know of (and which you would consider unqualified) that you would find acceptable. Can you think of any “qualified” Islamic scholars (that aren’t towing the liberal line or afraid to speak out)? Have you read the Regensberg address given by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI?
Click to expand...
 
GaryTaylor said:
Ocg you have higher standards than the rest of us.

"A great many Catholics know only a Disney-fied version of Islam, and still cling to the dangerous illusion that Muslims and Christians share much in common. But as Robert Spencer ably demonstrates, beneath the surface similarities lies a deep and possibly unbridgeable gulf. This is must reading not only for Catholics but for all Christians.”
  • William Kilpatrick,
This above is the issue which imho is indeed a problem. And particularly with 841. What do you think is that a good point?
Click to expand...
  1. Well, you can blame my Catholic upbringing and the fact I’m a citizen of modern society for my “higher standards”. Such silly notions of “no, not everyone can be a priest” and “no, you can’t just declare yourself a theologian and declare what the Bible really means” and “yes, you do actually have to pass the bar examine to practice law” and “no, reading a book on biology does not mean you are a doctor. You actually have to go to medical school for that” for some reason leads me to want someone to actually be qualified in a field prior to them being considered an expert on it.
  2. Thanks for the quote from Mr. Kilpatrick. Since his website fails to mention anything about him being a theologian, scholar of Islam, or scholar on social/political/cultural relations I’ll assume you posted it as a rather good example of the fallacy of appealing to authority.
  3. I’ve already addressed how one should view Mr. Spencer’s work in regards to the CCC.
 
Its not a silly notion Scott Hahn is a Biblical scholar. And as we see Catholic understanding varies and in particular with the OP and 841. Apparently also a concern of his.

There seems to a good deal of Catholic scholars whom disagree with you. 🤷
 
So, If I can summarize the essence of the answer to my original question: It would seem that Robert Spencer is talking more specifically about Islam (especially the problem radical Islam), whereas the CCC is speaking more about Muslims themselves – and acknowledging that Muslims may share a shadow of truth. Still: I find the tone of at least the radio ad on Catholic Answers to be a bit overly alarmist, and annoying at best. (I really hate alarmism – and it reminds me too much of the apologetics coming from my previous Protestant world!)

The discussion unfortunately degenerated into a debate over Robert Spencer’s credentials to speak on these matters. Are there more qualified voices out there? Perhaps – and perhaps that should be considered.

I guess my main confusion here is HOW exactly do we approach Muslims (and Islam in general) in light of BOTH the concerns over radical Islam, as well as acknowledging areas of genuine agreement.

I have some guesses of how I would approach this – but perhaps someone could recommend further resources about Islam — especially ones having the official Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
 
GaryTaylor said:
answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/vatican2.html

The history in regard can be read with V-II. Spencer is not giving his interpretation nor opinion of this. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m assuming this was in response to my post. I just don’t understand why you think it would be relevant or change anything I wrote.

When we interpret the documents of the Church we interpret the texts and what the texts say. Things extrinsic to the texts are just that. If there were footnotes or reference documents included in the text that would be different, but these are sometimes just sources or reference materials meant to bolster or ground a point that is being made.

Of central importance is proclaiming and sharing the Gospel with Muslims and entering into dialogue with them. Firstly we need to be building peace and relationships of trust and mutual understanding with one another in the spirit of brotherly love and friendship; this alone will reduce tensions and possible conflicts: in that we become peacemakers, which is blessed. Then we can talk about our faiths and beliefs in a healthy context and, God willing, bring more souls to Christ. Anatagonism should be avoided especially at the individual, personal and practical level; indeed, I cannot see when antagonism could ever be a good thing. Being of good-will should be the basis and platform that we present ourselves to our neighbours: thus it is clearly seen that we are not threats or antagonists. Thus the blessing of Abraham shines forth most clearly in us and we can be a blessing to all the families of the earth, firstly in building peace, understanding and community.

The above goes for all faiths and peoples generally. This is, to an extent, just common sense if your aim is peace and the fostering of love and happiness. Such soil is fertile and open to God’s grace.
 
“When we interpret the documents of the Church we interpret the texts and what the texts say. Things extrinsic to the texts are just that. If there were footnotes or reference documents included in the text that would be different, but these are sometimes just sources or reference materials meant to bolster or ground a point that is being made.”

By large I don’t disagree. But there are footnotes which lead to the history of the Church. Through the footnotes you can also study the history in this regard. The missionary aspect of the Church and how She spreads the Gospel also well documented.

How individuals perceive the two in particular 841 is where as I read the issue resides.

I agree with the Church, I see no sense in trotting out here degrading paragraphs of the Saints past. I see no sense denying muslims what they believe to start a conversation in regards to Mohammed and their Quran.

But, I also agree with everyone you see promoting Spencer. There is a basic message of human rights and freedoms which obviously needs to be addressed.
 
So what I see coming from the Vatican, the USCCB, (and a recent speech by Cardinal Timothy Dolan), and others is clearly more in line with a “dialogue/mutual respect” approach to Islam. At the very least, this is the FIRST FOOT that must be put forward.
Still – I find it difficult to reconcile the tone of Spencer (and Kirkpatrick) with these Church statements.

I guess I’m still confused. Is the Catholic Church saying – seek mutual respect/understanding, and if you HAPPEN to bring a Muslim into the Catholic Church, then great – but do NOT seek to evangelize directly.

Is that off base or accurate?

Perhaps what the Catholic Church is doing is simply providing the “STUB” of respect and dialogue as a basic, common starting point – and then once we have that established, we trust the work of the Holy Spirit to move us into an effective evangelism.
I guess the Church has simply left the specifics of evangelistic dialogue up to lay Catholic apologists?

For further information, see:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/resources-on-islam-and-muslims.cfm

In particular…
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).”
 
dcarollo said:
I recently listened to this podcast interview with Robert Spencer, as well as this blurb (which appear on the ads on Catholic Answers Radio).

catholic.com/radio/shows/not-peace-but-a-sword-8239

“Not Peace, But A Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity And Islam
Some Christians view Islam as a sister religion, a branch of the same Abrahamic tree—lacking the fullness of revelation but nonetheless a religion of peace. Others are more critical of Islamic teachings but still see Muslims as valuable partners in the global fight against secularization and the Culture of Death. “Both are wrong” – the radio ad goes on to say]”

Now consider paragraph 841 from the C.C.C.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”

I for one, have more difficulty with the Catechism on this – although perhaps this is fleshed out more fully in Lumen Gentium (which I have not read yet).

It seems the Catechism is far more sympathetic towards Islam than is Robert Spencer. Is anyone else out there confused by this apparent discrepancy between Robert Spencer (endorsed by Catholic Answers) and The Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I guess as a Catholic, I’m finding myself confused on the proper church response to Islam: Do we affirm or do we evangelize them (or a combination of both). Which is it?
Click to expand...
If you read Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate it hashes it out pretty well if, you read it with the eyes of all the previous dogmatic ecumenical councils. When the LG talks about the moslems (which is what CCC #841 refers to) if you look at the entire documents you’ll notice that LG places the moslems along with Jews and Protestants…meaning that it is speaking about those outside the Church.

NA speaks more about moslems as the document refers specifically to non-Christians and nowhere in CCC #841, LG, nor NA speak about Mohammed nor the Koran.

This is because the writings of the Church speak to those who profess a moslem faith and not necessarily Islam. It speaks to those who:
  • Aknowledge a single Creator
  • Profess to worship in the manner of Abraham
  • Claim to adore God as: one, merciful and judging
These happen to be the majority of those people who call themselves moslem.

The point is, Islam is not a path to Salvation (sadly VII’s ambiguousness does cause confusion) but that does not mean moslems are not held in higher regard as opposed to pagans. Moslems honor Christ (albeit very faulty) and acknowledge Mary’s virginity and honor her as well (this is more closer to Catholicism than some of those Protestant-christians who reject Mary’s virgin birth or outright). The Vatican II documents speak on these to point out, that there is some Truth that moslems profess…but this Truth does not come from Islam, but from God whose One True Church, is the Catholic Faith.

The whole point of CCC # 841 and LG & NA was to speak about similarities moslems have with Catholicism…in order to help bring them closer to the One True Faith.

So to answer your question, Robert Spencer is not wrong his views on Islam…but that does not mean we are not to do our best to bring the fullness of the truth to the moslems. So one must separate Islam with the moslem, which is what the Church does. We are to come to ecumenical talks with moslems based on what these documents outline…not Mohommad nor the Koran because they are incompatible with the Truth.
 
dcarollo said:
So what I see coming from the Vatican, the USCCB, (and a recent speech by Cardinal Timothy Dolan), and others is clearly more in line with a “dialogue/mutual respect” approach to Islam. At the very least, this is the FIRST FOOT that must be put forward.
Still – I find it difficult to reconcile the tone of Spencer (and Kirkpatrick) with these Church statements.

I guess I’m still confused. Is the Catholic Church saying – seek mutual respect/understanding, and if you HAPPEN to bring a Muslim into the Catholic Church, then great – but do NOT seek to evangelize directly.

Is that off base or accurate?
Click to expand...
No we are to always bring those outside the Church into the Church. This includes heretics, schimatics, apostates and infidels. It doesn’t matter if they are moslem, buddhist, protestant, or an excommunicated sedevacantist…we are to do our best to bring all the Truth.

What VII is saying, is leave the bad grudges of the past behind and seek to work on bringing the Truth in charity and love to these people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top