Today in Mass

[Elle_C]

I went to the early (7:30) mass this morning with my children, and the priest is a lovely man from Africa. He has a thick accent, which my kids find hard to follow, so they were surprised when during the Homily, I gave a little gasp.

Here’s what he began with:

During the past week, two obviously Muslim people came to see him. He invited them into his office at the rectory, and asked them how he could help them. He had thought they might have had a spiritual question for him. Well, they began with the fact that they’d like to have a discussion. They said “well, there are two major religions in the world, Islam, and Christianity” and Fr. Ignace stopped them right there and said “No, there are not only 2, there are 3. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”. The men started to argue, and said they’d like to discuss Christianity and Islam only,since they do not recognize Judaism as being a major religion, and so Father told them no, and asked them to leave.

Now, I feel like maybe I’m being a racist or biased, since my first thought was, he made them angry, and now we had to be afraid. I was also quite angry that someone would come into a Catholic church rectory, to speak with a Catholic priest, and then assume he would allow them to discount Judaism, which is our roots.
My oldest understood, and didn’t know why he would ask them to leave, so I explained it to her. On one hand, I was proud of him for standing up to what is right, but I lost friends on 9-11 and I am, I guess, afraid to bring the anger to my home.

It was so upsetting, and when I told my husband, (he was at work) he had almost the same thought-look out for they would be back. Of course, he’s a NYC Firefighter, so he just gets angry. Do you think Father Ignace was right, or should he have listened to them further. Am I being racist, or just a normal person. My husband claims I’m just being normal, but I feel bad.

The rest of the homily, he spoke of being in Nigeria, and having to hide Christianity, since it was punishable by death in some areas.

 

[IrishRush]

I think your priest was right in what he did. What would be the point of the discussion when they discount what is not only a major religion in today’s world, but even more importantly, the basis for both Christianity AND Islam? It all started with Judaism, whether the Muslims want to admit that or not. A simple look at history illustrates this without a doubt.
And remember, Jesus told us to not be afraid. Pray about this. Ask God to protect you and your church, ask for enlightenment for the closed minds that came to your priest, and ask for peace for your husband as well so that he can let go of his anger and find true forgiveness in his heart for the people behind 9/11.
I know the forgiveness will be hard for your husband. My father was killed in a terrorist bombing at the US embassy in Beirut in 1983 and it took a LONG time for me to find forgiveness for the people who did that.
I’ll pray for you, your husband and family, and for the safety of your church.
God bless you.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your pastor did the right thing.

Remember what John Paul the Great used to say. “Be not afraid.”

I wouldn’t be…

Keep in mind that our Nigerian brethren have suffered a number of attacks lately. Several on leaving Mass on Christmas Day that left many dead and wounded. That’s how it is there.

Our faith is full of martyrs. Today is the birthday of St. Maximilian Kolbe, the martyr of Auschwitz.

On a practical note…you might contact the cops or FBI just in case…

 

[Hokomai]

I’m confused about two things. 1) Why would anyone class Judaism as a major religion? I looked at the stats and it has about 14 million adherents. It is tiny by world standards. You might argue it is important as the source for other religions including Christianity an Islam, but that does not seem to be what the Op heard. Was the argument rather about there being three Abrahamic religions? 2) Surely no one believes that anyone who disagrees with a couple of Muslims faces attack? And what has it got to do with 9/11? 9/11 was an attack on a country, not a Church, or church!

 

[Church_Militant]

Hokomai, you have to realize that ultimately it is the Judeo-Christian belief system.

Officially Catholic Christianity is a separate religion, but if you study the Biblical roots of the Mass, you soon discover that they are intrinsically tied together.

I suggest a book that I found informative and fascinating.
http://www.ignatius.com/Content/Site107/ProductImages/BWM-P.jpg

[A Biblical Walk Through the Mass (Paperback)](http://www.ignatius.com/Products/BWM-P/a-biblical-walk-through-the-mass.aspx)

By Edward Sri
Price: $12.99 Sale Price: $11.04
Code: BWM-P
More…

 

[wardrandolph]

I’m confused about two things. 1) Why would anyone class Judaism as a major religion? I looked at the stats and it has about 14 million adherents. It is tiny by world standards. You might argue it is important as the source for other religions including Christianity an Islam, but that does not seem to be what the Op heard. Was the argument rather about there being three Abrahamic religions? 2) Surely no one believes that anyone who disagrees with a couple of Muslims faces attack? And what has it got to do with 9/11? 9/11 was an attack on a country, not a Church, or church!

My intentions are not to de-rail this thread,That being said,Judaism is a major Religion.Also anyone who has watched or fallowed the terrorist attacks from the 1940’s up untill and including the 2000’s and don’t see these as an attack on Western Civillization(Christiandom)is not aware of or understand history.

 

[sedonaman]

…Now, I feel like maybe I’m being a racist or biased, …

What factors made you think race had anything to do with this incident? Sounds like you have been conditioned to think that someone’s differences are solely because of his race, which is a physical characteristic. If a person converts from one religion to another, does his race also change?

Based on what you have said, I agree that these folks were wrong to come into a church and start an argument. I hope the priest is watching his 6-o’clock.

And I wouldn’t be concerned about being biased. Everyone is biased to some extent.

 

[EricFilmer]

I don’t think you have to worry about these particular Muslims coming back to your parish with violent intentions. The vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens who would not resort to violence in response to religious differences. Those that do are radical extremists, and I doubt if radical extremists would have been interested in speaking to a Catholic priest about religion to begin with.

 

[sedonaman]

…The vast majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens who would not resort to violence in response to religious differences. …

Such citizens would not act the way the OP described, either.

 

[EricFilmer]

Such citizens would not act the way the OP described, either.

Why not? The Muslims described in the OP got mad during a discussion on religion and left. Lots of law-abiding people get angry when discussing religion, which is why many people say not to bring up the topics of religion (and politics) in conversations.

But what exactly is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

 

[Farsight001]

Your pastor did just fine, though I would posit that there are more than 3 even, major religions. Hinduism and Buddhism are rather large too. There are just three major Abrahamic religions.

 

[bmullins]

As a former protestant I could imagine myself 10 years ago going into the Pastors office and trying to convince him that only ‘southern baptists’ were the real children of God, and that he needed to lead his church to the truth. I would also have likely been angry when he refused to see it my way, and likely left in a huff.

Religious extremists exist in all faiths. That doesn’t mean that all southern baptists are religious extremists, nor that all Muslims are.

 

[jonbhorton]

If they come back, it more than likely would not be for violence given the approach they took.

Not being present at the conversation, I can’t say whether or not I agree with him asking them to leave.

On one hand, there could have been something said which made him realize there was no way to witness to them effectively and a debate was moot. On the other hand, he might have felt that he didn’t want to argue with people who dictate terms which are relatively absurd.

Claiming Judaism isn’t a major world religion is a matter of semantics. By raw numbers, they’re a step above almost extinct. In terms of impact on the world, I can’t open a newspaper without reading about specifically Jewish issues which are impacting the global political machine. Outside of Dalai Lama coverage, I can’t recall the last Buddhist interest story I saw in the West, nor any news about Hindus. I see secular issues, Christian issues, Jewish issues, and muslim issues. In the context of mohammedanism, Judaism is front and center. It’s like ole mo-mo couldn’t decide who to hate more. Guess that’s what happens when you’re Satan’s oracle.

So, major in what… actual numbers or impact?
Numbers: insignificant; typical throughout history.
Impact: Eternally significant; secularly, it varies.

Mohammedanism is not a race. Were they Arab? Still not racism: Arabs are Caucasian generally, though there are variations given Africa’s proximity. In fact, race itself is largely rejected by academics in anthropology at the level of 80% surveyed in 1999 ( ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf [pp.75])

One thing you have to realize, which took me a long time to realize, is that not all muslims are exactly glad about 9/11 though mohammedanism demands they repeat it until we’re all dead, converted, or paying jizya.

I didn’t lose friends to jihadists on 9/11, I lost them 4 years later in Iraq, so I understand all too well the emotions you are describing. Maybe it was the fact that I had to work with the Iraqis day in and day out which made me realize that it’s necessary to make a few distinctions:

Basically, you have:

mohammedanism of the koran and hadith- no good

A) muslims who follow it to the letter and with fidelity to tradition- no good

B) muslims who have a moral compass pointing in the generally right direction, and don’t do those things expected of them- not “good”, but a hope…

Douglas Murray actually sums them up quite well here: youtube.com/watch?v=dZJ7Qt5PLHc, though I don’t believe in a “peaceful” islam ever being possible and still being called islamic. Islamicish maybe, not islamic though.

You also have to remember that they might not understand how integral Judaism is to Christianity because mohammed’s doctrine discounts both as corrupt, and depending on their understanding of even their own doctrine, they could have been under the impression that the need to talk about Judaism wasn’t there. If I had to guess, they weren’t intending on deracinating Christianity, so much as not wanting to muddy the issue with what they see as the dirt of Judaism. A dirt which is holding our roots, potentially unbeknownst to them.

 

[AllSeasons]

I’m just wondering what their motive was for coming into a Catholic church and discussing this topic with a priest. What did they hope to accomplish? I don’t think they were naive enough to want to convert a Catholic priest to Islam. I may be overreacting, but this sounds fishy. In any case, I think your priest did the right thing. If they come around again, I think you have reason to be suspicious of their intentions.

 

[DFWChristian]

Judiasm is a major religion and God is not yet done with Israel according to Paul. Let’s not forget Hitler was a Catholic and we all know how the pulpits failed to teach him that the Jews are God’s people and nothing has changed, despite their sin.

 

[Elle_C]

I’m just wondering what their motive was for coming into a Catholic church and discussing this topic with a priest. What did they hope to accomplish? I don’t think they were naive enough to want to convert a Catholic priest to Islam. I may be overreacting, but this sounds fishy. In any case, I think your priest did the right thing. If they come around again, I think you have reason to be suspicious of their intentions.

This was what really bothered me. I didn’t sleep well last night, I was up at 11, then again at 2. I finally decided it would be a good idea to just give my worries to God, and trust that whatever was meant to happen would indeed happen.

They were actually Pakistani, which is an obvious racial difference from caucasian. I believe they told him they were Pakistani. (But we do have a small Pakistani community close by, so it’s not surprising)

I really want to thank all of you for your answers, and your prayers it will absolutely help me to feel better about what Father Ignace said, and did. I do wonder what they REALLY wanted, but hopefully they left with the idea that Catholics consider Judaism a major faith, and perhaps they could see some light. I am an optimist. I wonder if they visited the other Catholic churches in the area (I live in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood) I’m going to check with my friends from those parishes.

 

[sedonaman]

…But what exactly is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

Personally, I don’t believe that Islam is a religion. What would you think if I went to a mosque and tried to argue that with an imam, and I got angry if he disagreed?

 

[EricFilmer]

Personally, I don’t believe that Islam is a religion. What would you think if I went to a mosque and tried to argue that with an imam, and I got angry if he disagreed?

On one hand, I would think that your example simply illustrates the point I made, that many people get angry during discussions of religion. A number of Protestants visit Catholic parishes to debate against Catholicism and yet this does not necessarily indicate that they are violent extremists, even if such debates become heated. For example, here is a link to a CAF thread about Mike Gendron actually going into a confessional in a Catholic parish to debate the validity of Catholicism with a priest. The only fundamental difference between this event and your example is that Gendron apparently did not get mad, but I have encountered (and heard of) others that do. For example, there is a discussion currently going on about this very thing in this thread. But does an angry reaction arising from a religious debate necessarily indicate a violent and dangerous nature? I hope not, seeing as I have witnessed a lot of that in CAF alone (among Catholics and non-Catholics alike).

On the other hand, your example does not accurately reflect the situation described in the OP. After all, your example describes a visit to a mosque to argue with a imam about views criticizing Islam. If the Muslims described in the OP visited a synagogue to argue with a rabbi about their views criticizing Judaism then your example would be a proper comparison. But such was not the case. Rather, the intentions of the Muslims in question was to visit a Catholic priest, not a Jewish rabbi.

Moreover, the presumption I get from the OP’s description is that these Muslims wanted to discuss Christianity, and the mentioning of Judaism was initially incidental to the conversation. After all, it was the priest who brought up Judaism, not the the Muslims. It could well be that the Muslims, lacking proper knowledge of Catholicism, erroneously assumed that a Catholic priest would agree with their statement that the two major religions of the world are Christianity and Islam. Influenced by the usual things that get bantered about these days concerning the Spanish Inquisition and the supposed ties between Catholics and Nazis, they may have actually been surprised to hear a Catholic priest introduce Judaism into the conversation and then defend it. I see no reason to think that these Muslims went to that Catholic parish for the express purpose of arguing with a priest about the validity of Judaism. In saying to the priest that the major religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, they may have simply desired to establish some sort of common ground for a discussion exclusively concerning these two religions.

And finally, I don’t see how your response actually answered my question, so here it is again: Exactly what is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

 

[sedonaman]

… the presumption I get from the OP’s description is that these Muslims wanted to discuss Christianity, and the mentioning of Judaism was initially incidental to the conversation. … In saying to the priest that the major religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, they may have simply desired to establish some sort of common ground for a discussion exclusively concerning these two religions.

I think they knew perfectly well what they were doing.

 

[EricFilmer]

I think they knew perfectly well what they were doing.

Based on what? You weren’t there, so your assessment, like mine, is simply based on the scant information provided by the OP. What makes you think your interpretation of the event more valid than mine?

I think that my interpretation is more valid than yours unless you can clearly explain why radical Muslim extremists would want to speak with a Catholic priest in the first place. Such extremists aren’t known for their willingness to engage in conversation with those they consider infidels (a term that includes Christians).

And once again, you didn’t actually answer my question, so here it is for the third time: Exactly what is your point in light of this thread? Are you suggesting that because these Muslims got mad when the priest said that Judaism is a major religion that they are violent radical extremists?

Or, to put this another way, when you say, “they knew perfectly well what they were doing”, clearly explain to me what you think they were doing? Tell me what you think was their motive for speaking with the priest, what they expected to happen, and what they intended to accomplish in this visit to that parish.