Vatican Calls Proposed Koran Burning `Outrageous and Grave'

[JReducation]

I fail to see the problem that some people are having with the Church defending what is right. Let’s take this in little steps.

The Church holds Islam in high esteem because it is one of the three monotheistic faiths in the world. This is a good thing. In other words, the Church holds in high esteem the fact that they are not pagans who worship false Gods, but worship the same God that we do, even if they don’t have the fullness of Revelation. At least they worship him. It’s a beginning.

The Church recognizes goodness and truth where ever its found. The mistake made by previous popes, regarding Islam, was that their point of view was often affected by the political issues between the Christian world and the Muslim world. Today, the Church looks past those political conflicts. She does not deny that they exist. However, she states, that despite the political conflicts, we must accept that certain things found in Islam are good and true: prayer, defense for the unborn, value for family, love of God above all things, fidelity to conscience, hope for salvation, belief in a final judgment, belief in eternal life, acceptance of God as the source and end of all things and more. These are things that we believe. If we fail to acknowledge that these are good things, then we fail to acknowledge the good that is found in our own faith as well. To let the political differences between the Muslim world and the rest of the world obstruct our view of these truths is contrary to doctrine. Doctrine says that we must recognize grace where ever it’s found.

This takes us to the statements made by some popes in the past. These were not doctrinal statements. The fact that a pope called Islam a horrible thing is not a doctrinal decree. It is a statement that has to be taken in context of time and place. The Catholic world is no longer at war with the Saracens. Therefore, there is no contradiction between these past popes and Pope Benedict XVI who created the Council for Islamic Relationship and who was the first person in the 20th century Church to say that we must acknowledge the good in Islam. What we must remember is that an acknowledgement of the good is not a denial of the growth that is needed. Some people seem to want to focus only on what is missing in Islam and ignore what is present.

The behavior of those who want to burn copies of the Quran is repugnant to the Catholic Church, because it is based on the same kind of hatred and fear that drove the Nazis, Communists, French revolutionaries, Mexican revolutionaries and many other movements that oppressed people because of their faith, ethnicity, race, political influence or all the above. All forms of behavior rooted in hatred has to be condemned by every Catholic. We cannot just say that it has nothing to do with us or that this is a Protestant vs Islam issue. No, this is an issue against a dogma of the Catholic Church. We have been told, infallibly, that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Any action that knowingly endangers innocent human lives is contrary to that dogma. So, where is the problem here?

I just had a similar experience with a non-Catholic brother-in-law. We were planning my sister’s funeral. I selected a crucifix and he wanted a cross. I explained the importance of the crucifix to Catholics. His response was totally hostile. At that point, it’s no longer an issue of differences between faiths. It becomes an issue of contempt. If you must be hostile, the issue is no longer about differences. You elevate it to the level of hatred and hostility. I see some Catholics doing the same thing here that others do to us and we don’t like it, do we?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PatrickSebast]

…let’s see…cover your body, keep your mouth shut…or get beheaded…beaten or killed…

that’s a toughy…let me think about it.

oh brother

Lets not be so harsh. There are lots of Muslim women who face no such threat and still follow this teaching.

On the other hand I don’t know that the Church ever taught women should be covered outside of church. I don’t see what purpose it would serve, let me tell you as young-adult male it isn’t terribly difficult to lust after women even if her eyes are the only thing visible. Modesty is nice, but so is practicality.

 

[JReducation]

Now that we get into the issue of Muslim being all covered up. I’ve always found it interesting to note that the many Catholic women who are critical of Islam’s rules on this issue are also critical of our religious sisters not wearing veils and full-length habits.

Personally, it does not bother me who covers their head and who does not, as long as the person feels that it’s important to them. Just like some religious sisters find this to be an important part of their religious identity, I believe that many Muslim women do too.

On the flip side, it is just as unfair to impose it on a woman religiuos, as it is on a Muslim woman.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GaryTaylor]

The behavior of those who want to burn copies of the Quran is repugnant to the Catholic Church, because it is based on the same kind of hatred and fear that drove the Nazis, Communists, French revolutionaries, Mexican revolutionaries and many other movements that oppressed people because of their faith, ethnicity, race, political influence or all the above. All forms of behavior rooted in hatred has to be condemned by every Catholic. We cannot just say that it has nothing to do with us or that this is a Protestant vs Islam issue. No, this is an issue against a dogma of the Catholic Church. We have been told, infallibly, that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Any action that knowingly endangers innocent human lives is contrary to that dogma. So, where is the problem here?

Br. JR, OSF

Fustration, an inability to channel feelings in a productive manner. Thats the problem. Violence is never the solution.

How far we claim to have come in time, yet so far we have yet to go. The glimmer of Hope is the Church.

 

[mpi]

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0251a.htm

Diu Satis - On A Return To Gospel Principles - Encyclical of Pope Pius VII - 15 May 1800

"15. Books which openly oppose the teaching of Christ are to be burned. Even more importantly, the eyes and minds of all must be kept from books, which do so more stealthily and deceitfully. To recognize such books, as Saint Cyprian says in On the Unity of the Church, “there is not need of a long treatise and arguments: The sum of truth is a proof easy for faith: the Lord says to Peter, ‘feed my sheep.’” So the sheep of Christ should consider safe and eat cheerfully the food to which Peter’s voice and authority directs them; but despite any beauty and charm, they should shun as harmful and plague-ridden, what this voice forbids them. Those who do not comply are certainly not to be counted among the sheep of Christ.
"

So what that some in the Vatican are opposed to Quran burning? It certainly looks like you can be a faithful Catholic and host your own Quran burning. Here we have this specifically addressed in a Papal Encyclical. That is good enough me. Certainly seems like something that we should follow, as opposed to some of the anti-burning rhetoric I have been reading from ostensibly well-meaning people.

 

[mpi]

I fail to see the problem that some people are having with the Church defending what is right. Let’s take this in little steps.

The Church holds Islam in high esteem because it is one of the three monotheistic faiths in the world. This is a good thing. In other words, the Church holds in high esteem the fact that they are not pagans who worship false Gods, but worship the same God that we do, even if they don’t have the fullness of Revelation. At least they worship him. It’s a beginning.

The Church recognizes goodness and truth where ever its found. The mistake made by previous popes, regarding Islam, was that their point of view was often affected by the political issues between the Christian world and the Muslim world. Today, the Church looks past those political conflicts. She does not deny that they exist. However, she states, that despite the political conflicts, we must accept that certain things found in Islam are good and true: prayer, defense for the unborn, value for family, love of God above all things, fidelity to conscience, hope for salvation, belief in a final judgment, belief in eternal life, acceptance of God as the source and end of all things and more. These are things that we believe. If we fail to acknowledge that these are good things, then we fail to acknowledge the good that is found in our own faith as well. To let the political differences between the Muslim world and the rest of the world obstruct our view of these truths is contrary to doctrine. Doctrine says that we must recognize grace where ever it’s found.

This takes us to the statements made by some popes in the past. These were not doctrinal statements. The fact that a pope called Islam a horrible thing is not a doctrinal decree. It is a statement that has to be taken in context of time and place. The Catholic world is no longer at war with the Saracens. Therefore, there is no contradiction between these past popes and Pope Benedict XVI who created the Council for Islamic Relationship and who was the first person in the 20th century Church to say that we must acknowledge the good in Islam. What we must remember is that an acknowledgement of the good is not a denial of the growth that is needed. Some people seem to want to focus only on what is missing in Islam and ignore what is present.

The behavior of those who want to burn copies of the Quran is repugnant to the Catholic Church, because it is based on the same kind of hatred and fear that drove the Nazis, Communists, French revolutionaries, Mexican revolutionaries and many other movements that oppressed people because of their faith, ethnicity, race, political influence or all the above. All forms of behavior rooted in hatred has to be condemned by every Catholic. We cannot just say that it has nothing to do with us or that this is a Protestant vs Islam issue. No, this is an issue against a dogma of the Catholic Church. We have been told, infallibly, that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Any action that knowingly endangers innocent human lives is contrary to that dogma. So, where is the problem here?

I just had a similar experience with a non-Catholic brother-in-law. We were planning my sister’s funeral. I selected a crucifix and he wanted a cross. I explained the importance of the crucifix to Catholics. His response was totally hostile. At that point, it’s no longer an issue of differences between faiths. It becomes an issue of contempt. If you must be hostile, the issue is no longer about differences. You elevate it to the level of hatred and hostility. I see some Catholics doing the same thing here that others do to us and we don’t like it, do we?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What I find most repugnant about your post is the absolute confidence you have in your view that burning Qurans is “repugnant to the Catholic Church”. In light of previous Encyclicals endorsing the behaviour, your view that they should be dismissed as a different “time and place” takes some skillful mental gymnastics.

You are in absolutely no position to posit a sound argument that the Catholic Church is definitively opposed to Quran burning. At best you could say that it is unclear that this behaviour is contrary to the Catholic Church.

 

[baylee]

Are you one of our protestant members or a post VII convert?

Hey Calif. I happen to be a VII convert, but I am beginning to see some things/contradictions that certainly concern me.

And, yes, I opened that door.

It would be nice if Julianna would stop rolling her eyes and saying “oh brother” to everyone she disagrees with. I think that the things that you and I are bringing up should be discussed.

I used to defend Pope John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran, but I see no excuse for that. You can be respectful without kissing it! So we went from Popes denouncing this religion and suggesting that it’s holy book should be burned for the heresy that is in it…to kissing it. WHAT???

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe this was the exact point many made when the Constitution was argued pro.NYC Mosque.

Well once again we here in the USA are bound by that Constitution. Regardless of personal feelings, it is what it is. So when we cry Constitiution. And then that very constitution comes back to bite you in the rear? Why should we call foul play at that point?

I don’t agree with that.

If I buy every single Quran for sale in the USA and bring them to my property. Then should I chose to heat my home with them this winter? Thats my choice. And the US Constitution says it OK.

While I don’t agree with the idea of buring Qurans. I certainly understand where the thinking is coming from.

The mosque should have never been even considered on the Ground Zero area. So now the backlash comes around, which eveyone knew was coming. And we should say, don’t act like that. Thats not right, thats not Catholic. Catholic isn’t the issue. The US constitution is the issue. The very document that allowed that NYC Mosgue is the very document that allows this display of ignorance to proceed.

I’m sure had the forefathers seen this far ahead, they would made revisions for such foolishness. Unfortunatly they left that up to us. So where is sanity? It should have prevailed in NYC instead of sympathizing with Islam, we should have been sympathizing with the 3000 familys left to morn on US soil. Wheres their justice? Wheres their America?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey Calif. I happen to be a VII convert, but I am beginning to see some things/contradictions that certainly concern me.

And, yes, I opened that door.

It would be nice if Julianna would stop rolling her eyes and saying “oh brother” to everyone she disagrees with. I think that the things that you and I are bringing up should be discussed.

I used to defend Pope John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran, but I see no excuse for that. You can be respectful without kissing it! So we went from Popes denouncing this religion and suggesting that it’s holy book should be burned for the heresy that is in it…to kissing it. WHAT???

great point. some here seem to think that because our Pope kissed the quran, we all should be doing the same thing. if the pope decided to kiss the quran, it is his prerogative, i sure dont want to do such a thing. i dont say with pride but with sadness because as the past popes have said that it is the desire of the Church that all come into the Church. but now and days these teachings is no longer the case. today, it is tought that we all should just get along and no one needs to be converted to the Faith any longer. that everybody is just fine where they are. relativism at best. there is no longer one Religion that teaches the Truth but all have some truth and it is ok to stick with some of this truth. this religion that supposedly have the Truth is no longer interested that people know the Truth through her. let’s all mix our religions together and accept syncretism. a new religion is pounder at our door. does anyone hear at your Parish prayers for the conversion of all peoples into the CC? i know i dont.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe this was the exact point many made when the Constitution was argued pro.NYC Mosque.

Well once again we here in the USA are bound by that Constitution. Regardless of personal feelings, it is what it is. So when we cry Constitiution. And then that very constitution comes back to bite you in the rear? Why should we call foul play at that point?

I don’t agree with that.

If I buy every single Quran for sale in the USA and bring them to my property. Then should I chose to heat my home with them this winter? Thats my choice. And the US Constitution says it OK.

While I don’t agree with the idea of buring Qurans. I certainly understand where the thinking is coming from.

The mosque should have never been even considered on the Ground Zero area. So now the backlash comes around, which eveyone knew was coming. And we should say, don’t act like that. Thats not right, thats not Catholic. Catholic isn’t the issue. The US constitution is the issue. The very document that allowed that NYC Mosgue is the very document that allows this display of ignorance to proceed.

I’m sure had the forefathers seen this far ahead, they would made revisions for such foolishness. Unfortunatly they left that up to us. So where is sanity? It should have prevailed in NYC instead of sympathizing with Islam, we should have been sympathizing with the 3000 familys left to morn on US soil. Wheres their justice? Wheres their America?

I agree. although i wouldnt go around burning anybody’s books, i would not certainly go around supporting a false religion. while some Catholics go around giving support for false religions, the CC shrinks while the false religions continue to grow. what ever happened to Jesus teachings. yet, i know that in the Vatican there are many people that are going with the times. who knows where this voice came from.

 

[Julianna]

great point. some here seem to think that because our Pope kissed the quran, we all should be doing the same thing. if the pope decided to kiss the quran, it is his prerogative, i sure dont want to do such a thing. i dont say with pride but with sadness because as the past popes have said that it is the desire of the Church that all come into the Church. but now and days these teachings is no longer the case. today, it is tought that we all should just get along and no one needs to be converted to the Faith any longer. that everybody is just fine where they are. relativism at best. there is no longer one Religion that teaches the Truth but all have some truth and it is ok to stick with some of this truth. this religion that supposedly have the Truth is no longer interested that people know the Truth through her. let’s all mix our religions together and accept syncretism. a new religion is pounder at our door. does anyone hear at your Parish prayers for the conversion of all peoples into the CC? i know i dont.

Why would you assume such a thing…just because the Pope kissed the Koran that suddenly we all should. I would not. I wouldn’t consider JR a “relavist” by any means…as I have disagreed with him at times. JR is not stating that we should accept syncretism…rather respect that people have the “right” in expression of faith…especially in America. Oh, yeah…freedom of religion… There is no advocation of mixing religions. You have a problem with human beings “getting along”??? Not sure why. Conversion does not come through “fear”, “fire and brimstone”.

Different paths…same goal.

…it kind of goes along these lines…

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 

[sidbrown]

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0251a.htm

Diu Satis - On A Return To Gospel Principles - Encyclical of Pope Pius VII - 15 May 1800

"15. Books which openly oppose the teaching of Christ are to be burned. Even more importantly, the eyes and minds of all must be kept from books, which do so more stealthily and deceitfully. To recognize such books, as Saint Cyprian says in On the Unity of the Church, “there is not need of a long treatise and arguments: The sum of truth is a proof easy for faith: the Lord says to Peter, ‘feed my sheep.’” So the sheep of Christ should consider safe and eat cheerfully the food to which Peter’s voice and authority directs them; but despite any beauty and charm, they should shun as harmful and plague-ridden, what this voice forbids them. Those who do not comply are certainly not to be counted among the sheep of Christ.
"

So what that some in the Vatican are opposed to Quran burning? It certainly looks like you can be a faithful Catholic and host your own Quran burning. Here we have this specifically addressed in a Papal Encyclical. That is good enough me. Certainly seems like something that we should follow, as opposed to some of the anti-burning rhetoric I have been reading from ostensibly well-meaning people.

Not all papal encyclicals are infallible, but I thought that at least they would come under the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church?

 

[Miserys_Fence]

If I buy every single Quran for sale in the USA and bring them to my property. Then should I chose to heat my home with them this winter? Thats my choice. And the US Constitution says it OK.

While I don’t agree with the idea of buring Qurans. I certainly understand where the thinking is coming from.

The mosque should have never been even considered on the Ground Zero area.

So the US is only a “free country” when it comes to burning books, but not when it comes to building temples?

Miz

 

[Califman831]

By accepting Islam as a valid faith you reject the necessity of Baptism and the belief that Christ is way to salvation. As you know we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Anything outside of this formula is invalid. While muslims may claim to follow the same god as Catholics, this a blatant lie because God is triune (or is that now is dispute?). God promised us a redeemer in Christ, the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. It is Christ who said he is one with the father.
Can we deny any part of the trinity and still claim to be Christian. By error in charity we do that very same thing, when we say that all religions are of equal worth and there is not one true faith. Why did moses destroy the golden calf if we are to treat all faiths equally? (exodus 32:20-35)

Think of it this way, if you see a man dying of thirst would you rather give him a cup of the finest water (catholicism), a cup of sewer water (heretical christianity), or a bone dry cup (paganism and atheism)? Out of love we are called to give pure water to our lost brothers and sisters in this world.

In An Open Letter to Confused Catholics we find the following on the errors of false ecumenism. Which some posters appear to be prone to.
…
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.

Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”

It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own “cultural milieu.” A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, “No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.” I am assured and know for certain that before the Council the Taizé community wanted to abjure their errors and become Catholics. The authorities said to them, “No, wait. After the Council you will be the bridge between Catholics and Protestants.” Those who gave this reply took on a great responsibility before God, because grace comes often only at a given moment; it may perhaps not come again. At the present time the brethren of Taizé are still outside the Church, sowing confusion in the minds of the young people who visit them.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

While muslims may claim to follow the same god as Catholics, this a blatant lie

Pope Saint Gregory VII To Muslim King Anazir:

This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, “He is our peace who hath made both one.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

By accepting Islam as a valid faith you reject the necessity of Baptism and the belief that Christ is way to salvation. As you know we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Anything outside of this formula is invalid. While muslims may claim to follow the same god as Catholics, this a blatant lie because God is triune (or is that now is dispute?). God promised us a redeemer in Christ, the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. It is Christ who said he is one with the father.
Can we deny any part of the trinity and still claim to be Christian. By error in charity we do that very same thing, when we say that all religions are of equal worth and there is not one true faith. Why did moses destroy the golden calf if we are to treat all faiths equally? (exodus 32:20-35)

Think of it this way, if you see a man dying of thirst would you rather give him a cup of the finest water (catholicism), a cup of sewer water (heretical christianity), or a bone dry cup (paganism and atheism)? Out of love we are called to give pure water to our lost brothers and sisters in this world.

In An Open Letter to Confused Catholics we find the following on the errors of false ecumenism. Which some posters appear to be prone to.
…
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.

Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”

It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own “cultural milieu.” A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, “No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.” I am assured and know for certain that before the Council the Taizé community wanted to abjure their errors and become Catholics. The authorities said to them, “No, wait. After the Council you will be the bridge between Catholics and Protestants.” Those who gave this reply took on a great responsibility before God, because grace comes often only at a given moment; it may perhaps not come again. At the present time the brethren of Taizé are still outside the Church, sowing confusion in the minds of the young people who visit them.

beautiful letter. so true. he describes exactly what is happening today in our society. the Truth has been forgotten. the letter does touch in the subject, who is going to protect the ignorant from error if all religions are ok? who is going to teach the people the Truth? it seems to me that the CC did forgot who she is. Revelation talks about the Church that is not hot or cold. there is great punishment awaiting for her. It seems that our leaders are no longer concerned with the Truth but get along with each is their main concern.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Pope Saint Gregory VII To Muslim King Anazir:

yes. he might have said. this doesnt mean anything.
the Truth is that Jesus says, if you deny me, I will deny you to My Father.
St Paul says, if we believe in Jesus will be saved, those who reject Him have already been condemned. does this teaching still apply today?
yes. they do Worship the God of Abraham just like the Jews. but the Jews were not excused because they believed in God and not Jesus. this is the Matter.

 

[Veridical16]

What I find displeasing with some of the comments in this thread is the, attitude, “I’m Okay, you’re Okay” in regards to the Muslim Faith by some. It is a relativist attitude, in some respects.
While what the Vatican has disapproved of is right on principle. It is more of a call, to remember our charity towards those innocent Muslim, who are are sincere in spite the error of their faiths. The Koran, itself is a perversion and a destructive book.

Pope Saint Gregory VII To Muslim King Anazir:
Quote:
This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God. . . adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, “He is our peace who hath made both one.”

The Pope was just being nice. (With what little context, perhaps the Pope was being diplomatic and sensed sincerity of that particular individual’s understanding of the Creator. It’s even possible that that Pope was being naive too. They can still make mistakes i.e. Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran) Nevertheless, His kind words shouldn’t be taken as a validation of their faith. Because Jesus’ words, supercede that assumption

’ No one comes to the Father except through me. ’

To illustrate that point, the Jesus in the Quran, is not Jesus. Jesus & Mary as figures in the Koran was just a wreckless attempt by Muhammad to hijack parts of our religion to be more appealing when he was trying to convert others through the sword, to appeal to those exposed to Judaism & Christianity in that region at that time.

There are far weightier comments from other popes, and Saints, just how distorted their view of God might be thanks to Mohammad. But since they won’t all fit, I’ll just quote:

St. Thomas Aquinas

CONTRA GENTILES
BOOK ONE: GOD

Chapter 6.[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. **On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly. **

He was one of the AntiChrists, clearly, that St. Paul and St. John warned about (‘Let him be accursed’). His only mistake was him, taking figures, Mary and Jesus, and including them in the Koran. That will be Islam’s downfall. It should not be tolerated in regards to Ideology. The Religion of Islam is an insult to our Faith. Rather, we should respect the RELIGIOUS individuals in their faith, who sincerely follow that faith who are able to grab onto what little truths they can. But we should never forget the errors involved, nor should we tolerate them nor choose to be ignorant of them, motivated by attitudes of political correctness.
Mohammad is nothing more than an Arabic Joseph Smith.

While it says in the Catechism, that they “claim” worship the same God, of Abraham.
As Christians, we can give them the benefit, because someone through no fault of their own, born into that faith, can believe Allah is God. However, there is still a hint of guarded acceptance, of the claim within Islam itself. The words “they claim” are NO ACCIDENT in the catechism, it’s there for a reason. (I have heard on Cath Answers Live there is nuance to “they claim to profess”)

We Catholics, should be more vigilant about these errors, instead of just assuming, all Religions bring about Good. The more you know the truth of Catholicism as the one true faith, the more repugnant and insulting it is to see all the erroneous stuff that pops up through the Centuries through shysters. (J. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc) It should be our desire, to pray for those who are in other faiths and religions, that if they truly were touched by grace, that they can find their way out of their faith, and hopefully convert, away from their errors. We should all pray to Mary , for her intercession of the conversion of the Muslims. There is, and should be a trend of the authentic “peaceful” Muslims, who do pray devoutly to the true Creator, like us, to open their eyes, nobody stays in invincible ignorance forever.
With all this in mind, burning the Koran, to provoke is wrong, uncharitable, but burning the Koran, as a Muslim convert to Catholicism/Christianity, would be an admission of faith.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

yes. he might have said. this doesnt mean anything.
the Truth is that Jesus says, if you deny me, I will deny you to My Father.
St Paul says, if we believe in Jesus will be saved, those who reject Him have already been condemned. does this teaching still apply today?
yes. they do Worship the God of Abraham just like the Jews. but the Jews were not excused because they believed in God and not Jesus. this is the Matter.

So the Pope was a heretic and the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is invalid?

 

[PatrickSebast]

I believe this was the exact point many made when the Constitution was argued pro.NYC Mosque.

Well once again we here in the USA are bound by that Constitution. Regardless of personal feelings, it is what it is. So when we cry Constitiution. And then that very constitution comes back to bite you in the rear? Why should we call foul play at that point?

I don’t agree with that.

If I buy every single Quran for sale in the USA and bring them to my property. Then should I chose to heat my home with them this winter? Thats my choice. And the US Constitution says it OK.

While I don’t agree with the idea of buring Qurans. I certainly understand where the thinking is coming from.

The mosque should have never been even considered on the Ground Zero area. So now the backlash comes around, which eveyone knew was coming. And we should say, don’t act like that. Thats not right, thats not Catholic. Catholic isn’t the issue. The US constitution is the issue. The very document that allowed that NYC Mosgue is the very document that allows this display of ignorance to proceed.

I’m sure had the forefathers seen this far ahead, they would made revisions for such foolishness. Unfortunatly they left that up to us. So where is sanity? It should have prevailed in NYC instead of sympathizing with Islam, we should have been sympathizing with the 3000 familys left to morn on US soil. Wheres their justice? Wheres their America?

The idea that the drafters of the constitution somehow didn’t think people could use freedom to do something offensive is the only silliness I see here. Pretty much everyone in the State with a bit of bra(name removed by moderator)ower realizes that our freedoms mean that other people have the right to say things we don’t want to hear and do things we don’t to see. They certainly foresaw religious conflict since it was very prevalent at the time, especially to the Americas. The whole idea behind the bill of rights was to disallow the government from getting involved in situations just like this. They didn’t want a town full of Catholics to be able to oppress the protestants, or vice verse, simply because they had majority rule and didn’t like them or their ideas much.

Honestly, what kind of amendment would you suggest be added to “fix” this situation? The you can’t do anything that others find mean or offensive amendment? Otherwise known as the “you can’t do anything” amendment?