Will Church Teaching Lead to Islamic Victory?

[Melvin]

I tried to post this once before without success. Maybe my prior post was way too long or perhaps the question is too controversial.

1. The Church in its teaching seems to advocate almost unrestricted immigration/migration, despite averring that nations have a right to establish control of their own borders. (The Church’s position seems to be echoed by Western leaders.)
2. Islam by nature seeks domination over all other societies. Lying to non-Muslims is advocated and approved. Therefore, statements advocating peaceful co-existence, statements deploring violence etc… made by various Muslim “spokespersons” are no more than tactical deception designed to prevent effective disruption of terrorist activities. The Church seems to insist on “meaningful dialog” with Muslim leaders, ignoring the fact that Islam relentlessly seeks hegemony.
3. The Church in its teaching allows for forceful resistance in self defense against terrorist or insurgent elements, but disallows for armed resistance by non-governmental organizations, e.g., individual citizens or groups of citizens, even they have reason to believe they are threatened by an enemy in their midst, cannot take any action against that enemy. Therefore, if government refuses to take action, citizens have no recourse for their personal survival but “vigilance” and prayer.
4. The Church, in view of the above stated points, disallows for waging effective war against Islamic expansionism, thus tending to result in the long term in Islamic victory.

Do I correctly understand the Church’s position? If so, do you agree in the conclusion (#4)?

 

[Scottgun]

Rather than fisk all those points, let’s for a moment assume they are as you suggest. In all seriousness, what is that to thee?

Scott

 

[Melvin]

Rather than fisk all those points, let’s for a moment assume they are as you suggest. In all seriousness, what is that to thee?

Scott

Oh, I don’t know. It seems that there can be serious conflicts between national patriotism on the one hand and remaining faithful to the Church on the other, for instance.

Although not everything can be considered in an either/or context, some things might have to be…A cannot be non-B and A be equal to B.

Obedience to Christ (which means obedience to the Church) requires that one must make sure that he or she correctly understands Church teaching in order to properly obey it and advocate it. Obedience to teaching correctly understood brings glory to Christ and results in the greatest good for all. Obeying what one believes to be true, if not true, can result in personal , communal, or even national disaster if followed by enough people (think individuals).

How’s that?

 

[PauloFreire2]

Yes, it will. We’re determined to be perfect pacifists, overlooking the critical history of the Middle Ages, which laid the foundations for Western Civilization. It was during this time WE FOUGHT Islam, to retain our European, CHRISTIAN identity. The Spanish fought Islam for 700 years for the right to remain CATHOLIC. BUT…in our disgusting idolatry of Political Correctness, we’ve refused to remember that. Instead, we naively believe we can have everything just that way we want it – peaceful, positive, kumbaya, lovy-dovy, ring around the rosie. Life doesn’t work that way. Islam has no intention of peacefully co-existing with anyone or anything non-Islamic. We are foolish in our ultra-modern sophistication. We are foolish to ignore our own history and the heritage it bestowed upon us. And now, this post will be duly deleted, for the reasons I’ve just cited.

 

[Scottgun]

Ok, I needed to kinda get a sense of where you were coming from. It seems there are many easy cases of taking matters of prudence and attempting to turn them into binding Church teaching.

For one thing, I don’t believe the Church only allows governments to offer resistance.

[2243](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2243.htm’) Armed *resistance *to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

 

[Melvin]

Ok, I needed to kinda get a sense of where you were coming from. It seems there are many easy cases of taking matters of prudence and attempting to turn them into binding Church teaching.

For one thing, I don’t believe the Church only allows governments to offer resistance.

Thank you, Scottgun, I appreciate that. The stakes are high for all of us, personally, as a nation, and for what remains of “Christendom.” May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

 

[manualman]

Well, do you have faith in your reason or in an omnipotent God? It’s an important question.

When I read posts like this, I wonder how many muslims the poster actually knows. Islam has problems, definately. A short perusal of my own posts will show that I see that.

But it is also made up of humans, i.e. good, but fallen beings. Even though Muhammed himself may be a better example of what NOT to do, Islam seems to contain more decent people than maniacs.

I think we are ill advised to try to triumph over Islam via military might. We can probably do it. But it is a pyrhicc victory, one that costs more than it is worth. Satan wants that. What he FEARS is that the West instead re-embraces the faith and evangelizes the Islamic world with BOTH words and deeds.

Easy to say and hard to do. But I don’t think militant alarmism about the mohammedan hoard is compatible with the gospel. Even if it DOES pose a threat to our way of life. Better to be faithful than ‘successful’, after all…

 

[bekalc]

Where’s your faith? If you think Catholic teaching will destroy us, aren’t you casting a major doubts on the Church’s infallibility?

I’m not against self defense, but I do disagree with attacking other nations (There is a difference there.)

You say, I look at Osama Bin Ladin and I see a lot of hatred there, and I look at the way we are reacting, and I see hatred there as well. I don’t think in the end we are going to be able to defeat terrorism by attacking Muslim countries and bombing those countries to smitherians. We will merely create more terrorism in the long run and more hatred. Hatred that could last centuries.
Rather, I think as much as possible we must respond with love as we were taught by Christ. This doesn’t mean we should’t fight back if they hit our countries, but it means that fighting should be our last resort. We should mainly try to find the terrorists and capture them.
Do you know how many Muslims were touched by our nation
s response to the Tsunami. It gave them a new way to look at the USA.

The way this is heading we are looking at a Total War? Is this something we truly want. With the type of weapons that exist today, we could destory each other or ourselves. I’m reminded of a Scripture verse that says, What happens if you gain the whole world but lose your soul in the process."

I realize that I’m sounding like a complete idealistic nut. But I’m coming from the perspective of thinking that perhaps the Lord really doesn’t care so much about the US surviving or Britian surviving. I think God mainly cares about our souls and having more people come to Him.

Let’s say the Islamics win the “military victory.” What is to stop us though from destroying them from within. Perhaps having Muslims take over Christian lands would cause more Muslims to come to the Lord.

 

[Melvin]

Where’s your faith? If you think Catholic teaching will destroy us, aren’t you casting a major doubts on the Church’s infallibility?

I’m not against self defense, but I do disagree with attacking other nations (There is a difference there.)

You say, I look at Osama Bin Ladin and I see a lot of hatred there, and I look at the way we are reacting, and I see hatred there as well. I don’t think in the end we are going to be able to defeat terrorism by attacking Muslim countries and bombing those countries to smitherians. We will merely create more terrorism in the long run and more hatred. Hatred that could last centuries.
Rather, I think as much as possible we must respond with love as we were taught by Christ. This doesn’t mean we should’t fight back if they hit our countries, but it means that fighting should be our last resort. We should mainly try to find the terrorists and capture them.
Do you know how many Muslims were touched by our nation
s response to the Tsunami. It gave them a new way to look at the USA.

The way this is heading we are looking at a Total War? Is this something we truly want. With the type of weapons that exist today, we could destory each other or ourselves. I’m reminded of a Scripture verse that says, What happens if you gain the whole world but lose your soul in the process."

I realize that I’m sounding like a complete idealistic nut. But I’m coming from the perspective of thinking that perhaps the Lord really doesn’t care so much about the US surviving or Britian surviving. I think God mainly cares about our souls and having more people come to Him.

Let’s say the Islamics win the “military victory.” What is to stop us though from destroying them from within. Perhaps having Muslims take over Christian lands would cause more Muslims to come to the Lord.

First, you are not an “idealistic nut,” unless all who trust in Christ in and through the Church, as He ordained, are idealistic nuts. Please understand that the purpose of my initial post was not to call into question the Church’s teaching, but to try to get clarification on it. My personal goal is to be obedient to the Church: I do absolutely believe that the Church possesses the Mind of Christ and is truly infallible, otherwise I would not be Catholic.

The scripture says somewhere that “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts.” (I may have that backward.) Ancient Israel went into captivity by the will of God as punishment for her sins. Perhaps we face the same fate for the same reasons. Maybe that is the will of God. The issue is, in regard to our predispositions regarding the current situation, exactly what does the Church, i.e., our Lord Jesus Christ, expect of us? What must we think, say, and do in order to be faithful to our Lord?

If I had a clear understanding on that point, I would not have to ask the question. That is what I seek.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Chancellare]

Obedience to Christ (which means obedience to the Church) requires that one must make sure that he or she correctly understands Church teaching in order to properly obey it and advocate it. Obedience to teaching correctly understood brings glory to Christ and results in the greatest good for all. Obeying what one believes to be true, if not true, can result in personal , communal, or even national disaster if followed by enough people (think individuals).

How’s that?

Nicely said. Church teachings emphasize “the greatest good for ALL”. If some people get slaughtered by terrorism, that’s not “the greatest good for all” at all. The question now is: How should Christians face expansionist hegemony of others? The clue of the answer was shown during the collapse of Islam in western Europe during the onset of Rennaisance period. Islam occupied Europe not because it was superior than Christianity but because of internal decay of western civilization starting with the fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent senseless internicine wars among petty empires of Europe which culminated in the sacking of Constaninople. If we fast forward to the 3rd millenium, only through patent stupidity will we allow our western culture to decay again and usher another Islamic domination. I say stupidity because we have started showing this decay already: Godlessness in the form of liberalism and relativism. Everybody knows that Europe will lose its own cultural and heritage without Christianity. But that is exactly what their governments are doing now: deny their Christian foundation and heritage. I say stupidity because that is exactly what Islamic militants want. And America is not far behind. If anything happens closely resembling the civilizational decay of the dark ages, blame it on the culture of liberalism and relativism - a tyranny of stupidity. (I apologize for the choice of words). That is not “the greatest good far all” at all.

 

[bekalc]

Nicely said. Church teachings emphasize “the greatest good for ALL”. If some people get slaughtered by terrorism, that’s not “the greatest good for all” at all. .

NO, but responding to terrorist attacks by bombing whole cities and villages, killing innocents and terrorists alike isn’t the greatest good of all either.

The UN just reported that over 34,000 Iraqi civilians died last year, over 36,000 were injured, and over 400,000 were displaced.

Far more Iraqi’s and Afghanis have died, than those who have died in September 11. And far more Palestinians and Lebanese have died than Israelis from terrorist attacks. This is something to think about too.

 

[Chancellare]

The UN just reported that over 34,000 Iraqi civilians died last year, over 36,000 were injured, and over 400,000 were displaced.

Far more Iraqi’s and Afghanis have died, than those who have died in September 11. And far more Palestinians and Lebanese have died than Israelis from terrorist attacks. This is something to think about too.

I’m also against any unjust war. But let’s be clear on our data here: The Iraq study group and Iraqi ground intelligence confirm that majority of the killings reported arise from ‘revenge killings’ and ‘blood killings’ which is perfectly normal in Islamic culture. So Sunnis against Shias, even Sunnis vs Sunnis and Shias vs Shias and families vs families are feeding the killing frenzy. The actual American initiated killings are mostly collateral and misconducts. The net killings due to American action is less than what we can admit. I don’t see the point of comparing vs 9/11. No comparison at all.

The point here: killing is not embedded in Western action; more on Islamic culture.

 

[bekalc]

I’m also against any unjust war. But let’s be clear on our data here: The Iraq study group and Iraqi ground intelligence confirm that majority of the killings reported arise from ‘revenge killings’ and ‘blood killings’ which is perfectly normal in Islamic culture. So Sunnis against Shias, even Sunnis vs Sunnis and Shias vs Shias and families vs families are feeding the killing frenzy. The actual American initiated killings are mostly collateral and misconducts. The net killings due to American action is less than what we can admit. I don’t see the point of comparing vs 9/11. No comparison at all.

The point here: killing is not embedded in Western action; more on Islamic culture.

No, but when we invaded Iraq, we destroyed institutions which kept Iraq stable…Many are turning to militias as a means of protection. So yes, the US bares some responsibilty for this mess. We entered into this without a way of winning the peace or providing security for civilians.

 

[dranzal]

I know this is an old thread, but it’s a topic that still applies to today. The only reason Islam is such a threat that opposing them with military might looks increasingly necessary is this: we have not been evangelizing. God has already provided a means for halting the spread of dangerously unhealthy cultures and religions by giving us the Truth and the Holy Spirit to aid in its delivery. So what if we’re scared that we won’t be able to sit comfortably within the sheltered boundaries of our daily routines much longer–we (especially me who is EXTREMELY guilty of it) should not have been doing that anyway. The apostles risked life and limb diving into places where they were extremely unwelcome to touch the few willing to receive the Truth from them. We should be gearing up to do the same. Instead, we are leaving the gearing up and evangelizing to Islam. Luckily, these forums are here to help us gear up and change that.

Also, get busy increasing our number by having lots and lots of kids! I may not be evangelizing more that a handful of times a year, but I’m practicing up in the forums to change that. But as far as making new little Catholics I’m doing my part!

 

[Chancellare]

No, but when we invaded Iraq, we destroyed institutions which kept Iraq stable…Many are turning to militias as a means of protection. So yes, the US bares some responsibilty for this mess. We entered into this without a way of winning the peace or providing security for civilians.

The Iraq under Saddam may have been more stable but the kind that gave USD 10 k to every family left by a suicide bomber; or the kind that killed whole villages who dared oppose Saddam rule, the kind who kept money flowing to militias in West Bank and Lebanon, etc. Yes it was stable before US put an end to THAT kind of Iraq. Now it is struggling to rebuild itself under civil strife and Islamic cultural conflicts and you lament why US put an end to Saddam rule?

 

[bekalc]

The Iraq under Saddam may have been more stable but the kind that gave USD 10 k to every family left by a suicide bomber; or the kind that killed whole villages who dared oppose Saddam rule, the kind who kept money flowing to militias in West Bank and Lebanon, etc. Yes it was stable before US put an end to THAT kind of Iraq. Now it is struggling to rebuild itself under civil strife and Islamic cultural conflicts and you lament why US put an end to Saddam rule?

So terrorists are no longer in Iraq? A democratically elected Iraq will never be an ally of Israel’s. It is far more likely to become an* ally of Iran’s*. As for Iraq and Iran supporting militias, no offense but the USA has no call criticizing other countries for supporting illegal militias, when we have done the same in other sovereign countries (why not talk to some Latin Americans about that one.)

I don’t agree with terrorism, but its not like Hezbollah was curtailed because Saddam was gone, nor was the Palestinians. And for the record, the Palestinians have never attacked the United States. Its mainly a civil war over there in Israel (fighting between two inhabitants of the land) and we already give one side too much advantage anyways. Perhaps if we stopped funding Israel’s military and giving the weapons. Perhaps it would force Israel to make concessions…

Who says that I’m sad that Saddam is gone. Saddam was a terrible jerk, and I’m not crying any tears for him. But the thing its not like Saddam wasn’t going to go eventually anyway either by death or being deposed by the Iraq’s. And perhaps the next government of Iraq would have been better and been able to uphold stablity in Iraq. Poland, the Soviet Union, Romania etc were all able to get rid of their cruel regimes without the United States invading them, and with a lot less bloodshed too.

Besides it seems to me that Iraq is more of a breeding ground for terrorism than it ever was under Saddam.

I find it interesting that John Paul II and Pope Benedict, both who lived under cruel regimes (JPII Nazi occupation and Communism) Pope Benedict (who was a teen in Nazi Germany) Both could probably relate to the Iraqis’ situation a lot better than most Americans, and both opposed our intervention in Iraq. This is something to think about when Americans extoll the virtues of invading other countries and bombing them, in order to grant them “freedom.”