Would the Pope ever criticize Islam or Muhammad now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dronald

Guest
In the past, the Catholic Church has used its Theologians and Apologists to counter false Prophets and false ideas with strong language and long documents. I’m reading Augustine, and he strongly condemns many false beliefs; just like Aquinas condemns Islam in harsh terms. It seems like Popes and councils continued to call Muhammad false, as well as his Religion for centuries. Now however it seems in an effort to respond in love; the Catholic Church tiptoes around criticizing Islam.

So unless I’m missing something (and I may be) would the Catholic Church still write any kind of Apology against the false Religion that is Islam, as well as the false prophet that is Muhammad; without fear of labeling it as such? Or are we beyond that?
 
There are all kinds of theologians within Catholicism criticizing various aspects of Islam and Muhammad. There is no blanket restriction.
 
There are all kinds of theologians within Catholicism criticizing various aspects of Islam and Muhammad. There is no blanket restriction.
Sure. But would the Pope now ever endorse someone’s work specifically regarding the criticism of Muhammad as a false prophet or Islam as a false Religion. Or again, is the CC beyond that now?
 
Sure. But would the Pope now ever endorse someone’s work specifically regarding the criticism of Muhammad as a false prophet or Islam as a false Religion. Or again, is the CC beyond that now?
Why would the Church not do so? I don’t know what you mean by “beyond that,” as if the Church can change reality?

I think basically this ground has been covered, and the Church is concerned with other issues now.
 
In the past, the Catholic Church has used its Theologians and Apologists to counter false Prophets and false ideas with strong language and long documents.
“Long documents” is an interesting term. I have certainly seen strong language come from the Magisterium against false teachings. Some documents on the subject are long, some are short. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continues to produce documents identifying and refuting errors in theological books and calling on heretical authors to recant or be punished. For example, here is a Vatican document which condemns a false theology book and identifies its errors. Here is another with an associated commentary. Here is one where the Vatican describes its interaction with a heretical priest and nun; they both refused to recant certain heretical teachings on sexuality, so the Church in that document punishes them by forbidding them from certain pastoral positions in the Catholic Church:

“[We] declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent…are doctrinally unacceptable… The ambiguities and errors of [their] approach…have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the Church. For these reasons, [they] are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.” source

To me, that is pretty harsh language.
I’m reading Augustine, and he strongly condemns many false beliefs; just like Aquinas condemns Islam in harsh terms. It seems like Popes and councils continued to call Muhammad false, as well as his Religion for centuries. Now however it seems in an effort to respond in love; the Catholic Church tiptoes around criticizing Islam.
I don’t think so. Here’s a paragraph from St. John Paul 2’s book Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitively been set aside. [Paragraph break.] Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. … [The] tragedy of redemption is complerely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity. … [But we should still] have a dialogue with followers of the ‘Prophet.’ " source

To me, I think that is pretty harsh language, especially coming from an ecumenical pope. I especially note how the word Prophet is put in quotation marks. (He does it again on page 43.) Mohammed is not a true prophet, he is a “prophet.” (I checked the Italian original, the one written by the pope himself, and the quote marks are in that one too.) And there are also well-received Catholic apologists who write lengthy works against Islam, such as Robert Spencer of Catholic Answers.
So unless I’m missing something (and I may be) would the Catholic Church still write any kind of Apology against the false Religion that is Islam, as well as the false prophet that is Muhammad; without fear of labeling it as such? Or are we beyond that?
Robert Spencer still labels Islam a false religion and Mohammed a false prophet. St. John Paul 2’s document quoted above essentially does the same thing. Other Catholics who loudly fight Islam include Walid Shoebat. I don’t think Mr. Spencer or Mr. Shoebat have endorsements from the popes, but I think at least some of their books have imprimaturs from their bishops. So yeah, it still happens.

I hope this helps. God bless!
 
In the past, the Catholic Church has used its Theologians and Apologists to counter false Prophets and false ideas with strong language and long documents. I’m reading Augustine, and he strongly condemns many false beliefs; just like Aquinas condemns Islam in harsh terms. It seems like Popes and councils continued to call Muhammad false, as well as his Religion for centuries. Now however it seems in an effort to respond in love; the Catholic Church tiptoes around criticizing Islam.

So unless I’m missing something (and I may be) would the Catholic Church still write any kind of Apology against the false Religion that is Islam, as well as the false prophet that is Muhammad; without fear of labeling it as such? Or are we beyond that?
The Pope should speak the truth in love. Muslims worship the same God as Christians just as Jews do. That doesn’t get them off the hook with regards to accepting Christ as sole mediator between God and man. Some well meaning folk have made the mistake of thinking that folks of other religions do not have to accept Christ. So long as they perform good works, we can reasonably assume they will go to heaven. If I recall, Martin Luther waxed eloquent on that particular view.
 
To me, I think that is pretty harsh language, especially coming from an ecumenical pope. I especially note how the word Prophet is put in quotation marks. Mohammed is not a true prophet, he is a ‘Prophet.’ (I checked the Italian original, the one written by the pope himself, and the quote marks are in that one too.) And there are also well-received Catholic apologists who write lengthy works against Islam, such as Robert Spencer of Catholic Answers. Robert Spencer still labels Islam a false religion and Mohammed a false prophet. St. John Paul 2’s document quoted above essentially does the same thing. Other Catholics who loudly fight Islam include Walid Shoebat. So yeah, it still happens.

I hope this helps. God bless!
Thanks for the very well researched post (of which I only quote part of here.) My impression is that the Catholic Church used to consider Islam to be an outright heresy, but has changed that harsh position since Vatican II (without, however, going so far as to recognise Mohammed as a prophet.)

Pope St. John Paul II on 2/24/00: “Islam is a religion.”

Tim Staple of Catholic Answers: “The question is do they [Muslims] worship the same God we do. The Church says, ‘yes.’”

It is my understanding that JP II worked over the period of his papacy to build better relations between the Church and Islam. Continuing to label Islam a “heresy” is not conducive to that goal.
 
Thanks for the very well researched post (of which I only quote part of here.) My impression is that the Catholic Church used to consider Islam to be an outright heresy, but has changed that harsh position since Vatican II (without, however, going so far as to recognise Mohammed as a prophet.)

Pope St. John Paul II on 2/24/00: “Islam is a religion.”

Tim Staple of Catholic Answers: “The question is do they [Muslims] worship the same God we do. The Church says, ‘yes.’”

It is my understanding that JP II worked over the period of his papacy to build better relations between the Church and Islam. Continuing to label Islam a “heresy” is not conducive to that goal.
They do worship the same God but they reject Christ’s divinity and His role as sole mediator between God and man.
 
Dronald, I think you’re onto something but I think you’re wrong to see this as a specifically Catholic issue. Our society in general (Edit: excepting some segments of it of course) tends to “go easy”, if you will, on Islam, while raking Christianity over the coals.
 
Thanks for the very well researched post (of which I only quote part of here.) My impression is that the Catholic Church used to consider Islam to be an outright heresy, but has changed that harsh position since Vatican II (without, however, going so far as to recognise Mohammed as a prophet.)
Several thoughts come to mind.

First, I think it is a category error to call Islam a heresy. A heresy is technically defined as a post-baptismal denial of some part of Catholicism. “Post-baptismal” means that in some sense only a Catholic can start a heresy. Non-Catholics can start false religions, though. All heretical religions are false religions, but not all false religions are heresies. Hinduism, for example, is a false religion that is not a heresy, and that is easy to see since it is older than Christianity. With Islam is less easy to see that, since it was formed after Christianity was already around and it includes some Christian ideas. But technically Islam does not fit the definition of a heresy so it counts as just another false religion.

Second, the technical definition of heresy is not the only definition. Heresy has another use in Church history – a broad category for religions that teach something false about Jesus. Islam does teach false things about Jesus, so in this broader, non-technical definition I think it still counts as a heresy. More recent authors who describe it in this way include Hilaire Belloc, who died in 1953 and included Islam in his 1938 book “The Great Heresies.”
It is my understanding that JP II worked over the period of his papacy to build better relations between the Church and Islam. Continuing to label Islam a “heresy” is not conducive to that goal.
I completely agree with the first sentence. With the second I think it is defensible, but I think one can be a good Catholic and think otherwise, especially if you consider the non-technical definition of heresy mentioned above. If you merely mean that it does no good to call Islam a false religion, then I disagree. I think there can be great good in calling Islam a false religion, or a heresy in the non-technical sense. But it won’t do much good to go to an ecumenical meeting and say, We think you Muslims believe in a false religion. Only if that came in a certain part of a broader conversation could that be helpful, in my opinion. We ought to build our relationship with Muslims on things we have in common, at least I think so, and I think that’s what the Church has classically tried to do. But there are many occasions for saying Islam is false, and we need to be forthright about that when the situation calls for it.
 
We are not beyond labeling Mohammedanism as a false religion. It is still taught that Mohammedanism is a false religion with a false prophet, but the current Holy Father usually doesn’t speak of other religions in these terms.
 
Pope John Paul II:

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.

From Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

MJ
 
We are not beyond labeling Mohammedanism as a false religion. It is still taught that Mohammedanism is a false religion with a false prophet, but the current Holy Father usually doesn’t speak of other religions in these terms.
I think he sometimes does. This article summarizes a non-English interview the pope had in March 2015. Part of the interview discussed the growth of “prosperity gospel” churches in Latin America, and the pope discussed how these differ from other evangelical churches:

“[T]he Pope [made] a distinction between honest and good evangelical movements and those that are considered sects. For example…some originate from the theology of prosperity - [they] promise a better life and, although they appear animated by great religious spirit, eventually they ask for money.” He noted: “Christian evangelicals also reject them.”

(Note: that’s not an actual quote from the pope, it’s a quote from the summary. I cannot find the complete original interview or any selections that match this description. I Think the complete interview is Supposed to be on this page.)

In the actual quotes, the pope probably distinguishes “good evangelical movements” from prosperity churches, implying that the latter are not good. He probably uses the term “sects” for them and he probably says that Catholic and evangelicals both reject them. I don’t know what exact words he used since I can’t find the original interview, but the summary makes it seem equivalent to calling them false religions and makes him sound strongly opposed to them. Especially the word “sects,” which seems to me to carry a very negative connotation, similar to “cults” in English.
 
I think he sometimes does. This article summarizes a non-English interview the pope had in March 2015. Part of the interview discussed the growth of “prosperity gospel” churches in Latin America, and the pope discussed how these differ from other evangelical churches:

“[T]he Pope [made] a distinction between honest and good evangelical movements and those that are considered sects. For example…some originate from the theology of prosperity - [they] promise a better life and, although they appear animated by great religious spirit, eventually they ask for money.” He noted: “Christian evangelicals also reject them.”

(Note: that’s not an actual quote from the pope, it’s a quote from the summary. I cannot find the complete original interview or any selections that match this description. I Think the complete interview is Supposed to be on this page.)

In the actual quotes, the pope probably distinguishes “good evangelical movements” from prosperity churches, implying that the latter are not good. He probably uses the term “sects” for them and he probably says that Catholic and evangelicals both reject them. I don’t know what exact words he used since I can’t find the original interview, but the summary makes it seem equivalent to calling them false religions and makes him sound strongly opposed to them. Especially the word “sects,” which seems to me to carry a very negative connotation, similar to “cults” in English.
Thank you for sharing that. I am glad to hear that he does speak against false religions (to some degree).
 
Thank you for sharing that. I am glad to hear that he does speak against false religions (to some degree).
You’re welcome. He has also spoken about the insufficiency of “yoga or zen courses,” noting that "none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God). Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say ‘Father.’ " source Both of those, of course, are forms of eastern religion.

He has also spoken out against certain superstitious spiritual practices that some people look to instead of Christianity: “In order to solve their problems many people resort to fortune tellers and tarot cards. But only Jesus saves and we must bear witness to this! He is the only one.” source
 
In the past, the Catholic Church has used its Theologians and Apologists to counter false Prophets and false ideas with strong language and long documents. I’m reading Augustine, and he strongly condemns many false beliefs; just like Aquinas condemns Islam in harsh terms. It seems like Popes and councils continued to call Muhammad false, as well as his Religion for centuries. Now however it seems in an effort to respond in love; the Catholic Church tiptoes around criticizing Islam.

So unless I’m missing something (and I may be) would the Catholic Church still write any kind of Apology against the false Religion that is Islam, as well as the false prophet that is Muhammad; without fear of labeling it as such? Or are we beyond that?
The answer to this is that the Pope is inspired. The Pope has picked up on the New Spirit that has embraced mankind.

That is there is only One God and that All the Major Prophets from God. It is great to have such a Pope in a time like this.

God bless him with a long Life and the spreading of much of this wisdom of Oneness. 👍

Thus why would he consider rejecting Muhammad.

Regards Tony
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top