The White Lily Blog


Rome Promotes Islamic Vatican II — Islam Shoots Back

Although Benedict might have trouble spouting the old ‘springtime of Vatican II’ fable in the West now, without stirring further theological skepticism, he and his bishops are continuing to promote full-bore Vatican II religious modernism in, of all places, the Middle East, where the war between secularism and Islam is fierce.  The results are not surprising. Muslims don’t like it, and, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, they shoot back.

US author and expert on the Islamic world Stephen Schwartz has written that secularism (and its theological counterpart, “religious liberty”) fuels the most radical elements in islam by spreading “confusion” among Chistians, creating an opportunity for radicals to agitate for the practice of sharia law. Opposing the liberalization of divorce laws in formerly Catholic Malta, Schwartz, himself a so-called moderate muslim, stresses in an EWTN interview that radicals target secularized countries with islamic minorities, fully aware of secularism’s weakness against them.

Nevertheless, Rome continues to push the old script. Last October 10, Benedict XVI opened a special assembly in Rome with 177 bishops and about 70 priests, called  “The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness.” 

Patriarch Gregorios III Laham of Antioch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church  summed up the liberal agenda for of the October meeting for Muslims present at a December follow-up at the 1st International Congress of the ‘Christian-Muslim Brotherhood,’ held in Damascus, Syria, thus:

“The following themes were the special subject of the Synod: living together, life together, citizenship, modernity, faithful laity, human rights, including those of women, religious freedom of worship and conscience, the construction of churches and places of worship, especially in Saudi Arabia, respect for others and their beliefs, plurality, diversity, rejection of fanaticism, violence, negative fundamentalism, extremism, terrorism, exploitation of others, especially weaker folk and minorities…”

The laundry list sorts into fewer categories, principally modernity and its opposite, fundamentalism or fanaticism. This is what the Synod said of modernity:

” ‘Modernity’ to most Muslim believers is perceived to be atheistic and immoral and a cultural invasion, threatening them and upsetting their value-system. Many do not know how to react to this phenomenon, while some fight against it with every fibre [sic] of their being. ‘Modernity’ has the power of attracting and repelling at one and the same time. [Only if your conscience is warped!] The Church’s role in schools and the media is to form persons who can distinguish the good from the bad in this area, in order to retain only what is the good.” (104).

So, it’s simple ignorance on the part of Muslims, that they protest when they see the ‘phenomenon’ of modernism coming down the street in the parade–they just don’t know how to react to it.  Let’s teach them.

What must Muslims living side by side with middle eastern Catholics make of this statement, “The Church’s role in schools and the media is to form persons who can distinguish the good from the bad in this area, in order to retain only what is the good” when they can see with their own eyes the church’s ‘expertise’ in this area?  If we were right in this approach, would not our Church be growing? But no. The church in the Middle East has no vocations, for example, and they admit it in the working document, like this:

“Despite these initiatives [to foster vocations], various factors have contributed to a vocation crisis: families emigrating; a declining birth rate; and a youth culture which is increasingly becoming devoid of Gospel values.” (Synod working document, op cit, p 14, # 22)

With that statement, the Church admits what any Muslim can witness daily: Catholics pushing ‘good’ modernism are unable to ‘form’ their own Catholic women from practicing birth control and abortion, and their numbers are being seriously affected.  Modernist Catholicism cannot teach its own people to ‘distinguish the good from the bad’ in spite of the Church’s former consistent traditional teaching on this issue, and Catholic women abort as often as any other populations, and often more. Modernist bishops are unable to teach their youth to ‘distinguish the good from the bad’ in popular culture, they cannot convince them to become priests, brothers, and nuns, even where unemployment is high, they admit in the document their youth are losing the sense of the Gospel, but they can teach Muslims how to do it right. It is simply as if the bishops said, Hey, we’re losing our kids, why don’t you lose yours too?

Here’s what else Muslims hear: And if you don’t volunteer to let us teach you these ‘new Catholic truths,’ well, the US military is right behind us.

The lure of secular society is unspeakably strong, Church leaders would be the first to admit. Yet they insist that Muslims may not do the more intelligent thing and, using democracy and not violence,  make practices contrary to Islam (and contrary as well to Catholic teaching) illegal in their own state, that is, where they are in the clear majority and exercise their democratic rights to select such a state. Here is what the bishops wrote at the Synod regarding the Islamicist religious state, and it should be noted at the outset that this has become the teaching of the Catholic Church only since the disputed Vatican II:

“Catholics, together with other Christian citizens and Muslim thinkers and reformers, ought to be able to support initiatives at examining thoroughly the concept of the “positive laicity” of the State. This could help eliminate the theocratic character of government and allow for greater Equality among citizens of different religions, thereby fostering the promotion of a sound democracy, positively secular in nature, which fully acknowledges the role of religion, also in public life, while completely respecting the distinction between the religious and civic orders.” (p. 15, item 25, op cit)

Here the bishops have rallied Catholics in the middle east to the public action of supporting concrete initiatives supporting secularism that the bishops know full well Muslims will “fight against” with “every fiber of their being.” The bishops prescribe the systematic and conscious elimination of the possibility of the government that has a theocratic character, just as Catholics did at Vatican II. This is to pit Catholics in the region against Muslims without ever demonstrating the truth of the assertion that Muslims have no right to a theocracy where they form the majority of citizens under the very rules of democracy that the West says it practices, and rarely does, and the church says it supports. The Church ignores the obvious contradiction, and the other in the comment that somehow a state that declares all religions equal will somehow ‘acknowledge the role of religion, even in public life.’  Where is that happening in any meaningful way in the secular world? 

The Church also exhorts Muslims living in the West to stop rocking the boat, because they are making traffic jams and upsetting commerce.  Father Samir Khali Samir, the Vatican’s mouthpiece to Islam, recently addressed the European problem of Muslims blocking streets surrounding mosques at Friday noon to pray together. They are aware that they are causing traffic problems and asked for the loan of Christian churches in the area. Here is Samir’s response:  No, Islam must change its prayer requirement to fit in with secularism, like Catholics did. “The Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church authorized the anticipation of Sunday Mass to Saturday evening, contrary to the whole Tradition [he admits it!], to allow as many faithful as possible to participate in the Eucharist” and Islam should do the same.  He continues:  “I think the Muslim community must make a serious attempt to accept that the religious phenomenon remains, as far as possible, a private affair. The more Islam moves in this direction, the less opposition it will find. This does not mean being less Muslim, far from it, it means being Muslim in a different, more inner, way.” And that subjugation not under a just Catholic state, which Muslims could bear, but under a secular state, which they cannot. 

That Muslims would prefer to live under a Catholic confessional state was passionately communicated on February 15, 2012, in an address by the Muslim Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a member of the current Conservative government led by David Cameron and head of the British delegation visiting the Vatican this week.  In an address given to future Vatican diplomats at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome, the Baroness said the entire continent was under threat from a “deeply intolerant militant secularisation,” and said that the danger lay in people diluting their faith and denying their religious heritages.  She remarked that she sends her own daughter to a strict Anglican school because it is more consistent with her Muslim identify than a non-religious school. Vatican Insider, reporting her words, called her advice ‘original’ but they haven’t been listening. On all sides are voices calling for the Church to wake up from her long sleep. The Baroness may not know we actually relinquished our claim to a religious state even where Catholics form the majority of the population. That is what SSPX is fighting against, in the demand that Rome re-eximine Vatican II.

So, under the banner of the Council, we continue to push religious liberty, and secularism, on Muslims.  They must think us daft, seeing how it has worked for us!  Our churches were not empty Sunday mornings, and now they are, and Saturdays too. Our society had a model of reserving Sunday mornings for worship, now there is no observation of any kind, and workers are forced to work all seven days a week, and statistics show they do. Kids little league games are scheduled Sunday mornings, always. We lost our concept of a sacred day, and Muslims must lose it, too. Father Samir’s solution is purely liberal, that faith must always yield to secularism’s uninterrupted traffic flow, and yet this approach has emptied our churches as Catholics practice their ‘inner’ Catholicism. Islam is watching and listening, Islam sees the reality. If only Samir would challenge us to fill our churches with Catholics! But no, although he does alude to some kind of flowering of the Council ‘in the future.’ (Yeah, yeah, yeah, right.)

Some are caving in to this seduction. It really sharpens the debate. Liberalism is strengthening in Islam and using the Catholic church to do it. Islamic liberals are conscious of the liberal ascendency in the Catholic Church, are communicating with it,  and are using it as a tool in their struggle against their own traditionalists, the ‘Islamicists.’  In January, influential liberal Muslim theologians released a document calling for Islam to move “toward modernity,” the same loaded term used by liberal Catholics, and the synod of middle eastern bishops, to avoid the term liberalism, already energetically condemned by the Church. The document called for twenty one points of modernization that might have come straight from the Vatican II playbook. Proposed was a truncated women’s lib platform, including more fraternization among the sexes, the elimination of those inconvenient prohibitions regarding charging interest, the rather strange demand that non-Muslims ought to be able to be at the very head of Muslim countries, and of course, always the center of it all, the disavowal of the religious state.  This salvo directed toward Rome was cheered on by liberal Catholic AsiaNews, who noted and dismissed the fact that, of the comments blogged after the publication of the document online, eighty eight percent of respondents disagreed with the modernization document’s recommendations: ” This means that the path of renewal will be long and require much time and effort,” wrote (Father) Samir Khali Samir. (And bloody. And expensive. Largely American blood, largely American taxpayer money.)

The alignment of objectives between liberal Muslims and liberal Catholics only re-focuses traditional Islam’s fury on those Catholic communities in their midst which have, prior to Christianity’s  capitulation to secularism,  lived for centuries in peace, and generally, in spite of colonial residue, giving western faiths a heavier influence than their sheer numbers warranted, under the cultural and political dominance of Muslims whose faith is more or less unofficially represented in their respective governments, just as a pale Christianity was visible in the US constitution. Now Muslims want unambiguous religious states and are rejecting the quasi-democratic governments inherited from the break-up of the explicit colonial empires.

That muslims want religious states is not unknown to us, if we look. The Gallup Poll, Who Speaks for Islam, what a Billion Muslims Really Think from 2008, in which a billion Muslims in all countries were sampled, summarise their findings this way:  the majority of those surveyed want religious leaders to have no direct role in crafting a constitution, yet favor religious law as a source of legislation 

And how do the liberal bishops answer them? With the received answer from Vatican II, as cited above: you have no right to this, you must learn to value a secular, pluralistic society like we do.   Furthermore, we as Catholics will work against you politically in united action. Item 25, p 10, op cit, but it bears repeating:

“Catholics, together with other Christian citizens and Muslim thinkers and reformers, ought to be able to support initiatives at examining thoroughly the concept of the “positive laicity” of the State. This could help eliminate the theocratic character of government and allow for greater equality among citizens of different religions, thereby fostering the promotion of a sound democracy, positively secular in nature, which fully acknowledges the role of religion, also in public life, while completely respecting the distinction between the religious and civic orders.”

The western reader knows from experience that a state that is secular in nature will never acknowledge the role of religion in the life of the state,  because it must preserve equality among all the religions is allows to operate ‘in the open,’ which is the meaning of “public life.”  There is no ‘positive secularism’ anywhere in the world. The reader knows the court cases that one by one have taken down the crucifixes from the walls of our civic buildings. They know the most recent case in which a grandparently Christian couple were denied the role of foster caregivers by a fully-grown secular state, explicitly because they were Christians and thus inexorably poised against homosexuality. The number of ways Christians are marginalized in their secular cultures grows every day.

As a related aside: one must beware of the use of the Church as an accessory legitimizing secularism, as in the most recent ruling in northern Italy permitting the crucifix to remain on classroom walls .  Rome expressed great ‘satisfaction’ at the decision, as the Vatican Information Services (March 19-21 digest) because the decision recognizes Christianity’s cultural, historic contribution to Europe,’ which is not a bit different than the old priest at the lovely (and empty) little mission church in Mascota, Mexico, telling the elder ladies they’d better be seen praying the rosary Saturday afternoons, because ‘the tourists expect it.’  It makes no difference–it is worse, in fact, a mutated fascism–that a cross is on the wall of a classroom where secular values are being taught. We know what those values are, self indulgent sexuality,  professional, life-long agnosticism, indifference, and castration of religious fervor–spiritual death. How does it matter that the thug who mugs you is wearing a cross? That the Holy Father expresses his satisfation with such emptiness is heart-breaking.

Much more persuasive is the force of secularism, whatever icon is permitted in the decorating.  The reader knows equally well also what happens to the public perception of the truth of any particular religion as a result of the forced equality in a secular state. If they are’ all equal,’ they are all equally unimportant, is how our children like to put it,  just before moving in with the samesex boyfriend, or into concubinage, unencumbered by a single civic protest, thanks to our wonderful free society. (Next stop, hell.)

But here we have all trotted out again, in the liberal synod of bishops of the middle east, the same Vatican II language and solutions to modern problems which have not worked at all in the West. We have no peace, in the West.  In the West, we never rest from our weary efforts at ‘forming consciences.’ And now, thanks to the fruits of an uncontrollable laicity, we have no economy either, having aborted all our future buyers and producers, over fifty million in the US alone. But let’s offer it anyway, that being the party line since–and only since–Vatican II.

And if the western reader knows this, have much more do Muslims know it? Because it is being offered to them on a bayonet, which does tend to bring out the sharpness of the focus on a subject.

A better solution? Just as the Church called back the traditional mass from oblivion, let us also call back the approval in principle of the religious state, with a new motu proprio that spells out the essentials regarding the True Faith’s primary right to the religious state, but acknowledges other religions’ legitimate desire for the order and security afforded by this civic form.. As with the traditional mass, let the religious state be a legitimate option in the eyes of the Church where the majority of the population wishes it. It was not only a legitimate option before the Council, it was the only option of choice for Catholics, if they had a choice in the matter. Hold as a requirement Islam’s own promises regarding tolerance of other faiths (here is a link  that summarizes these explicit promises, which the synod acknowledges throughout the working document are already honored in most places in the middle east under the various ‘shades’ of ‘theocracy’ presently existing; basically one may worship but not evangelize, and a link below shows functioning, not fantasy, workarounds of evangelization at least as robust as those found in Western society in our ‘free societies.’).

In practice, this means the Church should stop criticizing ‘fundamentalism’ among Muslims, should stop calling for ‘religious freedom,’ should if pressed explain that they expect the religious state to be an option for Christianity wherever it may be attained. This is not to say that the Church should stop criticizing terrorism.  The Church should begin to support Muslims’ struggle against practical secularism wherever these coincide with Catholicism’s, which are many: anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-pornography, generally pro-marriage although Islam tolerates divorce so that we would have to educate them by the fidelity of our marriages, an apt way to form consciences, if we really want to. In Pakistan one of the groups in the loose coalition that form the public opinion base (enabling the kind of assassinations suffered recently by the Catholic minister of government) the Catholic church in the area is not a supporter of the anti-pornography campaign being pressed forward by ‘fundamental’ Islam,  and the Holy Father’s loud recent criticism of the principle of a blasphemy law (rather than the alternative, pleading for mercy in its strongest applications)  is well known, just as well-known as his contradictory crocodile tears over the loss of respect for God in Europe. His comments have fueled enormous demonstrations in Pakistan in support of the law.

Such a policy, admittedly, would put the Church in a society dominated by another religion, one which might and probably will, now that hostilities have grown to the breaking point, restrict the Church’s evangelization. This fact should not make the alternative, war with Islam, a given. In terms of restriction of proselytism, there is some evidence (from the practices in the formally Islamic state of Kelantan in Malaysia) the Church would suffer little in an Islamic state with which She enjoys good relations, especially given that the Church’s own guidelines in place in the middle east and in the whole world, in fact, that nothing should ever be uttered or written that another religion might find ‘offensive’ [section on Ecumensim, working document op cit], and also that most evangelization should by principle be performed through deeds, not words, in service to one’s family and community.  That self-imposed restriction is tighter than the Islamic practice in Kelantan, which formally forbides evangelization yet tolerates various initiatives. Here is a link as to how Buddhists manage to evangelize anyway, through means accepted by Islamic government state of Kelantan. Catholics there do not appear to participate in any of the opportunities afforded under the Islamic state to invite non-believers into the Faith. 

Such a policy would force the Church to awaken from its dependence on the historical role of Christianity in Europe, and realize that St. Paul was not joking, it’s a horse-race, and we’d better be in it to win it. Are they praying in the streets and upsetting traffic because their mosques are so full that they’ve had the nerve to ask for the loan of an empty church or two? Better fill up those churches with Christians. And if we can’t, at least stop whining about Islam and admit the liberal policies of Vatican II are a failure and have come close to destroying our Faith.

Traditional Catholics in particular ought to be parsing the situation quite differently from our novus ordo compatriots, after a warning given by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in an as-yet unpublished manuscript fortuitously available to the author.

“These two motives for condemnation [of rejection of the very concept of the religious state as discussed by Pius IX and Leo XIII] are absolutely general; they follow from the truth of Christ and of his Church, from the duty of the State to recognize it, and from its indirect duty to promote the eternal salvation of the citizens, not indeed by constraining them to believe in spite of themselves, but by protecting them against the influence of socially professed error, all things taught by Pius IX and Leo XIII.

“If today, circumstances having changed, religious plurality demands, in the name of political prudence, civil measures for tolerance, even of legal equality between diverse cults, religious liberty as a natural right of the person, in the name of justice, should not be invoked. It remains a condemned error.”

The author hopes by this incomplete post to raise the issue among traditional Catholics, which presently may be said to make of Islam an exception, just as the liberal Church does; for the liberal Vatican, Islam is the exception to their determined and idiotic ecumenism, and the proof of the lie, as DICI just pointed out;  for traditional Catholicism, apparently Islam is the exception to the otherwise just principle of the horror of the secular state, the justice in principle of the religious state. No citations will be offered, but the evidence showing traditional Catholics promoting religious freedom as long as it is in Islamic territory is not too difficult to find on otherwise laudatory websites, including SSPX ones.  One must wonder what enables this kind of approach to the problem. Is it racism, this automatic hatred of all things Islamic? More likely historic–the crusades! As if today’s secular crusades were for Christ and not chaos.  If traditionalists yield principle in the drunken euphoria of sharing ‘one with the boys,’ this little crumb of common bond with Rome in the long exile, it will come back to haunt us.


11 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Liberals growing in Islam? This is crazy. Islam is a religion based on submission to God’s will, completely.

Comment by thebulgarianshrugs

Sir, I was going to ignore your comment because you don’t refer to the links or any of the evidence I assembled. But then I thought, this is exactly what Catholics think when confronted with the fact in our our own Faith. But sir, yes, there is a fierce struggle inside Islam to liberalize it. You really should refer to the ‘letter of the 138’ to Benedict XVI, and you will see the face of liberal Islam. Item number one: re-write the koran. This fight has been going on in all the churches. It is heading toward a synthesized (wherever possible) and tamed state church controlled by the state, as in China. Do you know what is meant by liberal and liberalism? It is a specific philosophical school, with many faces, and we are so immersed in it here in the US that we can hardly recognize it, it’s like breathing.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

WL, I agree that we should have more religion in politics in this country, that a Catholic political party would be a good thing, and that militant secularism is deadly for a culture. I also agree that much of what has been proclaimed as ‘Catholic thought’ since VII is at best badly misguided and at worse positively destructive, but I will not believe for a second that radical Islamists pay a tiny bit of attention to what the Vatican says or what the synod of Mideast bishops says. Radical Islamists want power, they feed on hate, and that hate is based on the most superficial of views of western culture (which, ironically, our troops report they are voracious consumers of, especially porn and drugs). They don’t read a stupid statement issued by some synod and say “this demands revenge, let’s go kill some Christians!”, they kill Christians because they are convenient targets. I can assure you bin Laden and his ilk don’t know the first thing about Vatican II or the changes that came from it, and they don’t care – they hate the US and Europe based on TV images of sex and wealth and technological superiority that all feed massive Muslim inferiority complexes in all these areas. Another thing – Islam is culturally and socially repressive, and very controlling, which you seem to admire, but that is only on the surface. Under the surface, Islam seethes with more vice than an Amsterdam brothel – read the stories of our troops being disgusted with the widespread male on male child rape that goes on in Afghanistan, or the 90% genital mutilation rates in Egypt, or the fact that many top Islamists and shieks, etc, spend hundreds of thousands a night in Bangkok ladyboy bars.

This dichotomy you’ve set up is simply false – a virtuous Islam protecting itself, and doing no more than reacting to, a rapacious, secular West forcing itself on Islam. Give me a break – then they should turn off their satellite TVs, that’s where they get their idea of the West from. By the way, satellite porn sites are most profitable and most subscribed in Arab countries.

I don’t get this fascination, or whatever it is, you have with Islam. You can pretend all you want that Christians “do reasonably well” under Islam, but the facts speak for themselves – there is only one country in the entire region stretching from India to Morocco with a growing Christian population, and that country is Israel (I’m discounting sub-saharan Africa and Poland). Christians don’t do well under Islam, Christians can kinda sorta function, if they shut up and keep their faith totally private, if that country is ruled by a nominally secular, authortarian government. Outside of that, it’s been doomsday for quite some time – beginning well before Vatican II, with the rise of Arab nationalism in the 1930s.

By the way, the ‘grandestrategy’ site is an Islamist site, it is hopelessly biased and I would judge has no credibility to accurately assess how Christians ‘fare’ under Islam. It is dedicated to establishing a global Islamic Caliphate. As far as how a tiny community of Buddhists fares in one state in Malaysia, that is hardly an example that applies to Christianity or the problems of Arab contact with the West.

A few counter examples – in France, Sweden, and other places in Europe where Islam has achieved enclaves with a local dominance, white women are routinely gang raped and otherwise attacked for not wearing the hijab or burqa. In Saudi Arabia, carrying a Bible is a death penalty offense. In Iran, likewise. If you live under sharia, you will be at the complete whim of whoever the LEAST radical local imam is. Good luck with that.

After concluding my rant, I’d like to make a confession. I like you. I like you alot. But you distress me with this seeming obsession with Islam and how wonderful it is. I wonder if this isn’t based on a strong desire for imposed social order, no matter what the cost. Something to think about.

Comment by tantamergo

One more thing, if you had made your points without reference to Islam, they could have been very effective at arguing for a return to Church Doctrine supporting Catholic religious states. But the Islam thing is off-putting for a number of reasons, not just that the examples that you cite are, I think, quite wrong. Sometimes I sense you want to score points against Vatican II more than advance a way forward to a better vision of Catholic dogma and living an authentic Catholic faith. It’s not going to go away – we just have to figure how to move forward with what has occurred in the past and build something much, much better. But counting on Islam to play nice is not a path to follow, because it is fantastic.

Comment by tantamergo

I just want a religious state–or rather, the blessing to struggle for one. I do not say we could trust islam. I say the Church should grant them the right to their (authentic) religious states where they have their majority–and give us back our right to do the same, in so doing. That takes us out of their crosshairs, and it gives us a real platform with which to fight secularism instead of the swamp where we stand now. This IS a way to move forward. What else do you see? Will electing more Republicans actually help our economy, with their aversion to the very regulation we need? And electing more Democrats is of course not even on the table, although it is to a whole lot of Catholics. We have no options presently! Whether we can or can not ‘trust islam’ is not important. They are not going to kill us more for allowing them a religious state. How could they hate or kill us more than they are doing now? Unless you really think we should keep all these dictators in place to “protect” Christians, along with our economic interests of course!

The only way to fight islam is to rein in the US and all the other international money interests, and that means reining in all the rest (their use of sex to drug our people!). How can we do that, given the premises of the secular state????? How can we ask for one here, and at the same time trash it there?

I would not be so intent on Vatican II if it was not the worst move politically of the century. Now look how it’s allied us to secularism. The Patriarch who introduced the synod to the ‘Catholic-Muslim Brotherhood’ at that link I gave said his worst fear was exactly what was happening, that Christians in these areas would be politically identified with the West. He identified Palestine as the rub point. It is not. The perfectly valid and reliable Gallup poll, at the link I gave, found that the flashpoints were the moral decadence of the west and the denial of their wish for a religious state. They used huge samples. They had no axe to grind, to my knowledge. (Muslim images of us are not false, tantum! Our country has gone way wrong! We have to fix it, for your daughters’ sake. And VII is at the heart of what’s wrong, in its view of ecumensim, of the religious state, and of collegiality.)

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

This is all beyond me as I look to ‘get informed’ on the subject of Islam, Catholicism, and modern culture. You both have valid points, but I have a tendency to agree with tantamergo. The Islamic state just does not allow for civil disobedience! The reason for lack of vocations in Islamic states is that there are very few if any Christians left. They have been forced out or slaughtered. I think back to the crusades and speculate what the ‘unwritten’ history might be. Did Islam back then provoke the wars because they killed Christians wherever they were among them? Did Europe and the church go there because the saw the writing on the wall. Did Islam back then, want to take over the world as well as the Christians?! Is this same struggle ‘something not so new” today? I cannot but think history is again, in the process of repeating itself. This is more than ecumenism and reaching out to other faiths like Islam. It is, so it seems, a survival of the fittest; all based on the idea of not so much of who has the right religion, but who will prevail in coming battle? I PRAY I am wrong, But, it is truly all a tragedy in the making.

You have both given us a lot to think about. Thank you both.

Comment by Bill

Thanks for your comment. As usual I think I tried to say too much. The point is, Islam–moderate Islam, if that could mean middle class Islam, not ignorant koran thumping low class people– wants a religious state and so should we, not criticize the desire for one, principle as Vatican II began. Our only hope is the religious state. But by making you think this a continuation of the old war with Islam, they will enlist you on the side of sercularism. Our great war now, ours, not islam’s, is with secularism, not islam. Satan has got almost all Catholics, including many SSPX faithful, on the side of imperialism (because of abortion and our need to have anti-abortion candidates to fight it) and its ‘free market’ instead of traditional Catholism’s support for a religious state which cares for its poor, and secondly on the side of the secular state instead of the religious state. Of course Islam is a false religion. We lived in peace with it for centuries. And by the way, there are so few Christians in the middle east because they are not reproducing, or are seeking to get richer in the West and emigrated–the last fifty years, not the last five years. Not because of religious persecution. There is real antagonism now–because Catholics are supporting imperialism and secularism, flat out ugly liberalism, in the region now.

Please read the synod document. They say what I am saying, they don’t try to make out the problem is the repression of an out-reaching active Faith. They out-reach exactly as much as they do in the US–not at all. Because of ecumenism, not islam. But they–and you–will put this on Islam and send young Americans to die for it. How convenient for big oil, big finance.

That’s my point. What do you think tantumergo’s point is, regarding that thesis?

We need a third party yesterday.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

Bill, I’ve been thinking. It’s about us and secularism, not us and islam. You, bottom line, have made enough peace with our nation and our laws and our political life that when I shrilly suggest that Catholics are dying not for the Holy Faith but for secularism and ‘our way of life,’ you’re not sad. This doesn’t cause you to leap out of your chair in indignation. You think it’s a fight with islam about religion because it doesn’t bother you so much that the lines are blurred. You think of our nation as a Christian nation–we just have to win one court case, the one that keeps the ten commandments on the courtroom wall, just like the Holy Father was ‘satisfied’ yesterday that ‘they’ ‘let’ the cross stay on walls in Italy’s classrooms. And he was satisfied. There is no follow-up agenda, like a Catholic economic program (one exists) or a roll-back of any of the civil laws legitimizing homosexuality (the Church both called for this legislation and still supports it) nor a roll-back of RoeVWade. The post-Vatican church is ‘satisfied’ to be an accessory around any thug’s neck. A cultural relic, loved enough to be financially supported. Comfortable, so comfortable.

So–I’m not talking to you. You have a long road to go. I’m talking to my fellow SSPX-ers. Because they sign off on support for the man who wrote ‘They Have Uncrowned Him,’ Lefebvre’s cry against the secularization of the state. And yet they circulate the same religious-freedom posts as the rest of the world. They are more anti ‘fundamentalism’ then anybody. They attack those’ ignorant Muslim’s first and fierce-est.

But I would ask you–how can you be satisfied? Come stand outside the good old abortion mill next Saturday. Maybe you can say, not my daughter. Yeah right. And not just abortion, all the rest of it too.

Not me. I need a dream that it could get better. I need a dream that we could wake up. I need to think the children I have brought into this world will have a more peaceful and just society than ours, not through socialism or through consumerism but through Catholicism. To deny the struggle for the Restoration–which is what VII constituted–is to give up and settle. To some, it’s ‘settle for less, so what, grow up.’ For me, it’s ‘settle for a horror during life and souls lost after life to the ultimate horror, and I can’t stand it. No way. After you give up the dream of a Catholic state, every subsequent choice–sucks.

We need a religious state. We need a third party now to get there. The longer we wait, the greater the deficit. Everything gets paid.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

Dear WL:

As promised here is what I think.

You have the same problem as I do, your post runs long. My problem is that when I start running long, new themes start creeping into the narrative. Then it becomes hard for the reader to focus on one very important aspect since the next one is just around the corner, or in the next paragraph which is likely the case. Sorry, but you “axed” me. 

As to the subject matter itself, I see you mention Archbishop Lefebvre. What I find particular appealing in his response to Vatican II is that he didn’t generalize about why VII is evil, but rather targeted this critique at its underbelly, i.e. collegiality, religious freedom, kingship of Christ etc. This left his arguments very hard to refute, since by entering into the discussion, the neo-modernists were already conceding defeat. Hence the advent of the Bologna school. Excuse the digression…

As to Islam, I think that traditional Catholic teaching is
adequate to address this issue. Islam is not so much a religion as a military/social/economic structure. It uses a divine entity to basically plug the holes that the practitioners limited understanding of “objective reality” does not provide them. Or to put it another way, they are still waiting for their Aquinas. This leaves the followers of Mohammed basically in the same camp as the protestants and the Modernist, i.e. with an emotional attachment to a divine being and small t tradition. But no supernatural Faith. Sole scriptura, vital imminence, the Christiology debate and so forth are good examples.

Therefore, on a “religious cum cultural” level, I am not surprised that the Europeanized Imams try to be accommodate to their host culture or their financial backers. Their economic and financial well being is riding on it. As to their brother Muslims in the “old country”, those Muslims do not have the social safety net, therefore,nothing to lose. And 77 virgins could be just right around the corner. Actually the lower class, welfare drawing Muslims (≈80% of population) in Western Europe are also in the latter boat. Their future is very bleak since they either can’t or don’t want to assimilate, so they turn to alternative social structures to gain relevance. ISIS comes to mind. Remember, Islam is a very male oriented “religio- ideology” and no society can have a large population of males with free time on their hands. Think China.

As for the Christian communities in the Middle East who have abandoned Catholicism for NewChurch, this was a suicidal decision. And now the VII chickens are coming home to roost. And yes, the obvious responsibility needs to be placed on the Church hierarchy, and the blood of these Christian martyrs is on their hands.

As to positive elements within Islam per se, I think that what you are referring to are just the basic innate instincts that all humans possess. After all, we all were created by a Catholic God. Since the Muslims have not been able to develop an advanced society, their behavior patterns are still for the most part based on survival instincts needed to function in an environment ruled to a larger degree by natural law. In totalitarian (read primitive) regimes, possessing survival instincts is critical. Think the Francis Vatican as a case in point. In other words, there is no “philosophical” underpinnings to their social philosophy or organizational structures. Nothing in the order of a “common good”. Nothing really worthwhile to “rescue” either. Incidentally this is the same position that the Vocogna community has come to with the vapid no-modernist theology. Their only hope for advancement is conversion to the ONE TRUE FAITH. And this goes for the VII church as well.

As to your appeal to “modernity” or more succinctly to the monied forces that stand behind secular humanism, so that they “ease up on Islam” it is at best misguided and at worst naïve. To the secular humanists, the Muslims, just like the rest of humanity are nothing more than laboratory rats. We are their play things, like silly putty or play doo, for them to mold and shape according to their own vision of how “it should be”. For them to give up this pursuit, they would be giving up their raison d’etat. And they won’t do that. Any more than the neo-modernists in the Vatican will give up NewChurch and the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”.

I will stop there, since I ran long also.

Pax Christi,

S.Armaticus

Comment by S. Armaticus

You are very kind to have responded to my request! To read something so long must count as Lenten almsgiving.

May I comment on your observation that “the obvious responsibility needs to be placed on the Church hierarchy, and the blood of these Christian martyrs is on their hands.” It was an important point to me, especially since the hierarchy is working the situation in a variety of ways–support for Vatican II, donations, and most notably political energy toward war with Islam, as if it were a Christian crusade, when it will be in reality a crusade for abortion, homosexuality, the whole economic and sex socialism–or by now sex fascism–agenda.

But regarding ‘my appeal to modernity or the monied forces that stand behind secular humanism to “ease up” on Islam,’ I don’t know where I did that, and it would not have been my intention at all to do that, as I agree with you that they are not going to change their goal or methods. My appeal is to us, to Catholics, even more particularly to traditional Catholics (because liberal Catholics seem more and more given to outright support of the sex-socialist agenda, and as you suggest, almost beyond reason on these issues), and it is that we stop supporting the war machine and turn to the reform of the Church. Perhaps you are aware of the enormous interest among traditional Catholics in fighting ISIS, the discussions on forums and twitter, people enlisting in militias (some militias with good intentions, defensive, but given the direction in the Middle East and indeed around the world for people to begin to come together in religious groupings, like a counter-diversity movement, perhaps the best thing would be for Christians to leave that area, and the best thing for us to work out where we Catholics wish to concentrate and work to bring them there, although many of these Middle Eastern Christians are much of the liberal, contracepting kind–but we shall have to work with this kind of Catholic to reform the Church and that is what keeps me in SSPX, because they haven’t abandoned that mission in spite of pressure from within from our sede ‘resistance’). Us trads are my audience. Perhaps I ought to go back to the piece and try to find the part that gave you the impression I was talking to our hierarchy. Not that we shouldn’t–but in all politics, in all situations, our only hope is to reform the Church, wake Her up to leadership in spiritual warfare, which has a civic component. The concept of Christ the King has a social app.

Thank you so much for your comment, and for your many efforts toward the same goal I yearn for, the Restoration of everything in Christ. I am ashamed at my length–even in parentheses, as you can see. I do have a sci fi novel coming out with much shorter sentences on these same issues. In it sincere Muslims find they can live better in a Catholic state than in a secular one. On an asteroid. There are some insincere Muslims in it that may keep me off the fatwa list.

I ask something else of you, a prayer. Just one, you’re a busy man!!

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

Dear WL:

Thank you for contacting me, and please consider me a friend. Any time you want to run something past me, don’t think twice.

As to the Church, WE MUST BE SPEAKING to the hierarchy. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre always did. The “genius” of the man was that he found a manner in which he stayed in the Church and yet resisted. This came from having a thorough understanding of the institution itself. Even when he consecrated the bishops, the neo-modernist couldn’t make a move without creating a rupture with Tradition. And he always spoke with the hierarchy at every opportunity that he got. We must do likewise.

As to your target audience, here again we must try to reach everyone. A good friend of my DEM blog (Mundabor) once told me to write as if you are writing to the Blessed Virgin. It was sound advice, since one could really go off the rails easily, especially in an news cycle that moves as fast as this one with Francis. Also please keep in mind, that it is the Holy Spirit who is working through us mortals to “restore all things in Christ”. He is the one that has positioned his forces against the evil one and his agents the neo-modernists. He has people of good will inside the Church, in the religious communities, in the SSPX (His main force) and also in the SV communities. Please keep in mind, that regardless of our differences, we are all working toward to same end. So charity, above all is needed when communicating in general, since you never know who the recipient will be, and what kind of impact your message will have on him.

And finally, as to the Muslims, just like with the Jews, heathens and pagans, we must convert them. It is the Great Mission that was given to us by Our Lord. We must be respectful, but they need to know what our true intent is. None of this silly encountering crap. And it is only through “honest” dialogue that we an all exist in peaceful relations. We can’t expect to save them all, ( pro multis, yes?) but at least we need to be upfront about it. As to the Christian communities, I am 100% for the reactivation of the Religious Orders. These Faithful need to be able to defend themselves on the ground and where they live. They cannot allow themselves to be uprooted, since if the radicals get away with it, then we will be next. Just like Our Lord, Peter and the sword.

Pax Christi,

S.A.

Comment by S. Armaticus




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s