I demur. What is meant, first of all, by extremism? I exclude their desire for a religious state. Every intelligent human being realizes the benefits to the society of a religious--i.e. coherent--state, even though the protestant rebellion has greatly confused Christians on the matter. I exclude also their code of punishment. It certainly does seem harsh to us, but we are equally harsh, in our pity and sympathy for the transgressor, on his victims. Honestly, we could stand to see some executives take a public whipping. Also cheaper than incarceration. But there's a larger objection. Their enormous reaction to blasphemy (as in the Charlie Hebdo assassinations--that was a response to blasphemy, I think that's understood)is perhaps not entirely under their control, and justifiably, by every old code of common law. Every attempt is made daily to provoke them, as the Holy Father pointed out (that is the first good thing I've had to say about him! or Barack Obama, either, for not attending that Charlie lovefest in Paris). And they are not conquerors in France, or Denmark. They did not invade. They were invited because the indigenous are too lazy, too sensual, too liberal to reproduce. (That ought to be the title of something, 'too liberal to reproduce'.) It should not be a surprise that certain people in the Israeli machine make a living either provoking or popularizing reaction to the likely results of such provocation.And the final thing, to me, is that our Church itself is also provoking them beyond all endurance by our own failure to register the slightest discomfort, let alone protest, with the execrable depictions of sacred figures in our own Faith. Do you know how they have shown Our Lady? I cannot say it. And we do nothing! THIS is what we call civilized???? THIS is what they want us to go to war in the Middle East for? (Not in Europe, no. Angela Merkel hasn't the slightest intention of doing anything whatsoever about Muslims in Germany, you may be sure--they are the underpinning of German survival!)(Uh, sorry, profits!)So forgive me if I do not think the Koran is the actual problem. It is useful to wave it around and shout and beat the drums of war about, though. Nor do I think, the newest diversion over at the fauxtrad machine, that the 'feminization of the Church' is what I want to hear associated with Cardinal Burke, and I will not 'support' him in a poll asserting such. Even if it's true he said it.It is not Islam or woman who is the root of our problem. That is the fault of the Council. Its redaction, its clarification by the pope in absolute, in traditional terms, is the solution. See what happens when the Church stands up again! War in the Mideast will solve nothing, nor will another good loud round of woman-bashing.
Janet,Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks. I agree with your closing remarks that the ultimate problem we have today stems from the Church not measuring up to what the Church should and could be if she awakened to her proper legacy and task in the world.Granting that, my post here has a narrower focus on Islam, related to my own evolving thinking about the challenges it poses. In the first place, it's intended to solicit input on a question in my own mind about whether the distinction between "moderate" and "radical" Muslims is adequate. David Wood, among others, suggests that it's not.I agree that Charlie Hebdo should have elicited Catholic protests long before these Muslims started killing their representatives, even as I protest their methods as of a piece with the ever-growing series of Muslim wanton beheadings and other acts of cruel violence in the world. I'm not sure the frequent Muslim charge of "blasphemy" is altogether accurate in reference to the "prophet" Mohammad. He was only a man, not divine, as Jesus Christ is -- which is all the more reason Catholics ought to protest authentic blasphemy perpetrated against Christ! (Louie Verrecchio has a critical analysis of this issue here: http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/jones-zmirak/.As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceable people who couldn't imagine perpetrating such acts of violence themselves, but by the same token the vast majority of terrorist acts in the world over the last several decades have been committed by Muslims -- and there is not sense in disputing the fact.In that sense I wonder (not a settled conclusion yet) whether the problem in Islam isn't so much "radical" Islam but Islam itself, or the Qur'an itself, or Allah himself as conceived by Mohammad. And, yes, I think the Qur'an is a problem (even if it's not directly related to problem of the Church standing on her own Sacred Tradition): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1XdjGlWA_8.I agree also that "woman" is not the problem as far as the Church being true to herself, although I think you would agree with me that effete clergy and feminized parish can do little to help matters. But that's as much a problem of the male hierarchy capitulating to perceived pressures of politically correctness than anything perpetrated by women as such.Finally, thank you for linking your name to your blog, which has allowed me to discover a delightful and substantial new blog whose posts have already begun captivating my imagination!
Hey, Pert! Must we use the word feminine in this way? Have you not encountered a little frustration with romance language speakers who just can't understand why we English cannot see a bridge as thoroughly feminine? In fact, our parishes have been 'masculinized,' if you count protestantism as a masculine ideology, and I do, and I offer as proof the great number of English men who caved in right away and stayed caved in even when they had a chance to come back--but their wives did not cave in, and the historian John Bossy says it was because Catholicism was better for women than the new faith was, and Catholic women knew it. About Islam--the Koran simply is not our principle problem at the moment, flawed as it is. And of course they can't really be protesting blasphemy, not really, since they aren't the true religion. No religion except ours can truly protest blasphemy. But that is not the next thing that will kill us. You know what that is. Don't we have to stay focused? And I really resent the slur on women by calling a heretical Church 'feminized.' I hope St. Catherine or St. Joan or little Margaret Clitherow come down and throw some heat.Going anonymous, faster. But it's me! : )
Those described as terrorists are the most faithful acolytes of the perfect man Mahomet who was the apotheosis of a religious extremist and those killers are also they who actualise the putative commands of Allah as recorded in the Koran.http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/138-jake-neuman/1546-muhammad-the-first-islamic-radical.htmlO, and all of those peaceful Mahometans, they will not lose their heads protesting against Sharia if it comes to a country of which they are immigrants; rather, it is the duty of all Mahometans to work for such a day - and immigration is part of Jihad but what prelate will ever tell you that?
Hi, Pertinacious Papist, I just wanted to mention that I had to choose a name for my (new!) publishing company (of only one book!) in order to move forward with printing, and I chose Malapert Press. You will notice the link to pertinacious! Malapert means 'bold, saucy,' and Rorate Caeli, who blocked my twitters henceforth, would agree the mal part means 'all that not always in a good way'! That WOULD be me.Going back home now, nice to stop by.
I propose that we adopt Raider Fan's approach and call Muslims "Mahometans," and even call Islam "Mahometanism." After all, it's the comic portrayal of "Mahommet" (not Allah) they're calling "blasphemy." It will probably irritate them, just as traditionalists are irritated by being called "Lefebvrites."
Post a Comment