Rorate Caeli

Pope says "yes" to Koran in European classrooms

At least according to Jürgen Rüttgers, Prime Minister (Ministerpräsident) of the wealthiest and most populous state (Land) of the German federation, North Rhine-Westphalia, as reported by La Stampa.

Rüttgers, who had an audience with the Pope yesterday, told the Holy Father what his government has been doing in North Rhine-Westphalia (Koranic teaching for Muslim children in public schools, taught by instructors trained in Germany), and declared that "the Pope has maintained the need to teach religion to the new generations and to strengthen this subject in the schools, even for Muslims", in comments that have amazed the Italian press.

80 comments:

Simon-Peter said...

Don't believe it.

New Catholic said...

Believe?...

This has been a burning issue, especially in Italy, since Cardinal Martino defended that Koranic doctrine should be taugt to Muslim schoolchildren in Italian public schools. Which is why the comments of the German politician regarding what Benedict would have said have caused great surprise in the Italian press, as if the Pope had "taken Martino's side".

Simon-Peter said...

I know. I was just reading a summary in Latin Mass magazine.

I still don't believe the heir of Peter would actually sanction this...until I see it.

Who will save us from these troublesome priests?

JAM said...

It does seem a bit suspicious. All the Holy Father is quoted as saying is that even Muslim children should have "religious instruction."

Perhaps others are reading too much into this statement?

Simon-Peter said...

If you have a copy of the latest Latin Mass magazine available there is an article on "The Tactics of Subversion", pp2-3, by Father James McLucas.

"So, the 40 year strategy to alter the traditional Catholic teaching is still unbroken, - why change a successful set of tactics? The orchestrated collaborative public drumbeat of allied progresive prelates, theologians and journalists has worked almost falwlessly since the revolt of the Rhine alliance [and where IS Nord-Rhein-Westphal?] of Bishops in the opening days of the Second Vatican Council..."

This article treats the latest backwards forwards viz aids / condoms / humvitae and the heresy of English priests.

All this on top of the resistance of the NeoCats, LOC, Skylstad-McCarrick et al, delayed translations of his offical pronouncements...BXVI is getting serious resistance.

GOOD, that means it's working, to a degree.

Also p4, "Roman Landscape" by Alessandro Zangrando which looks at his glorious wonderfulness Cardinal Martino. Please read the articles together if you can. Together they offer some persepective on this apparent story.

Anyway, when NC says, "This has been a burning issue"...if only ;-)!

New Catholic said...

I agree, it is part of the overall "Progressive" strategy: all we have is a report of a report of what the Pope would have said -- which is inconsistent with certain positions expressed by the Pope recently. This is how the "progressive Catholic" Italian intelligentsia has been working since the days of Blessed Pope John XXIII...

Bernado said...

Of course I don't know what the Holy Father really said. But he surely knows how things are going in germany these days: Most children of muslim families attend "koran-schools" for some hours at friday and saturday.

The teachers there are usually very uneducated "mullahs" from Moroc or Turkey, who even don't speak german or another european language. They teach the kids to memorize the koran in arabic - what most of the youngsters don't understand - and tell them the meaning as they anderstand. Some of these koran schools have been known to be hotbeds of extremists, even terrorists.

For most politicians in germany "islamic instruction" in governmental schools is just a means to keep muslim children off these koran schools.

JAM said...

If you have a copy of the latest Latin Mass magazine available there is an article on "The Tactics of Subversion", pp2-3, by Father James McLucas.

Unfortunately I don't ... if you have a way to fax/email/mail me a copy of just those pages, I would be most appreciative.

Screwtape said...

Oi Vai!

So what's not to believe arready?

The only question left where Rome is concerned is whether we are dealing with schlemiels, shlimazels, kasriliks, or schmucks.

Whichever, Se shtinkt!

Simon-Peter said...

Okay.
JAM, NC has Jeff's email, I think. You email NC your fax#, NC emails it to Jeff, Jeff emails it to me, I fax you the pages.

And we think Rome's got issues.

"Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance."

Ephraem said...

This hould not amaze. You can hardly badger a secular state for religious teaching in public schools only for Christians. A secular state has no established religion - that's the whole idea of it. A religious Freemarket concept. This was the most important innovation of VII - whether you agree with it or not.

Simon-Peter said...

Ah yes, the only absolute is there are no absolutes.

Deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil. It is a religion of nothing, nihilism, evil.

Actually, wow! there's an article about THIS too in the latest Latin Mass, pp10-13 "The Tradition of Nothing Worship" part 2 (part one last month). This is borderline prescient.

Okay, okay, JAM I'll fax you this too :-). AND part 1. Hang on, tell you what, would you prefer I scan everything and send it all to your Lumen Gent@yahoo email address? Just let me know.

******************************
No, I do not work for etc Latin Mass Magazine.

I have been a subscriber for the last 2 years. I will be renewing.
This is a list of contributors.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/about/about_staff.html

Publisher: Keep the Faith, Inc.
Editor-in-Chief: Father James McLucas
Managing Editor: John W. Blewett
Associate Editor: Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Art Director: Ronald W. Lawson

Contributing Editors
Father Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P.
Ronald P. McArthur

Contributors
Elizabeth Altham • Matthew M. Anger • Father William Ashley
Father Ignacio Barreiro • Bishop Eugenijus Bartulis
Father David R. Becker • James Bemis
Father Jerome Bertram, O.P. • Laura Berquist
Marie Siobhan Boland • Patrick Buchanan
Father James B. Buckley, F.S.S.P. • Count Neri Capponi
Francis Carey • Matthew Childs • John Clark
William Coulson • Thomas J. Craughwell • H.W. Crocker, III
Leo Darroch • Michael Davies • Michael de Tar, M.D.
Brett Decker • Patrick Delaney • William Doino, Jr.
Thomas A. Droleskey • Father Raymond V. Dunn
Alice Thomas Ellis • Father Evaristus Eshiowu • Edwin Faust
Christopher Ferrara • Father Sean Finnegan
Father Kevin Fitzpatrick • James K. Fitzpatrick
Father Robert Fromageot, F.S.S.P. • John Galvin
Lord Brian Gill • Cecile Bolling von Goetz
Richard Cowden Guido • Norris Harrington
Father Brian Harrison, O.S. • Father Ignatius Harrison
Kathleen Howley • Kenneth Jones • Father Peter Joseph
Hermann Kelly • Joseph Kung • Susan Lloyd
James Lothian • Dino Marcantonio
Father Anthony Mastroeni • Thomas McArdle
Andrew J. McCauley • D. Q. McInerny • Diane Moczar
Father John Mole, O.M.I. • Thomas Molnar
John Muggeridge • Anne Roche Muggeridge
Father Gerald Murray • George Neumayr • John Neumayr
Steve O’Brien • Julia Ann O’Sullivan • James Patrick
Father John Perricone • Jonathan Peters
Robert Phillips • Father Joseph Ponessa • John C. Rao
Father Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. • Bishop Fernando Rifan
Michael Rose • Jeffrey Rubin • Claudio R. Salvucci
Msgr. Rudolf Michael Schmitz • Msgr. Richard J. Schuler
Virginia Seuffert • Janet Smith • Father Russell E. Smith
Thomas Gordon Smith • Joseph Sobran • James Spencer
Alfons Cardinal Stickler
Donna Steichen • Duncan Stroik
Robert A. Sungenis • Steven Terenzio • Jeffrey Tucker
Daniel Van Slyke • Alice von Hildebrand
Tom J. Walsh, M.D. • Bruce Walters, M.D. • David White
Father Alan Wilders • David Williams
Father W. Ray Williams • Charles M. Wilson
Kieron Wood • John Wooten • Alessandro Zangrando


Yes, you should subscribe :-). They'll send you a free one, or two, to start you off if you ask nicely.
1-201-327-5900
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/

MacK said...

JPII gave his assent for the grand mosque in Rome to be built; he prayed for St John The Baptist to protect Islam when he was at the mosque in Syria; he fraternised with imams at their level and, of course, he embraced the koran.

Pope Benedict XVI declared early on in his pontificate he would be following in his predecessors affliction of "ecumania nervosa" therefore we should anticipate literally anything which militates in this direction. We have to understand that when the church apostasises The Faith it will do what it likes. Today's Epistle for the feast of St Basil to Timothy Chapter IV is a sobering reminder.

Anthony Burgess wrote that in renouncing itself as the church militant it gave way to Islam. The last pope fulfilled this view to perfection.

Simon-Peter said...

Yes. We know. Now what.

Screwtape said...

" A religious Freemarket concept. This was the most important innovation of VII - whether you agree with it or not."

Yes! Right! It's called heresy. Which makes you . . . ?

I don't like it??? God doesn't like it! I don't come into it at all; except, er, to take notice.

Remember God?

Note: regarding S-P's list of contributors list to Latin Mass magazine, there should be an amendment. Alas, Alice Thomas Ellis is dead. She wrote a wonderful little book titled God Does Not Change. I believe it was published posthumously - at least in this country. A certain Ephraem should memorize it. She also said in a book called The Serpent on the Rock that Vatican II was no damn good.

All her novels are worth reading - she was one of our real literary treasures and so few know it.

MacK said...

Indeed, One does remember someOne of that name - He used to be in The Church didn't He?

Simon-Peter said...

GK Chesterton, "The Everlasting Man."

Perspective. This is nothing new. It is the same old same old with a different hat.

Anyway JAM I'll send you these articles tomorrow.

Simon-Peter said...

Try this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,1796160,00.html

Beltrán María Fos said...

Sorry Mr. Simon-Peter: Even if you don´t know me and I am new on this blog: would you be so kind to email me also those interesting articles from latin magazine?

Simon-Peter said...

Sure, but I need your email address. I will email them tomorrow once I have scanned them...after I have fixed the roof and stuff from the storm.

Are you Argentinian? Your blog URL hinted at it, and I couldn't find an email address. There is a man who blogs here originally from Argentina. Haven't seen him for some time.

proklos said...

Perhaps there is something I am missing. Is the Pope supposedly agreeing that Muslim children should be given religious instruction in their own faith? I do not see the problem here. After the nuns so miserably messed up my early education, I was sent to a protestant episcopal boarding school but received religious instruction from a Catholic priest in the neighborhood. I was also released from attending their protestant services. If the Pope is agreeing that Catholics should learn about other faiths, again I do not see the problem. Today, our world is too small for us to be entirely ignorant of other people's religion. This is especially true in the case of Islam that looms so large upon the world's stage and is now right in our midst. We do not want our children to be in the position of the woman who puzzled about the so-called "holocaust" said, "I can't see what the problem is with the Jews; after all we all worship Jesus, don't we?"

Jeff said...

I think I agree with Proklos. What do the Protestant and Jewish kids get in public school in Germany? Surely, they get instruction in their own religion? Westphalia is traditionally Catholic, but the "North Rhine" region of the Land has been historically Protestant, hasn't it?

If the choice is between instruction in each major religion in public school or no instruction in religion, I would imagine arguments on both sides could be made. Hard to make an argument for teaching Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, but not Islam...

I imagine ol' Ratzinger knows a lot more and has thought more deeply about all this than any of us.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Religious instruction in Europe today is not what we Americans mean by religious instruction.

In Europe it means historical and cultural studies, kind of like a social studies course on a particular religious tradition. Thus in Italy children do not lear their catechism in religious instruction in the public schools, so much as they learn about the cultural and history of Christianity.

Infact, many parishes in Italy require our version of CCD for children before receiving, for example, first communione, because pastors regard the so called religious instruction as worthless.

If B16 means religious instruction in this sense, he is only refering to muslim students learning about their own religious history and culture. That's not the same as saying that he wants them to be muslims, in the theological sense; only that vis-a-vis a secular state (Germany) he is emphasizing the universal natural right that the parents of children dictate the principles of their education, not the secular state.

Screwtape said...

Are we sure Br. AB isn't a Jesuit?

What he says gets an "A" for sophistry.

For those who really need an explanation, ask Simon-Peter - not because he's good at sophistry but he's a hell of a lot more adept and patient when it comes to explaining the obvious.

You're welcome S-P. I make my living doing such favors.

Ephraem said...

Samizdat, Just making an historical point, not a theological one. If you want to categorise an ecumenical council as heretical, go ahead, but you probably need to be a little more refined in your arguments.

MacK said...

The culture & history of Christianity? Oh! does that mean catholic children learn we are to blame for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, "martyrising" Galileo, persecuting the Albigensians, ruthlessly imposing catholicism on everone undemocratically and propagating anti-semitism by militantly proselytising The Faith everywhere and clandestinely supporting fascism and consequently the Holocaust during the second world war? Do they also learn that Judaeism is the foundation stone of Christianity and not Our Blessed Lord and that they are our elder brothers in the faith blah, blah, blah....yawn!

One can understand why modernist pastors find religious instruction worthless since most modern programmes of instruction are just that. In France, "Pierre Vivantes" is one such programme. Furthermore, many modern clerics do not understand the Catholic Faith anyway - I have heard the most abominable ignorance and jungian bunkum come from NO presbyters. Many of them seem to think that the church was founded in the 1960s as they know almost nothing about it or its doctrines before John XXIII. One of them in France imagines Padre Pio refused to say the Bugnini service because he was too old to change. No wonder they all believe, as does Benedict XVI, John Paul II's phenomenological quantum leap that Muslims are our brothers in the faith and the huh..hum!....sons and daughters of Abraham....blah,blah,blah..yawn! This modern church is sooooo boring it is understandable why the pews are emptying out. Some of those leaving are converting to Islam. Thanks to papal benedictions their children will be able to learn about their newfound faith easily enough in "catholic" schools.

Simon-Peter said...

I think we all need to help one another. This is most interesting, the "psychological aspect", as Poirot might say.

Carthage must be destroyed.

Can you please cite the authority that parents have the RIGHT to teach their children lies: that they have the RIGHT to deprive, or facilitate the deprivation of their children of their ultimate good through indoctrination and exposure to practical wickedness.

Carthage must be destroyed.

I expect that such authority would be clear from the beginning of time, should be multiple, and should be easy to find.

Carthage must be destroyed.

There are nine ways...right?
1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By partaking.
8. By silence.
9. By defense of the ill done.

I choose none of them.

Carthage must be destroyed.

A good peace is always better than a good war. But a good war is always better than a bad peace. This detente between Christendom and Islam is a bad peace.

Carthage must be destroyed.

In the meantime I happen to think that National Socialism a la Wewelsburg should be taught in schools, after all, there is SOME truth in it and hey, what is truth anyway? Right?

What's wrong with feeding millions of humans on a slow drip of strichnine (well, at least it says FDA approved, or it says it says so)

or

letting them loose in a drug store where everything is without labels

or

labeled incorrectly,

or

where the head druggist does a Willy Wonka - "oh, no, please, no stop, no, really, stop" in a barely audible and unconcerned voice.

Carthage must be destroyed.

Poor old Adolf and his prophet Herman: if only the Reich would have lasted a 1,000 years who knows, perhaps the same tired, bewildered old men Chesterton talks about would be thinking and acting the same way they are today vis a vis the NSDAP.

Carthage must be destroyed.

There's nothing like seeing the sincerely clueless, and depressed, and bewildered waving a piece of paper talking about "peace in our time."

Carthage must be destroyed.

"But, but, but, Simon, there's some truth in it." Even Satan believes. The point is...?

Carthage must be destroyed.

Would you let your children or neighbours drink water containing in excess of 10ug/L of arsenic, or 50ug/L etc and say, "well, at least 99.9% of it is water."

How noble. Yep, that's the spirit of Lepanto for you!

Carthage must be destroyed.

The West is bored, sodomized, drugged, irrational, tired, clueless, flailing around and utterly incapable of focusing on an enemy that God has painted a bullseye on.

Carthage must be destroyed.

Compared to the issue of whether the Pope is a / the Pope and all that jazz, this is simple stuff.

Carthage must be destroyed.

Islam is from the bowels of Satan and either they convert, or, should be deported at the point of a bayonet if needed. If you won't try to convert them, or they refuse, then don't be surprised at what WILL happen: Islam is as Islam does: a murderer from the beginning. Just a little Barabbas, right? Can't do any harm.

Anyone for leaven?

Carthage must be destroyed.

The idea that Jesus and Belial can peacefully coexist is that in scripture / tradition or both?

We are all concerned about Catholics in Muslims countries? But is it based in a false charity? Sincere, but false. It seems to me that there may be an exchange here: Catholic temporal life for Muslim eternal life. So long as Catholics don't lose their temporal life, we're prepared to play fast and loose with the souls of Muslims in the West? Is this the bargain?

Carthago delenda est.

ThePublican said...

Allright Simon-Peter! Since you invoke my Argentine name and rise me from my blog slumber (and distract me from the world cup, to boot!), now you must send me a copy of the articles, too! Should you get a copyright lawsuit, I'll defend you.

You have my e-mail. Good luck tomorrow, England. T&T stopped mighty Sueden.

Simon-Peter said...

Deadful England performance in the first game.

And T & T are an old colony so this is going to be a sad one, unless there is a draw.

Screwtape said...

Ephraem:

This is not a medium for refined arguments. On the other hand, the blatant heresy of, say, Dignitatus Humani, just to mention one item, hardly needs subtlety. There is NO WAY it does not directly contradict the teaching of the Church of the Ages on the subject. There is a consistency in the defense of that diabolical Council on the part of those who attempt to defend it. You all seem to carry the same rubber stamp around in your pocked and bring it out at the least provocation.

See the eleven-volume works of Atila Sinke Guimerães and the book by the late Michael Davies on the subject. A look at the de fide document titled Dominici gregis wouldn't be a bad idea, or, for that matter, the Syllabus that Ratzinger turned upside down all by his ownsome.

There has been more than one Council of the past later declared null and void. This one will be also when sanity returns.

Simon-Peter said...

I wouldn't mind, but the revisionist Islam-lovers in the Church even play with the Mother of God, thinking (actually, either lying or speaking with a reckless disregard for the truth) that Our Lady of Fatima (remember her? "Only I can help you", the one being ignored by Rome) has got something to do with God approving of Islam. No, it has something to do with exactly the opposite.

The reason Fatima is called Fatima is because it was the birth name of a Muslim princess who CONVERTED to the One, Holy, Catholic & Apsotolic faith.
[hint, avoid the Blue Army].

Anyway, the white flag was raised by the enemies of the Mother of God back in 1965. Before then in Saint Mary Major close to the tomb of Pope Saint Pius V, was an Islamic flag taken from Lepanto. In 1965, it was "returned" to Istanbul.

Sound familiar?

Into the Valley of Death rode the Six hundred...only to find out their O.C. had sold them out to the enemy for a pair of sunglasses and a rave review in the New York Times.

Simon-Peter said...

Men are not angels. We learn through temporal succession...

...and after 40 years of such succession...

...the fact that it needs a man like Father Brian Harrison OS to try to harmonize DH (and with limited success) despite the fact that VII was convened to open things up (how, by making them imposssible to understand or apply?), is sufficient to condemn it

if not as a vehicle for actual material heresy,

then

as a vehicle for practical material heresy,

and

if not practical material heresy,

then

as simply "void for vagueness" which is a very old, common sense doctrine in contract law.

fathermark said...

You people really don't get it, do you?
Why do countries like Germany permit the teaching of Christianity in schools? Because it's true? No, because it is the religion of a large number of people, and it is judged desirable that they should be able to pass on their faith to their children through the school system. THe presence of a large number of Muslims means that according to this logic, that privilege should be extended to them. If it is not, then the principle itself will be put in jeopardy. In other words : denying religious education to Muslims will be the spearhead of a secularist attack on the teaching of ANY religion in public schools. That is why far-sighted Christian leaders like B16 are defending the Muslim's rights to pass on their faith to their children through the school system they finance through their taxes; they know that if they don't, we will be next.
Another point to bear in mind is that if Muslim children don't receive religious education in their faith at school, there will be more incentive for them to turn to the Islamic schools, which are hotbeds of extremism.
But I suppose you can't expect too much in the way of objective reasoning from readers of Latin Mass magazine...

MacK said...

Just to finish what you were saying...stating...suggesting....intimating - once the muslims are in a majority by 2050 then they will take away the very right that has been extended to them. Oh why oh why are the idolators of democracy unable to perceive the very flaw in their minimalist world view? Sounds like the rise of Nazism all over again.
[note 70 million more of them at a stroke when Turkey joins the EU].

Simon-Peter said...

I note how you fail to answer the question, but then answer it by stating that Muslim's do have a right to lie to their children, and the state has a right to faciliate this, being, naturally, exempt from both the natural and revealed Law.

How telling that you state that Christianity is not taught because it is true, but because it is expediant, because it is "desirable."

In this you actually invert what the Pope thinks you dunderhead: the presence of Muslims affords a practical opportunity over the long term, but teach Jesus because it has the addded benefit of actually being true. You, being a true NO Catholic and ipso facto not grounded in either the faith nor reason extend this to some bizarre ontological right for teaching lies and blasphemy and the doctrine of devils and then ascribe it to the Pope! Outrageous. I disagree with the Holy Father in method, sure, but not by all that much: you, in attempting to defend him actually defame him.

The Truth is not essential, not necessary, but merely "desirable" and who made that judgment? What do you make of EENS? Just a rotton Florentine dogma that should be thrown in the trash?

Pathetic.

"The presence of a large number of Muslims means that according to this logic, that privilege should be extended to them. If it is not, then the principle itself will be put in jeopardy."

Logic? What logic? What's the syllogism exactly, do tell, enquiring minds would like to know. Principle? What principle?

And now it is a privilege, not a right? Something permitted? Permitted? Well, which is it, a right or a privilege? It's a right you say...it's a right AND a privilege you say. So it's a privilege / right that the state, the god that you and your ilk worship, the god of democracy and confessional pluralism, permits Christianity to be taught because it is desirable to produce good little Germans who will look to the state rather than God and boogie woogie at werld yoot days.

You people are such heirs of the enlightenment it's frightening. You are the masons dream children.

"In other words : denying religious education to Muslims will be the spearhead of a secularist attack on the teaching of ANY religion in public schools. That is why far-sighted Christian leaders like B16 are defending the Muslim's rights to pass on their faith to their children through the school system they finance through their taxes; they know that if they don't, we will be next."

What an utterly ignorant remark. Gutless, faithless, the wisdom of the world, earthly, sensual and devlish. What on earth do you think has been going on for the last 250 years? So the true religion in order to survive the Gods of the state must support the peddling of lies? Taxes? How like a Novus Ordo Catholic to think of money at at time like this.

"Another point to bear in mind is that if Muslim children don't receive religious education in their faith at school, there will be more incentive for them to turn to the Islamic schools, which are hotbeds of extremism."

The smell of fear? You fail to understand the essential nature of Islam don't you? What you really mean is you hope that Muslim children will NOT be taught their "faith" but a corrupted, watered-down version which will render them relatively harmless.

Your claims and assertions reek of expediancy, utilitarianism and appeasement.

Simon-Peter said...

And what is the plan anyway?

Is it to use the enemy of the Church, the secular-materialist state, to slowly undermine Islam in the west before preaching the gospel to them? Or is this to be done whilst preaching the gospel which in the minds of many Muslims is rendered unbelievable by it's apparent accomodation with this state.

What is the plan? Teaching Muslims some non-threatening version of Islam cannot be an end in itself, it must be part of a plan to convert them of which preaching the gospel is only a part, though the most important and the neccesary part? So what is the plan? There is a plan, right?

And what if Muslim parents, or Muslim states with Catholic populations start to object to the version of Islam taught in these schools? What then? Do you a. invite the parents to leave? b. invite the parents to leave and set up their own schools / home schools so long as they are policed by the state and are non-threatening? c. Compel the parents directly to leave their children where they are? d. Compel parents indirectly via the tax code, or limiting opportunities for higher education by manipulating entrance requirements that exclude certain schools that by definition are not recognized by the state as matriculated etc. to leave their children in such schools?

How do you convert someone you have confirmed in their errors by supporting educating them in lies as a right? The very authority that might faciliate conversion is undermined by this.

Kissing the Koran does not make a Muslim more likely to convert, but less, especially when the objective and essential need to convert within the entire framework of EENS is absent or so attenuated in its presentation to be functionally equivalent to absence.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Samizdat,

I am not a Jesuit; however I have lived in Europe and seen some textbooks from public schools' religious education classes. So perhaps I am better informed than some on this blog.

As for simon-peter, I have lost your train of thought, as you plunge into the near irrational gibberish of your inflammed rhetoric -- I know that is a hard comment, but you need to stick more to argument and less to rhetoric.

I think most readers of this Blog would welcome a reasoned response, not a rhetorical tirade, even if the reasons are not good. Remember, responding with emotional rhetoric reather than calm reasoning, is not the Catholic way.

As for those who dispute that there is a natural right to teach your children, there is no argument, since you are completely ignorate of the law of nature in regard to families. This does not negate the truth that only the true religion has rights; because these two truths are not contradictory. Even in Catholic Europe it was not illegat for Jews and Musliims to teach their children their own religions, privately at home, and in their own schools.

With the rise of secular states, which are not in conformity to Catholic Doctrine, but which offer the opportunity to act on behalf of parents in the education of their children (however so benign or malign in this intention), it is a political question regarding the implications of Church-State relations in a very hostile environment,the question regarding public instructing in religion. The secular State isn't going to teach traditional catholicism to children by persuasion or force, not as long as it exists. However, if the do not teach some sort of theistic religion, they certainly will teach some sort of demonism, because that is the nature of secularism.

I think therefore, under these conditions, admitting that all children of every religion be immune from such a demonic state sponsored religion, and receive instead a curriculum which requires the consent of the religiuos authories representing the children, rather than a completely government run agency, is a valid political call on the part of B16, as a head of state, in a matter that is the chose of 2 evils.

Those of you who thus disagree with Father Mark, I submit, are unreasonably wrong.

Oh, and Father, I do read Latin Mass Magazine: I can assure you their writers do not support this kind of ill considered criticism.

Simon-Peter said...

It seems to me that 90% of what I have written cannot be reasonably classified as irrational gibberish or rhetoric.

In the first place, though parents have a right, or rather a resposibility, to teach their children, they do not have a corresponding right to teach them lies whilst exercising the right to teach. God may suffer them to teach lies, but that does not imply a right neither does it terminate the right to teach. Neither can a parent terminate their responsibility under that primary right by handing over their children to the state whilst looking the other way.

Chew gum and walk.

In the second place let me repeat:

"I disagree with the Holy Father in method, sure, but not by all that much:..."

BUT NOT BY ALL THAT MUCH.

But let me end with this, which is probably a bit of rhetoric too (as if rhetoric and truth are mutually exclusive, see Quintillian):

"You fail to understand the essential nature of Islam don't you? What you really mean is you hope that Muslim children will NOT be taught their "faith" but a corrupted, watered-down version which will render them relatively harmless."

As has already been made clear by the high priests of objectivity what they want is THEIR / the secular state approved version of Islam taught to Muslims. It has already been stated that "Islamic schools, which are hotbeds of extremism" are just not acceptable.

And neither are traditional Catholic schools, colleges, or homeschoolers who produce children so extreme and so fanatical they might actually shed their own blood for their enemy rather than his own.

And, once the secular state approved version of Islam is up and running, who is next Father Mark, who IS next? Or are they already working and have been for some time aided and abetted by "progessive" Catholics. And when Muslims turn their backs on these approved schools, which they will, what's next?

What's your next plan? Either Islam and Muslims ARE what you fear, in which case this won't work, or they aren't, in which case this is unneccesary.

I wish you people would stop hiding behind each others skirts and face up to the simple fact that the fundamental problem with Islam is that it exists.


Carthago delenda est.

Jeff said...

Heyyyyyyy!

I agree with Br. Bugnolo! Cool. Though I'm sure he doesn't agree with all of my take on this.

Say, the secular state claims parents may not oversee the religious education of their children.

What do YOU claim? How do you respond?

By saying, Well, Catholics do, but Jews and Muslims don't?

Parents may not have an absolute right to teach their children ERROR. But they do have a right and states have a right to impart to children the truth as they understand it.

People who do not yet share the Catholic FAITH (which is not proved simply by reason) have the right to seek the Truth. And to seek the Truth along with their families. That seeking will be an admixture of honesty and rationalizations and lies, just as almost every human action is.

How many of us who are converts came to the Truth step by step, with half-truths and mistakes along the way? Would we have been better off if we had been told that that was evil and we had to submit to Catholic Truth in its fulness or shut up?

If Saudi Arabia were to offer religious education in Christianity to its Christian students on the principle of religious freedom for parents in the schools, how would we respond? By welcoming the initiative? Or by cursing them and saying that the priniciple makes a mockery of Catholic teaching?

Remember that the Jews sheltered in Castel Gandolfo and elsewhere in Italy by order of Ven. Pius XII were given Hebrew bibles, Torah scrolls, kosher food, allowed--even encouraged--to engage in communal worship and no one tried to convert them to Christianity.

And the result? Their Grand Rabbi and not a few others became Catholics. Those who sheltered at Castel Gandolfo bought a huge Cross for erection there after the war and gave it to the Pope.

What was the principle under which all this was done before the Second Vatican Council? Was it "Error Has No Rights"?

Popes from St. Gregory the Great protected Jewish synagogues from destruction by Catholics and returned them when they were taken by Catholic bishops.

You can't nuclear bomb sin out of the world. You can't simply lay the Universe of Sinners and their False Religions waste and sow the ruins with salt. That's the problem with Carthago Delenda Est as applied here.

We sinners deserve destruction; but we need saving.

JAM said...

Remember that the Jews sheltered in Castel Gandolfo and elsewhere in Italy by order of Ven. Pius XII were given Hebrew bibles, Torah scrolls, kosher food, allowed--even encouraged--to engage in communal worship and no one tried to convert them to Christianity.

Please substantiate that claim! Give a source, a reference, something ...

Jeff said...

Oh, geez, JAM, just read any of the books refuting Cornwell et al.'s notions of "Hitler's Pope."

E.g., Rabbi Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope, quoting Michael Tagliacozzo, a refugee at the Seminario Romano (Vatican sovereign territory), on page 86.

Also try Bottum and Dalin's The Pius War, passim.

Dalin's book has a simply AMAZING summary of Papal assistance to the Jews over the centuries, including St. Gregory the Great's command that synagogues be purchased for and given the Jews. Dalin, p. 20.

Cardinal Pacelli also gave Ambassador Kennedy a confidential memorandum discussing the Vatican's opposition to the Nazis and stating that one of the reasons for the opposition was because they attacked "the fundamental principle of the freedom of the practice of religion." Quote from Pacelli memo, cited in Dalin, p. 65.

That latter ought to drive some people nuts! :-D

Seriously, there's a whole literature in defense of Pius XII out there that is marvellous reading for any number of reasons. And some of the secondary sources citing books, papers, interviews from Italian Jewish refugees are exceptionally interesting.

Screwtape said...

Br. AB:

I'd respond, but I forgot the question. I trust that all that reading of European textbooks didn't harm you overmuch. It has taken all my energy and 68 years to overcome American textbooks. I'm old enough that being raised by Jesuits would have been beneficial. Your argument, despite all that ignorance I've accumulated, is still sophistry. I did learn enough to know that ad hominem does not an argument make.

Ehpraem: "All questions are ultimately theological." Cardinal Manning (19th Century British)

Fathermark: It is you who don't get it. It, being the truth of things. You are apparently among those who think: if it's legal it's moral; might makes right; of the people etc. is a great axiom; on and on ad nauseam, as long as truth and lies are equal. As a Vatican II Novus Ordo product, it is quaintly amusing to find you appealing to objectivity. Most of your persuasion can't even spell it. And it probably wasn't in your lexicon until you, er, um, uh, read it in Latin Mass. Now what's a nice boy like you doing in a place like this! ???

Willmoore Kendall said that we had better be prepared for the reality that whatever else it means, democracy always comes down to 50% + 1%. I think it's the Western version of the Chinese curse.

The one good thing that will come out of the Islamic majority is that the tyranny of the minority we have now will be eradicated. I wouldn't want to be a poofter spouting off under any Mahound regime.

S-P: Where did you come up with the category of "practical heresy." "Material heresy" is an official category, as is "Formal heresy" although not, of course, on the same level. I think by "practical" you mean "material". Meanwhile, why are we arguing with guys who think things that are ducks aren't, just because they don't want them to be? You have more patience than an Arab eating a scarab.

Suggested reading and/or study:

The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail

Aristotle on the fundamental nature of democracy. For example: "Republics decline into democracies, and democracies degenerate into despotisms." And has been suggested, Islamic despotisms aren't going to be too kind to little old us.

The 2002 Doctrinal Conference given by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson, Vol II on the Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. The true nature of freedom ain't what 99-44/100% of Amuhcans think it is.

Hillaire Belloc on The Great Heresies, last chapter.

Last, but hardly least, although it says it indirectly, Whittaker Chambers' letter to William F. Buckley posted on my Blog site.

It's over, Rover!

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Samizdat,

"I'd respond, but I forgot the question."

Can you read the comments posted above yours?

Simon-Peter,

A little honesty, please!

And if you think Father Mark and I wear skirts, you only show that you are using the argument of an anti-catholic bigot.

Jeff,

I see I'm in agreement with Pius XII, that puts me in good company!

Guadalupe Guard said...

Pax Christi. Issue: Is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI guilty of indifferentism?

There was a letter to the Editor in the Remnant that stated that the Pope gave a gift of the four Gospels to the Jews when he visited the Cologne Synagogue.

Is this true? If so, this ever so subtle gesture would keep intact both his personal integrity as a Catholic and the integrity of the pontificate.

The Pope is surely still "carrying the baggage" of WWII, and is not able to deal objectively with the Jews. However, such an act would at least indicate that he is able to recognize their need of the Gospel message.

In any case, the Church and the world will be better served when what has been popularly called in American "the greatest generation" is no longer in authority, this includes those aging prelates and priests who resist any movements toward an uncompromising Catholicism.

Simon-Peter said...

I didn't mean literal skirts.

As to practical heresy, that was my paraphrase AND extension of (the principle embodied in)Lamentabili Sane proposition 24:

"24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves ."
CONDEMNED.

And a comment on the latest post (situation in Beligium)and comments thereupon. I recall some document from the Holy See a few years ago that clarified the situation of homeschoolers and the right of parents to teach children because certain Catholics, and I believe Bishops in the US included were less than sympathetic to the parental right to teach children.

Carthago Delenda Est is about Islam, specifically, NOT about Muslims.

Treating the situation of Muslims in the west by appealing to some precedent viz other "faiths" is fine, and I disagree, this is unprecedented and Islam is not talmudic judiasm and it is not protestantism.

As it is, I have still yet to discover what the plan is? I'll ask it again. What is the plan? What is the end desired? You first have to correctly understand the problem, if there is a problem. Are we all confident this has been done? By me? By you? By anyone?

I'll repeat this, again:

"You fail to understand the essential nature of Islam don't you? What you really mean is you hope that Muslim children will NOT be taught their "faith" but a corrupted, watered-down version which will render them relatively harmless.

[Is it just me, or does this reek of hypocrisy parading in public as some high-minded principle?]

As has already been made clear by the high priests of objectivity what they want is THEIR / the secular state approved version of Islam taught to Muslims. It has already been stated that "Islamic schools, which are hotbeds of extremism" are just not acceptable."

I assume then that any recognized Islamic teacher is free to suggest that Catholic parents in the US or Europe or Australasia should NOT be free to homseschool OR send their children to Catholic schools which are hotbeds of extremism producing children who are a threat to the state qua secular state and that such a suggestion will be roundly supported by all?

Lots of talk about being practical and NOT ONE PERSON has answered a single question I have raised about the practical problems of implementing any plan, if there is one. Why is that?

Because they keep talking about a so-called principle which very principle can be used against them due to the FLAWED nature of the secular-republican confessional state. Only Catholicism has rights, all others are suffered to be so, either by God or by God and any Catholic state should one come back into being.

Again:

"And what if Muslim parents, or Muslim states with Catholic populations start to object to the version of Islam taught in these schools? What then? Do you a. invite the parents to leave? b. invite the parents to leave and set up their own schools / home schools so long as they are policed by the state and are non-threatening? c. Compel the parents directly to leave their children where they are? d. Compel parents indirectly via the tax code, or limiting opportunities for higher education by manipulating entrance requirements that exclude certain schools that by definition are not recognized by the state as matriculated etc. to leave their children in such schools?"

proklos said...

There are two things that strike me as wrong in B XVI"s teaching, that is, the embrace of the modern state and his doctrine on religious freedom. What's these are accepted his actions are understandable. I see there is no point in attempting to show the inconsistency in complaining about whatever he does if you accept the teachings of Vatican II. He has told us that he does. He cannot give up religious freedom since that would be to give up freedom to proselytize, something essential to the Catholic faith. He cannot disembrace the modern state, since only that state guarantees religious freedom by law. The only choice most of you have as I see it is to adopt the sane Catholicism of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX or the liberalism of Pope B.XVI. Otherwise, you should stop complaining about the Pope's actions and accept him as he is. As Jeff will tell you. He is a saint and a doctor of the Church. Who are we to question his wise decisions regarding Islam? If all Italy apostasizes, then certainly it must be the result of the Divine will manifest in the Vicar of Christ.

Simon-Peter said...

There is an article here:
http://charlesacoulombe.blogspot.com/

If you scroll down look for "40 years after."

In it the following appears:

"We had to learn how to recognise that in such decisions only principles express what is lasting, embedded in the background and determining the decision from within. The concrete forms these decisions take are not permanent but depend upon the historical situations. They can therefore change."

I think this article in its entirety and including much of the Holy Fathers words touches not only on this post and attitudes, but also on other recent posts to this blog. I find Mr. C's take on VII refreshing...for me I mean, not because it anyway validates anything I think, but because it provided me with some filial correction.

Jeff: why didn't you tell us about this?

Simon-Peter said...

I should have said Mr. C's analysis of that which is contigent, and that contingency cuts both ways was very good.

I also think that his attitude provided me with a good sense of how to disagree with ones Father, which, I repeat for the hundreth time I do, but not by much, but when I do do, I seem to do intemperately, and the same with other catholics.

I think it was NC a few weeks ago who said that he used to get angry which just meant more grist for the confessional mill.

I think I know what he means.

ClemensMaria said...

Sandro Magister in his introduction to an article
about the pope's upcoming visit to Turkey wrote: "Benedict XVI ... has expressed his hope for the teaching of the Islamic religion in European schools, under precise conditions."

Later in the article he makes direct reference to the issue which started this particular thread of blog comments:

"Jürgen Rüttgers said that Benedict XVI 'holds that it is very important for Muslim children to have the opportunity to attend in our schools an hour of instruction, in German, in the Muslim religion, with teachers who have been trained in Germany and under school supervision.'"

"And not only that: 'The Holy Father vigorously called attention back to the necessity for every society to live on the basis of values. These are the same values found in the German constitution,
which are founded on the Jewish-Christian West and the Enlightenment.' A positive integration of the new Muslim generations 'presupposes the
recognition of the rules of the federal Republic.'"

The article then draws a connection to the controversy in March over Cardinal Martino's comments "in favor of the teaching of the Muslim
religion in the schools in Europe." Specifically, Cardinal Martino had said on March 9, 2006: "If there are one hundred Muslim children in a school, I don't see why they shouldn't be taught their religion."

Magister then goes on to make a distinction between Cardinal Martino's statement and the Pope's recent statements: "Benedict XVI also says he is in favor of this instruction. But he joins it to precise conditions, which Martino ignored."

Magister quotes Cardinal Ruini who addressed the controversy back in March by not condemning the practice outright but setting certain conditions which must be met by such instruction: "in particular it is necessary that there not be any conflict in the content of the instruction with respect to our constitution, for example with regard to civil rights, from religious freedom to the equality between man and woman to marriage".

Then Magister makes the following claim:

"It is well known that pope Ratzinger sees in this instruction a decisive vehicle for the integration of Muslims into Western society. He said so in no uncertain terms on August 20, 2006, while meeting with German representatives of Islam in Cologne:

'You guide Muslim believers and train them in the Islamic faith. Teaching is the vehicle through which ideas and convictions are transmitted. Words are highly influential in the education of the mind. You, therefore, have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation. As Christians and Muslims, we must face together the many challenges of our time.'"

Finally Magister goes on to quote "an authoritative Muslim thinker", Khaled Fouad Allam, member of the Italian parliament:

"We must think of a future cycle of education for Italian and European Muslim students that has their faith at heart. And not an exported faith, but one that has been reformulated, because living in Rome or Venice is not the same thing as living in their countries of origin. I am thinking of an Islamic faith that has internalized the principles of humanism and the modern West".

My comment:

Now, I ask you can there be ANY doubt whatsoever that what Pope Benedict, Mr. Allam, Cardinal Ruini, et al have in mind is that secular humanists will train Muslim children not in the religion which their parents hold but in a new "westernized", "enlightened" Islam? Does this not remind you of the Vatican II opening of the Church to the modern world? So Cardinal Martino wasn't rebuked for being lax in his desire to affirm the one true religion of the Holy Catholic Church but for failing to affirm that even Muslims must be subject to secular values. Does anyone doubt that freemasonry has infiltrated the
Church?

While I don't agree with Cardinal Martino, at least he appears to have more intellectual honesty than a lot of people who think it is perfectly fine to teach lies to Muslim children just as long as they are "enlightenment" lies rather than fanatical Islamic lies.

Jeff said...

Simon-Peter:

""You fail to understand the essential nature of Islam don't you? What you really mean is you hope that Muslim children will NOT be taught their "faith" but a corrupted, watered-down version which will render them relatively harmless."

Your argument is a valid one. But in the end, it doesn't persuade me.

I DO believe that it is important that we recognize that Islam has historically been a much more absolutist and antagonistic force than we know or care to remember. And that there are reasons for this that can be traced to essential features of the Quran and the Sunna. Bob Spencer is an old college buddy of mine and my wife's. I went to his ordination. I am an avid reader of his books and of "Jihad" and "Dhimmi Watch".

But I think we have to wait and see how it all shakes out. We can take bets on whether Islam can accomodate itself to being "neighborly" or not. If Islam in the schools become a tool of fanaticism, it must be stopped. But on the other hand, Islam in the schools is a tool for modesty, respect for charity, the sovereignty of God and a spiritual order.

So, I take a less absolutist view of all this than you do. You say Islam is not Protestantism, but Protestantism has been a vicious and deadly opponent: think of the English martyrs!

Cartago convertendo est!

It's worth noting that many of the observations we both make about Islam have been made most cogently by Ratzinger himself. Yet, see Clemensmaria's valuable comment below for his opinion. And, as you know, the man is not an idiot or a time-server.

Simon-Peter said...

Jeff:

okay,

"Islam in the schools is a tool for modesty, respect for charity, the sovereignty of God and a spiritual order."

or

"Islam in the schools is a tool for modesty based in servile fear and the pride of males, does violence to charity which subsists in truth and is a PERSON, is antithetical to the sovereignty of God the Father Almighty as it finds its origins in Lucifer him of "I will not serve" and turns the spiritual order into one based on carnal servile fear where God is the author of good and evil."

Islam is just a new synthetic twist on Arianism and manicheaism.

This is not directed at you Jeff, or anyone in particular, but my head and the brick wall are showing signs of wear.

Again:

Can you please cite the authority that parents have the RIGHT to teach their children lies: that they have the RIGHT to deprive, or facilitate the deprivation of their children of their ultimate good through indoctrination and exposure to practical wickedness.

I'm still waiting for answer to this question, not one I didn't ask.

Again:

The West is bored, sodomized, drugged, irrational, tired, clueless, flailing around and utterly incapable of focusing on an enemy that God has painted a bullseye on.

Or isn't it?

Again:

I note how you fail to answer the question, but then answer it by stating that Muslim's do have a right to lie to their children, and the state has a right to faciliate this, being, naturally, exempt from both the natural and revealed Law.

How telling that you state that Christianity is not taught because it is true, but because it is expediant, because it is "desirable."

Again:

Logic? What logic? What's the syllogism exactly, do tell, enquiring minds would like to know. Principle? What principle?

Again:

Is it to use the enemy of the Church, the secular-materialist state, to slowly undermine Islam in the west before preaching the gospel to them? Or is this to be done whilst preaching the gospel which in the minds of many Muslims is rendered unbelievable by it's apparent accomodation with this state.

And what if Muslim parents, or Muslim states with Catholic populations start to object to the version of Islam taught in these schools? What then? Do you a. invite the parents to leave? b. invite the parents to leave and set up their own schools / home schools so long as they are policed by the state and are non-threatening? c. Compel the parents directly to leave their children where they are? d. Compel parents indirectly via the tax code, or limiting opportunities for higher education by manipulating entrance requirements that exclude certain schools that by definition are not recognized by the state as matriculated etc. to leave their children in such schools?

Again:

"You fail to understand the essential nature of Islam don't you? What you really mean is you hope that Muslim children will NOT be taught their "faith" but a corrupted, watered-down version which will render them relatively harmless.

[Is it just me, or does this reek of hypocrisy parading in public as some high-minded principle?]

As has already been made clear by the high priests of objectivity what they want is THEIR / the secular state approved version of Islam taught to Muslims. It has already been stated that "Islamic schools, which are hotbeds of extremism" are just not acceptable."

Again:

Because they keep talking about a so-called principle which very principle can be used against them due to the FLAWED nature of the secular-republican confessional state. Only Catholicism has rights, all others are suffered to be so, either by God or by God and any Catholic state should one come back into being.

Well, whatever. We all have baggage, this Pope, the last one, me. I suppose we all have a different approach to how to deal with the / a Gordian knot.

The problem is not the knottedness of the rope, it's the ropeness itself.

Use the sword.



Carthago Delenda Est

Jeff said...

"Do parents have the right to teach their children lies?"

The problem with answering the question as you pose it is that it can have so many meanings.

To many of them, the answer is "Yes."

Parents have the right to raise their children and they have the responsbility to pass on to them the Truth as they understand it.

Parents don't have the moral "right" to teach their children things that they know to be false. Perhaps they have a certain political right to be free from interference from the State every time one of its minions thinks they are teaching their children lies.

If Jews teach false doctrine about Christ and the Trinity, why should the Church not take their children away and give them to fit parents? The Church did not countenance that. Why shouldn't their synagogues be raised to the ground rather than returned to them?

My experience with Muslims teaching their children modesty has little to do with the oppression of women, though that certainly sometimes exists. I wouldn't want to be Osama's daughter or wife. But I know lots of conservative Muslim wives and daughters who are doted on by their men.

Sooo...no. I don't think Muslims as a whole are shocked at our immodesty because they are Albigensians or something. Or because they want to keep their women in a box. I think Muslims are shocked by our immodesty because our immodesty is disgusting and they know it.

Now, if I haven't answered your question in the way that you want, you'll have to try again, I'm afraid...

Simon-Peter said...

No worries Jeff.

Anyway, that was you wasn't it making comments about the article on Charles Coulombes blog? I assumed it was you.

I think that's a great article. When you come across stuff like that you've got to let me know. Hang on, that sounds like the title to some song. It'll come to me...ahhhh, "you've just got to let me know" The Clash, I think.

Er.

By the way, have you all been watching "that" doctor in Charlotte...? Rather unusual treatments...I thought you might be very interested.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/health/14632157.htm

and the latest...

http://www.wral.com/news/9377790/detail.html

Well, got to go and get the eldest nipper some Swedish Fish, so...

God bless.

And Jeff, the reasons the Canes lost the last game is because you weren't watching...

Screwtape said...

To S-P and all those attempting irony, satire, parody, or burlesque:

It is by now clear from his responses that Br. AB has absolutely no sense of humor. Being totally literal-minded is a terrible handicap, really, and we must in all true charity take this into consideration and be as deadly boring as we can manage.

Oremus

MacK said...

The Enlightenment? Who mentioned that?
Wasn't that associated with protestant rebellion [The Devil sows discord among the brethren]; Voltarian scepticism [never place your trust in mockers and scorners]; the bloody French revolution [pax vobiscum - Et cum spiritu tuo] and the masonic attempt to eradicate the Roman Catholic Church from France [as an appetizer]; the belief that science has all the answers [you know Darwinism and evolutionary "theory"] and the myopic perspective of the separation of church and state [even newchurch believes that one now].
After all those intellectual gymnastics, I definitely prefer traditional Roman Catholicism and Sacred Scripture. There is much more enlightenment in one orthodox doctrine of The Church and one verse of Scripture than all the so-called learning emanating from such a period. Pope Leo XIII and St Pius X's syntheses of contemporary problems make much more sense than the claptrap of a Hegel or a Kant, for example. We certainly need a fine seive to separate wheat from darnel there. If the Pope is using "Enlightenment" principles to guide his position on current issues affecting the NO church, such as other religions, then we may expect even more confusion among newchurchers. I detect a liberal serving of Rahnerism in his outlook. It looks as though we could be in for more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Samizdat said...

Hey, Samizdat, I do have a sense of humor, I just don't see it in your writing.

Tradosaurus said...

Let's read what a heretic and apostate says and then compare it to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Benedict XVI (the heretic), Address to ambassador of Spain, May 20, 2006: “The Church also insists on the inalienable right of individuals to profess their own religious faith without hindrance, both publicly and privately, as well as the right of parents to have their children receive an education that complies with their values and beliefs without explicit or implicit discrimination.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 7, 2006, p. 4.)


Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY. But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.” (Denz. 1690; 1699)

Screwtape said...

Br. AB:

I'm glad to hear you have a sense of humor. You need to bring it to your comments more often.

There are at least three examples of it in my remarks on this post, unless you really think I'm Yiddish. I go out of my way to be funny, as my wife will confirm (she has to hold me back a lot of times), unless somebody has been either nasty or dumb or really seriously out of it.

I once was an actor and a an artistic director of a company I worked for told me I was the funniest fellow he'd ever worked with. At the time I was terribly insulted because I was on my way to being the next Gary Cooper. I don't think I made it. Also, the great Emmett Kelly once sent word to my dressing room to tell me that I was "a true clown."

Other than dropping names and bragging, I'm the picture of humility.

You and I are on the same page, so don't use that razor yet.

I read, and have read, your contributions to The Remnant with both pleasure and profit. Michael Matt has been kind enough to publish most of my letters over the years.

I was a little rough with you that last time, I'll admit - deliberately - to get a response.

I got it, so congratulate me.

Simon-Peter said...

Wot? No comments on Quanta Cura?

Screwtape said...

S-P

Quanta Cura - Quanta Cura . . .

I think I can hum the tune, but
the words elude me.

Or did you have something in
mind such as curing Qantus?

Simon-Peter said...

I dunno, I'm thinking of La Boheme and Cointreau at the same time.

Matt said...

"absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY"

Trad: I think where you are misunderstanding the meaning of this statement by Pius IX is that what is condemned is that the right to religious liberty is absolute and unlimited. Clearly in the past the Church has allowed other religions to be tolerated in Catholic states. Benedict has said, as he interprets the VII declarations on religious freedom, that they encourage a mere tolerence of the religious freedom of others, obviously within reasonable limits. This is nothing new. He's not saying people have a fundamental right to be "wrong", but they have a right to seek the Truth without having it imposed upon them, and they have a right to make errors which do not bring harm to others. He's also recognizing the Catholic doctrine that education is the right of the parent, and the state should not prevent parents from exercising this right according to their own values within reason.

Simon-Peter said...

This, like EENS and bapstism of DESIRE, is not an empty vessel into which we pour our own meaning.
*******

“From which totally false idea of social government"

********
So, the genesis of this "erroneous opinion" is found in a "totally false idea of social govenment." Now, first, we have to identify precisely the opionion that is erroneous (not one we read into the text; second we must identify the false idea of social government, a TOTALLY (not partially) false idea of social government. Either the Pope here is using mindless rhetoric (in the modern sense) when he says total ("totally"), or he is not.

He is not. Thus, even such as I can say of a heretic state such as the USA even the simple fact that its founding is an admixture of good and evil does not make it in conception a TOTALLY false idea or founding but, given human nature and the devil, it will, overtime, tend more towards total failure, rather than move in the opposite direction.

Then what does he mean by total, that is total ab initio? He is talking about the idea, the erroneous idea, of the state as an autonomous orgainzing principle recognizing no authority but its own whether originating in one many, many men, or the people. Such a state is not, by definition, rightly constituted. The Pope is here condemning ideas as applied to states that ARE rightly constituted, not those that aren't. He is answering a question that is asked, not one that isn't.
********

"they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,"

********
"insanity"...well, it's nice when Popes agree with me by using exactly the word I use ;-).
*********

"NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY;"

******
Aha! But what is this..."every rightly consituted society." So, what happens when you don't have a society that is rightly consituted?
*******

"and that a right resides in the citizens"

********
This would be a "right" inhering in the citizens of a society that IS rightly constituted.
********

"to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY. But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”

*********
Summarizing for the Dimwit brothers and their fellow- travellers.

What is reprobated, proscribed, and condemned, therefore, are all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines specially mentioned which, deriving from a totally false idea of social government, lead some to assert that
a. absolute liberty of worship (praxis) and conscience are rights natural to man which should be proclaimed and protected; &
b. such liberty may not be restrained (lawfully); &
c. such liberty includes the right by word of mouth, the press or any other means to disseminate openly and publicly their ideas in...

...a "rightly constituted society."

You're not asking the right question. It's no wonder you don't have the right answer.

Simon-Peter said...

When you don't have a society that is rightly constituted you have the arguments you see in this post on this blog. What I don't think you have are heretics or apostates.

In any case I have been waiting and waiting for someone to spot the entire soft underbelly in this whole matter.

Liberty and freedom are NOT the same, not by a long way, just as fairness and justice are NOT the same thing. It is possible that we are all talking past one another.

So, although a lot of people claim to be aficionados (and I use THAT term deliberately)of St. Thomas, I thought it curious the lack of term defining, just as I constantly find the failure to define "will" or "real" or "actual" or "desire" or "outside" or "invincible" curious viz two other contentious points.

It is one thing to disagree with the Holy Father on this issue quite another to call him an apostate.

Speaking as a disordered Catholic who is not rightly constituted but is being re-ordered and re-consituted (within the meaning of "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved") I prefer to leave definitive judgments about this Pope's soul and friendship with the Trinity to the Almighty
Himself. And, rather than call him heretic and apostate I will continue to offer my weekly Holy Hour "Please help our Pope to do what you want Him to do Jesus and please protect him from his enemies whoever they are" in exactly this childish manner regardless of your own or the Dimwit brothers private opinions about him.

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

No post can get this long without the silence of Samizdat screaming for attention.

P-S I believe Cointreau is either a character played by the late Peter Sellers, or Agatha Christie's male detective.

I got lost in the verbiage relating to the initial issue, so I can't add anything to the entanglement. The knotted, raveled sleeve of care will have to stay that way.

It may help to understand something, I'm not sure what, to realize that the United States was the first entity in history to make a constitution/state.

Magna Charta to the contrary notwithstanding (and be damned) England, for example, does not have and has never had a written constitution.

The US Constitution was a dead letter before the signatures were applied. The real constitution then was whatever "Publius" said it was and now it's whatever those nine senile derelicts in Washington say it is.

I'm glad to have been of assistance in this vital area. Whatever it might have been.

Simon-Peter said...

"it was and now it's whatever those nine senile derelicts in Washington say it is."

One of the best jokes I ever heard is in a little screed called Marbury v Madison, conlaw 101, wherein we learn that the constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it means because the punch line is that they give themselves this authority which emerges out of the magicians hat. It's a killer!

A lot of dishonest folks try to hide the real meaning, but the real meaning is clear...a judicial coup d'etat.

I'll summarize the true holding in M v M.
"We decide what it means, and who says we decide what it means? We say we decide what it means."

It's the funniest damn thing.

Beltrán María Fos said...

Here goes my e-mail adress so simon-peter or even jam if he has received it can send me those latin mass magazine interesting articles: beltran@fcb.com.ar. Thank you very much.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Regarding Quanta Cura and Ratzinger's qutoed statement.

I will presume for the sake of argument that both quotes are accurate, as I am not checking them prior to this post.

However, it is clearly wrong to say that Quanta cura establishes the teaching as de fide, it is rather quite clear from the context that what is condemned is condemned because it is illogical, erroneous and contrary to right reason. Because though the argument regarding the authentic notion of relgious liberty (see my blog on Scholasticism) is founded upon revealed principles, the erroneous form of religious liberty is clearly contrary to reason itself, since it would raise to the level of a legal right that which is based on the contradition of the law of contradiction.

And so, yes, I do agree what Ratzinger says cannot be reconciled to Quanta cura, and do not think putting another interpretaion upon it would be a good argument. However, it is false to say that what he said is a heresy, or that it has been condemend as a heresy.

And Tradsaurus clearly by saying as much, shows he does not know even the elementary principles of traditional Catholic Theology.

Guadalupe Guard said...

My previous post, which went unanswered, was not really a nonsequitor. The Pope's proximity to the heresy of indifferentism would be greatly distanced if the following were true:

"There was a letter to the Editor in the Remnant that stated that the Pope gave a gift of the four Gospels to the Jews when he visited the Cologne Synagogue."

Ideology and intent is all important; application--viz., Islamic studies in school--can be argued later.

Or does no one know if this story is true?

Screwtape said...

SCOTUS?

PUBLIUS, call your lawyer. (S-P, unplug your phone, besides you'd be practicing without a license.)

I keep hearing the term dey feed us. What? Are we dealing with a pride of lions?

Madison vs. Marlboro. I recall that case. Marlboro won because Madison was allergic to smoke.

MacK said...

With regard to the alleged pontiff's gift to the Jews in Cologne of the Four Gospels - I wonder if they have read them yet?

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Are you kidding, yet, you meshugeneh shmendrik!

They can't read Pontiff, you know that.

There ain't no equivalent in Yiddish.

Simon-Peter said...

Bro.

my response to QC was this:

Re the charge and given the evidence presented by the prosecution ON THIS BLOG, you can't get there from HERE.

Try again.

Re the charge and given the evidence presented ON THIS BLOG by the prosecution of MERELY giving the Four Gospels, you can't get there from here, either.

Try again.

You have got to do better than this. If there IS more to the "Curious Incident of the Four Gospels in the Night" then lay it out.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Simon-Peter,

I majored in archeology at the University, but that doesn't help me decipher what you are trying to say.

BEE bit more explicit, PLEEEZE!

Simon-Peter said...

Bro.

the charge was that Benedict XVI was a heretic and apostate:

"a heretic and apostate."

The evidence to support the charge was singular and limited in itself, consisting of a selection from Quanta Cura with QC (or the selection) claimed to be ex cathedra, contrasting it (or attempting to contrast it) with certain words of Benedict XVI.

The reasoning is, I think:

Quanta Cura means X and is true by definition.
Benedict XVI does not mean X, in fact, he means exactly the opposite.
X and not X (in these terms)ARE mutually exclusive.
Therefore Benedict XVI is by definition not speaking in conformity with the truth (which, by necessary inference - I assume goes the argument - he must be aware of and knowingly reject).

First, is QC ex-cathdera in toto? If it isn't, does it contain or express things which are themselves required to be believed? Has QC been rightly understood? Have the words of the Pope been rightly understood?

Second, QC itself is limited under it's own terms to states that are rightly constituted, not those that are not.

Third, Benedict XVI is speaking about states that are not rightly consitituted, not those that are.

Fourth, is not the issue under the terms given and even inchoately from the begining of this post:

To what extent does QC remain applicable in absolute terms to states that are NOT rightly constituted? i.e. assuming QC or elements therein are required to be believed, at what point does pragmatic, temporary accomodation translate into indifferentism? If it does at all? Are we begging the question?

What bothers me is twofold:

1. The nature of the charge. Prove it from what was proffered. If you can't, then don't make the charge from the proffer.
2. On the other hand, that whereas God suffers errors - as in a "temporary accomodation" - this metastasizes in the minds of some Catholics, and perhaps the Holy Father, into a "nebulous principle" (if there is such a creature) because He has not sent down the proverbial lightning bolt, which he would, they (un)reason if it WAS an error.

The unreason then - the same sodomites and aborts use - is this.

X is claimed to be error / sinful.
X is further claimed to be GRAVELY erroneous / sinful.
Surely God (whose nature is always assumed to be categorically known and ways judged by the unreasoner) would make clear whether the judgment that X is an error / sinful and do so in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS:

i.e. terms that the unreasoner is looking for, because, the unreasoner has already determined a priori what ways God may and may not use to indicate His displeasure.

The unreasoner also thinks God is just having a nice chat with Job.

The unreasoner also thinks that when God says, "come let us reason togther" God means according to the terms and conditions established by the invitee.

This kind of unreasoning is best illustrated historically in the rejection of Jesus as suffering servant...and lately by the rejection of the stumbling block(s) of Fatima and the CORRECT consecration of Russia.

I wonder if the unreasoner is concerned with being right on his own terms, or with the truth; which includes the truth about himself, which truth can only be revealed by God, for "who[else]can know it"?

Now, let me think: ah yes, elememtary justice that my three year old is getting right now: how does it go again?

'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!'

said Alice loudly.

'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!

said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!'

the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

Simon-Peter said...

Bro.

this:
""Curious Incident of the Four Gospels in the Night" then lay it out.

was just a reference to Holmes in (the) Silver Blaze.

It doesn't matter.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

It is not sufficient that a teaching be official and infallible to make what is condemend be contrary to the faith, and the holding thereof heretical.

Because the Pope can infallibly declare that it is contrary to reason to say that there are 4 persons in the trinity, because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit = 3 not 4. Then if someone hold this, they sin against reason not the faith.

But if the Pope infallibly declares that it is contrary to the Faith to say that there are 4 persons in the trinity, because the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit = 3 not 4. Then it would be heretical to hold that.

Ergo, Quanta Cura, doesn't condemn in this quote anyone for heresy. That is an important point, which sedevacantists will overlook, because they don't want to accept in practice the principles layed out in Unam Sanctam, and thus by subterfuge and sophistry, always try to hoodwink their interlocutors with the charge that the Pope has lost office or was ineligilbe on account of heresy.

One sede recently claimed to me, that he does not deny that there are no popes after Pius 12, only that he does not know who or where they are.

If you can swallow that, might as well buy some land in S. Florida, sight unseen!

Simon-Peter said...

Good, glad we got that sorted then ;-). That also helped me correct myself on the distinction between reason and faith.

Thanks for not jumping on me about this:

"this metastasizes in the minds of some Catholics, and perhaps the Holy Father, into a "nebulous principle" (if there is such a creature) because He has not sent down the proverbial lightning bolt, which he would, they (un)reason if it WAS an error."

and what immediately follows. I didn't mean what some will want to think I meant...


If you asked, the articles should be in your mailboxes très bientôt, sinon plus tôt! Désolé au sujet du retarder, vous savez il est.

Screwtape said...

Good grief, as Charlie Brown always said.

It's bad enough to have one bloke contributing on this Blog site who studied law! But, Br. AB, et tu Brute?

All of this is merely to admit that there is a very good reason my brother became the Lawyer in the Family. That's probably the reason why, also, he remained a Mormon.

If there's a non sequitur in that, I'll let you guys parse it.

Whichever way it goes, with Quanta Cura, there are plenty of other reasons for concluding that OMIR (Our Man In Rome), just like his predecessor, is a MATERIAL heretic. He's a 'Cumenist, for example, which is 100-44/100% pure heresy. "Cumenism is worse than Communism.

Meanwhile, another time would ya'll dumb it down for usn who didn't major in canon law?