Catholic Persecution, Muslim Acceptance
September 3, 2010
Chester Gillis
The debate surrounding the New York Mosque, complicated by sensitivity and proximity to a place many Americans consider hallowed ground, echoes over three centuries of prejudice against Catholics. American Muslims should not have to wait so long for acceptance.
The prejudice began early. Catholics in Maryland—where Jesuits who arrived with the first settlers in 1634 established parish communities—enjoyed greater freedom to practice their religion than did Catholics in other colonies, yet still encountered obstacles from additional taxation to restrictive oaths. Their clergy were often inhibited by legislation such as the 1704 “Act to prevent the Growth of Popery Within this Province” that explicitly forbids the Jesuits from proselytizing, although legislation approved three years later allowed private worship. Nine of the original thirteen colonies established some form of Protestantism as the state religion.
Persecution became more overt as more Catholics immigrated to this country in the nineteenth century. And often violent, as in the burning of the convent in Charleston, Massachusetts, by a Protestant mob in 1834, the so-called nativist riots in Philadelphia and New York in the 1840s, the Know-Nothing movement and the terrors it created everywhere in the 1840s and 1850s, the awful work of Bloody Monday in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1855. Institutional expressions of bigotry like the American Protective Association grew through the nineteenth century, and peaked with the Ku Klux Klan in the early twentieth century.
At the time of the First World War, many Catholics had emigrated from countries America was fighting, and this, coupled with their connection to Rome, made them easy targets. Catholics signed up for the military in droves, while the bishops created the National Catholic War Council (NCWC) to support the war effort in general and Catholic troops in particular, but that did not help much in reducing anti-Catholic bigotry.
Even the 1928 presidential nomination of Al Smith, a Catholic Democrat who was then governor of New York, did not quell it. Mainstream Protestants were leery of Vatican control, and post-election folklore had Smith sending a one-word telegram to the Pope: “Unpack.”
For all of their internal differences, several factors united immigrant Catholics from the beginning, not the least of which was their Catholic identity. Newly arrived in America, many unskilled or semi-skilled, most speaking a different language, all social, economic, political and religious outsiders in a society dominated by Protestant money and power, their Catholicism constituted an important part of their identity and a source of solidarity.
At the same time, they were eager to confirm that they were really American. This meant overcoming suspicions that their first loyalty might be to Rome, perceived by many Americans as a foreign power that could undermine Catholics’ commitment to their adopted homeland. At every opportunity they demonstrated their loyalty to America.
The bishops were equally anxious to demonstrate their loyalty. They expressed this clearly at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884: “We think we can claim to be acquainted with the laws, institutions and spirit of the Catholic Church, and with the laws, institutions, and spirit of our country,” they declared,
and we emphatically declare that there is no antagonism between them. A Catholic finds himself at home in the United States, for the influence of his Church has constantly been exercised in behalf of individual rights and popular liberties. And the right-minded American nowhere finds himself more at home than in the Catholic Church, for nowhere else can he breathe more freely that atmosphere of Divine truth, which alone can make us free.
Yet such efforts did not bring Catholics into the mainstream or greatly reduce the obstacles they faced. The influential and established Protestant population that dominated politics, industry, education, and commerce kept Catholics—most of whom were not only Catholics but immigrants or the children of immigrants—at a distance, forcing them to create a separate subculture that would provide them with an identity, mirror the larger culture, and offer them the opportunity to belong to organizations ranging from the explicitly religious to the quasi-secular.
This Catholic subculture gave birth to organizations like the Catholic Economic Association, the Catholic Physicians’ Guild, the National Catholic Education Association, the National Council of Catholic Nurses, and the American Catholic Psychological Association. Writers and others could join groups like the Catholic Writers’ Guild, the Catholic Press Association, the Catholic Broadcasters Association, and the Catholic Book Publishers Association.
Catholic academics formed the American Catholic Philosophical Association, the Catholic Anthropological Association, the American Catholic Sociological Society, the American Catholic Historical Association, and the Catholic Poetry Society of America. For the working person, Catholics created the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists.
Catholics also created social organizations like the Knights of Columbus and women’s organizations such as the National Council of Catholic Women. Young people, excluded from or refrained from joining the YW or YMCA, joined the Catholic Youth Organization.
Catholics were not welcome in the prestigious private universities that served an economically and socially elite Protestant population. Catholic women’s and men’s colleges, most founded and staffed by religious orders, rapidly grew up as an alternative, catering to parents raising the first generation Catholics to receive a college education.
Things had changed by the beginning of World War II. Catholics felt less pressure to prove their patriotism as their numbers, influence, and acceptance grew. Although the church maintained neutrality as long as it could, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Catholics enlisted in the military in large numbers.
From 1940 to 1960, aided by the post-war baby-boom, the Catholic population doubled. The 1950s saw the largest expansion of schools and churches since the Council of Baltimore. As the population moved to the suburbs, the Catholic Church expanded its land holdings, physical plants, and programs. Students matriculated at Catholic colleges and universities in unprecedented numbers.
Catholics were assimilating into American society, becoming wealthier, better educated, and geographically diversified. The majority were no longer immigrants. They had increasing opportunities in business, government, entertainment, education, and industry. They did not hold sway on the top echelons of the professions, but doors were opening that would change the economic, professional, and social status of the rising generation. They matriculated at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. The gap between Protestants and Catholics was narrowing.
The public answer to the question of whether or not a person could be a good Catholic and a good American was, finally, a resounding yes. Prominent Catholics showed unhesitating willingness to support the country.
When asked at his nomination hearing in 1956 if he might follow the Pope over the requirements of his oath to uphold the Constitution, William J. Brennan, Jr., responded “[W]hat shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs.”
A few years later, while running for president, John F. Kennedy would have to make a similar disclaimer during a speech to the Texas Baptist Ministerial Association, reassuring his audience and all Americans that his Catholicism would not interfere with his duties.
This cohesive subculture diminished as Catholics have been increasingly assimilated into the larger culture. American Catholics today make up 23 per cent of the American population. Their income and education level stands above the national average. They rank in the highest echelons of business, government, entertainment, and education. Six current members of the Supreme Court are Catholic, as are almost one-third of the United States Congress.
It took over three centuries for Catholics to receive respect and full equality in America, and the country should not repeat this failure with our Muslim citizens. They deserve the protection of the law and the respect of the majority, and access to all the opportunities American society affords. Those of us in the majority—especially those of us whose ancestors suffered from religious prejudice—should all learn from our prejudice-filled past the costs of bigotry and more readily welcome the religiously other as fellow Americans.
Chester Gillis is dean of Georgetown College and a professor of theology at Georgetown University. His most recent book is The Political Papacy.
Comments:
9.3.2010 | 11:08am
T says:
We recognize the rights of individuals in this country, not the rights of religions. Islam as such has no rights; American Muslims do. And this regardless of what other states or individuals do or don't do in the name of Islam.
9.3.2010 | 11:26am
Edward Alleyn says:
Isn't the history given here a bit more complex? Many early Americans were fleeing Catholic persecution. They were Protestants who wanted to be free of endless conflict and collusion between government and the Church.
The title of this posting suggested to me that you were going to address the subject of the Muslim persecution of Catholics and other Christians.
Open Doors UK estimates that 100 million Christians face persecution, particularly in the Muslim world, North Korea and the hands of Hindu extremism and Islamic terrorism in India.
Christians who have fled their homes in Palestinian-controlled territory blame Muslim intimidation for their plight.
If we just ignore this persecution, maybe it will go away, perhaps over a "bridge."
The title of this posting suggested to me that you were going to address the subject of the Muslim persecution of Catholics and other Christians.
Open Doors UK estimates that 100 million Christians face persecution, particularly in the Muslim world, North Korea and the hands of Hindu extremism and Islamic terrorism in India.
Christians who have fled their homes in Palestinian-controlled territory blame Muslim intimidation for their plight.
If we just ignore this persecution, maybe it will go away, perhaps over a "bridge."
9.3.2010 | 11:57am
greggo says:
Dr. Gillis if anything understates prejudice againt Roman Catholics that continues to exist today especially in rural areas. However there are many individuals from the Middle East who as professionals are well respected in rural areas. These are physiocians, engineers and college professors who are willing to take positions that native Americans reject. Initially these Middle Easterners became Christian. But when a community formed the community was able to bring the religion of the old country into practice.
Thus a county of 30,000 people has both a Hindu temple and Mosque.
Thus a county of 30,000 people has both a Hindu temple and Mosque.
9.3.2010 | 12:19pm
Hen says:
Mr Gillis does not mention that those so-called persecuted Catholics built their churches with nickel and dime contributions freely given by folks whose breadwinners sometimes died of simple exhaustion, so unlike the undisclosed largess funding of The Islamic mosque.
9.3.2010 | 12:27pm
DavidB says:
To those who think that Islam is monolithic and who state that Muslim countries do not allow churches to be built (beliefs which I've seen expressed many times on FT's web site) I would like to point out that Indonesia has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world (if not the largest), and which is roughly 90% muslim) has many churches, not to mention also having Buddhist groups and even synagogues. Now, Indonesian religious tolerance is not perfect, but I the fact that there is an active non-Muslim presence in the country ought to tell you something about Islam's ability to tolerate people of different faiths.
The "problem" with Islam that so many people talk about is a problem of specific cultures and countries, not with Islam. And the fact that so many of those problem countries are our close allies (think Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) ought to tell you something too.
The "problem" with Islam that so many people talk about is a problem of specific cultures and countries, not with Islam. And the fact that so many of those problem countries are our close allies (think Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) ought to tell you something too.
9.3.2010 | 12:30pm
PS says:
E. Alleyn- what American colonies were established by those fleeing Catholic persecution? I agree that they wanted to be free from a State Church but wasn't (again, in the case of the American colonies) the Church in question the Anglican one? Weren't the protestants in flight the Calvinists, "barkers," Quakers, Gathered Churchers, etc?
9.3.2010 | 12:42pm
Umberto Sanchez says:
Wow. This kind of specious reasoning may fly at Georgetown, but we here at First Things appreciate an actual argument. For all you Georgetown folks, here's what I mean:
-If there were an argument in this article, it would seem to be Catholics endured lots of persecution, it was wrong, so therefore we should act in ways that prevent any similar action being taken against Muslims. I say if there was an argument, because this point is barely made and really seems to rely more on a nostalgic feeling of sympathy than any rational line of thought.
-Are the situations of Muslims and Catholics completely comparable? Can we say that because Catholics were seen as a danger, and then were seen not to be, that therefore Muslims are being unjustly held in contempt?
-Are there reasons to believe that Islam will not integrate into American culture in the same way that Catholicism did? Are there reasons to think that Islamic tenets are incompatible with Western liberal democracy?
-The Georgetown crowd may look at Kennedy's speech as a watershed moment in American Catholicism, but it may be worth asking what was sacrificed in Kennedy's communication of his intent to uphold his oath of office as if he were not Catholic at all. I think many agree that a more nuanced expression, stating that there is no oppostion between the demands of the faith and the demands of the Constitution, may have been more appropriate. Do we wish upon our Muslim neighbors the same dilution of doctorine, and obsolesence of their faith that occurred to Catholics following Kennedy's presidency?
-And finally, may there have been some justifiable concern on the part of early American settlers, in light of recent geo-political manuevering by the Church and specifically the Jesuits? Catholics never blithely insisted on their rights in those days, and we should ask whether Muslims are right to do so now. Is there a graceful amount of give-and-take that is appropriate in these situations?
-If there were an argument in this article, it would seem to be Catholics endured lots of persecution, it was wrong, so therefore we should act in ways that prevent any similar action being taken against Muslims. I say if there was an argument, because this point is barely made and really seems to rely more on a nostalgic feeling of sympathy than any rational line of thought.
-Are the situations of Muslims and Catholics completely comparable? Can we say that because Catholics were seen as a danger, and then were seen not to be, that therefore Muslims are being unjustly held in contempt?
-Are there reasons to believe that Islam will not integrate into American culture in the same way that Catholicism did? Are there reasons to think that Islamic tenets are incompatible with Western liberal democracy?
-The Georgetown crowd may look at Kennedy's speech as a watershed moment in American Catholicism, but it may be worth asking what was sacrificed in Kennedy's communication of his intent to uphold his oath of office as if he were not Catholic at all. I think many agree that a more nuanced expression, stating that there is no oppostion between the demands of the faith and the demands of the Constitution, may have been more appropriate. Do we wish upon our Muslim neighbors the same dilution of doctorine, and obsolesence of their faith that occurred to Catholics following Kennedy's presidency?
-And finally, may there have been some justifiable concern on the part of early American settlers, in light of recent geo-political manuevering by the Church and specifically the Jesuits? Catholics never blithely insisted on their rights in those days, and we should ask whether Muslims are right to do so now. Is there a graceful amount of give-and-take that is appropriate in these situations?
9.3.2010 | 12:43pm
Brian English says:
"Chester Gillis is dean of Georgetown College and a professor of theology at Georgetown University. His most recent book is The Political Papacy."
Georgetown University, home of John Esposito and his Saudi-funded Center for Christian Muslim Understanding ($20,000,000 in 2005).
Georgetown University, where they covered up "IHS" a monogram of the name Jesus Christ, when President Obama spoke there so they would not offend anyone.
Georgetown University, home of John Esposito and his Saudi-funded Center for Christian Muslim Understanding ($20,000,000 in 2005).
Georgetown University, where they covered up "IHS" a monogram of the name Jesus Christ, when President Obama spoke there so they would not offend anyone.
9.3.2010 | 12:48pm
Chuck Anziulewicz says:
This kind of religious bigotry is nothing new. Just as Muslims are a convenient target today, Jews were vilified in the past. During the Black Plague, Jews were accused of poisoning water supplies. In the early 20th century, the forces of religious division in America targeted Jews. Harvard scholar Diana Eck writes, "In the 1930s and early 1940s, hate organizations grew and conspiracy theories about Jewish influence spread like wildfire." In 1939, Father Charles Coughlin's Christian Front filled Madison Square Garden with 20,000 people at a vitriolic anti-Semitic event complete with banners that read: "Stop Jewish Domination of America." And as recently at the 19th century, Jews were actually prohibited from building synagogues in New York City. Today, the forces of religious division demonize Muslims. I guess nothing ever really changes.
9.3.2010 | 12:51pm
Artaban says:
"Now Indonesian religious tolerance is not perfect"...
DavidB, I think you just won a prize for the understatement of the week. To date, according to the "Setara Institute for Peace and Democracy" there have been 28 attacks on Indonesian Christians in 2010 alone. For decades there have been shootings. Churches have been bombed.
Additionally, the "Islamic Defenders Front" has been pushing for the government to adopt a ban on non-Islamic religions.
The "problem" with Islam is NOT one of specific cultures, as certain courageous Muslims like British-born Irshad Manji have stated openly (incidentally, she has received death threats from her fellow Muslims for what she's said). The problem is that Islam officially teaches that those who leave Islam are guaranteed hellfire and should be killed. That many Muslims choose not to enforce aspects of their own faith should not cause us comfort. Rather, it should alarm us that those core tenets exist at all...
DavidB, I think you just won a prize for the understatement of the week. To date, according to the "Setara Institute for Peace and Democracy" there have been 28 attacks on Indonesian Christians in 2010 alone. For decades there have been shootings. Churches have been bombed.
Additionally, the "Islamic Defenders Front" has been pushing for the government to adopt a ban on non-Islamic religions.
The "problem" with Islam is NOT one of specific cultures, as certain courageous Muslims like British-born Irshad Manji have stated openly (incidentally, she has received death threats from her fellow Muslims for what she's said). The problem is that Islam officially teaches that those who leave Islam are guaranteed hellfire and should be killed. That many Muslims choose not to enforce aspects of their own faith should not cause us comfort. Rather, it should alarm us that those core tenets exist at all...
9.3.2010 | 1:10pm
Paul R says:
Mr. Gillis - I don't doubt your learning, or the facts you present here, but as we see so often in "academic" writing now, all history (particularly American History) must have the same fashionable theme - a particular group's history is a history of oppression, prejudice and/or racism vs. the existing power structure of the day. Your article is just more of the same.
9.3.2010 | 1:40pm
Brian English says:
" Today, the forces of religious division demonize Muslims. I guess nothing ever really changes."
Please. Americans are not demonizing Muslims because they object to a mosque at Ground Zero. Americans have been extraordinarily tolerant of Muslims despite (off the top of my head): (1) 9/11; (2) the D.C. Sniper; (3) the Muslim Army Officer who rolled grenades in on his fellow officers in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq War; (4) the Buffalo Six; (5) the Fort Dix Attack Plot; (6) the Arkansas Recruiting Station Shooting; (7) the Fort Hood Massacre; (8) the Underwear Bomber; and (9) the Times Square Bombing Attempt.
Every year since 9/11 there have been about 10 times as many anti-Jewish attacks in this country as there have been anti-Muslim attacks. Accusing this country of being bigoted against Muslims is an outrage.
Please. Americans are not demonizing Muslims because they object to a mosque at Ground Zero. Americans have been extraordinarily tolerant of Muslims despite (off the top of my head): (1) 9/11; (2) the D.C. Sniper; (3) the Muslim Army Officer who rolled grenades in on his fellow officers in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq War; (4) the Buffalo Six; (5) the Fort Dix Attack Plot; (6) the Arkansas Recruiting Station Shooting; (7) the Fort Hood Massacre; (8) the Underwear Bomber; and (9) the Times Square Bombing Attempt.
Every year since 9/11 there have been about 10 times as many anti-Jewish attacks in this country as there have been anti-Muslim attacks. Accusing this country of being bigoted against Muslims is an outrage.
9.3.2010 | 1:52pm
Ed Snyder says:
As a Catholic myself, I would remind the editors of FT (since they, not the readers, seem to need it, seeing as they published these words) that it was not Catholics who flew passager airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
And to add some historical perspective, no Catholic or group of Catholics claiming the Church's teaching as justification ever committed an act of mass murder on American soil against unarmed non-combatants. And then whined about how persecuted they are when people bring up jihad.
Rather than publish articles of this kind at "On The Square," perhaps the editors of FT could create a new forum for them. Suggested title: "Open Mike Night."
And to add some historical perspective, no Catholic or group of Catholics claiming the Church's teaching as justification ever committed an act of mass murder on American soil against unarmed non-combatants. And then whined about how persecuted they are when people bring up jihad.
Rather than publish articles of this kind at "On The Square," perhaps the editors of FT could create a new forum for them. Suggested title: "Open Mike Night."
9.3.2010 | 1:54pm
tetedepapineau says:
Could it be that the muslims wishing to build the Cordoba Centre near ground 0 are in their way trying to prove that they are as American as everyone else? that they belong? that they can be loud and ostentatious as much as anyone else? It seems to me this could at least be part of it. Their loyalty to America needs to be severely tested though. After all, Catholics' loyalty has been, and Catholics never blew up anything like the WTC to make a point.
9.3.2010 | 2:05pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Well, that was certainly a good and satisfying wallow. Please allow me one of my own, a story of Catholic oppression of fellow Catholics, that took place during the period from the end of the 19th century until the beginning of the 1930s.
The story involves those of us who used to be called the "Eastern rite of the Roman Catholic Church". Today, we are the Eastern Catholic Churches (an important distinction), and specifically, the Metropolitan Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church of Pittsburgh, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. We are descendants of Orthodox Christians of what is now Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary, who entered into communion with the Church of Rome through the Treaty of Brest (1596) and the Union of Uzherod (1646). We share the same liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and disciplines as our Orthodox Mother Churches, but are in communion with the Church of Rome.
Large numbers of Ruthenians (Sub-Carpathian Rusyn) and Ukrainians began arriving in the New World in the 1890s, driven out of their homeland by a combination of poverty and the process of "Magyarization" within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They tended to settle in the coal country and steel towns of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey, and when a substantial number had formed into communities, they wrote to their bishops back home asking for priests to be sent over to tend their spiritual needs.
As with the Orthodox Church, the "Greek Catholics", as they were known, had a bifurcated clergy consisting of married parish priests and celibate monastic priests, with bishops chosen from among the monastic clergy. So, when the bishop in Muckachevo received requests for priests, he dispatched either married or widowed men to fill the job.
As there was no Greek Catholic hierarchy in the United States at that time, the priests presented themselves to the local ordinaries to receive their faculties to celebrate the Liturgy and administer the sacraments. They were not received with outstretched arms. Rather, the (predominantly Irish) bishops were horrified, scandalized and outraged: here were priests who dressed differently, wore beards, and worse still! often had a wife and children in tow.
Not only were they denied faculties, they were ordered to return home, and a blizzard of letters went forth from America asking that the so-called "Eastern rite" be suppressed in the New World. The language used by the American bishops in their dealings with the Ruthenian priests was rude, insulting and immensely offensive.
In the most famous case of its kind, a widowed priest, Father Alexis Toth, was told by that pillar of American Roman Catholicism, Bishop John Ireland of Minneapolis, that he did not want him in his diocese, that he did not consider him a legitimate priest, that the wives of married priests were nothing more than legitimized concubines, and that if the Ruthenians needed a parish, they could go to the Polish one down the block. As the Church Lady might say, "Isn't that. . .special?"
At the insistence of the American Roman Catholic hierarchy, an Encyclical Letter entitled Cum data fuerit (1896) directed that only celibate priests could serve in Ruthenian churches in America, that infant communion was prohibited, that the sacrament of Chrismation (confirmation) would be separated from the other Sacraments of Initiation. This was an attack upon the very foundations of Greek Catholic liturgy, theology, doctrine and spirituality. It was also a direct violation of the Acts of Union by which the Greek Catholics had first come into communion with Rome.
The most significant result of Cum data fuerit was the defection of perhaps 150,000 of the 250,000 Ruthenian Greek Catholics to what was then called the "Russian Orthodox North American Mission"--today's Orthodox Church in America. Prior to this time, the Orthodox presence in the U.S. had consisted of some small Russian and Greek ethnic communities; with the influx of former Greek Catholics (led by Father Alexis Toth, today one of the OCA's Saints of North America), Orthodoxy acquired a numerical and geographical strength it had formerly lacked. Some people think the OCA should have glorified Bishop John Ireland, too, since he was, in a real sense, the true Father of Orthodoxy in this country.
Except for the directive on married priests, the Greek Catholics managed to evade most of the restrictions of Cum data fuerit. Over time, they also managed to circumvent the restriction on married priests as well, mainly by organizing parishes as social clubs, so as to avoid control by the local Latin ordinary. And with the arrival of a Ruthenian exarch at the turn of the century, while married Greek Catholic men continued to serve as priests.
By 1930, married priests were visible enough that the Latin bishops once more complained to Rome, which issued a "constitution" for the Ruthenians in North America (and later, Australia) called Ea Semper. It prohibited Ruthenian bishops in the U.S from ordaining married men to the clergy, but it also created an eparchial (diocesan) structure for the Ruthenian Church (which, at the time, also encompassed the Ukrainian Greek Catholics). The suppression of married priests once again fomented a schism, though this time some 50,000 of the remaining Greek Catholics entered communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the "Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown". Resultant lawsuits over ownership of those parishes incorporated as "social clubs" lasted for decades and resulted in lingering bitterness that is only now passing.
While all this was going on within the Greek Catholic community as a result of Latin interference in their internal affairs, the Latin bishops proceeded to follow pastoral policies intended to reduce Greek Catholics to second class status within the Catholic Church in America, and to promote transfers from the "Greek rite" to the Latin rite--in other words, a deliberate policy of ecclesiacide by one group of Catholics against another.
For example, until after World War II, Roman Catholics were prohibited from receiving communion in a Greek Catholic church--but Greek Catholics were welcome in Roman Catholic churches. Roman Catholic women were prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) from marrying Greek Catholic men--but Greek Catholic women were permitted to marry Roman Catholic men. Greek Catholic children under the age of seven who had already received all of the sacraments of initiation were refused communion in Roman Catholic churches. Greek Catholic families were required to pay the non-parish tuition for Latin parochial schools, unless they transferred to the Latin parish. And, once there, Greek Catholic children, who had already been chrismated as infants, were often presented to the Latin bishop for confirmation.
The net effect of all this was a continual leakage of Greek Catholics from the "Eastern rite" to the "Latin rite", so that today the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church numbers less than 50,000 active members. An additional 30,000 or so who are canonically Ruthenian Catholics are worshiping in Latin parishes.
While most of the more obnoxious policies of the Latin Church towards the Greek Catholics have ended (thanks in no small part to Pope John Paul's Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen), and we are being encouraged to recover the fullness of our own Tradition (most Greek Catholic Churches--though not the Ruthenian--now ordain married men and have ditched most of their latinizations, much damage has been done, possibly fatal in the long run.
So, when Roman Catholics want to feel sorry for themselves or outraged over their treatment at the hands of non-Catholics since the 19th century, they should try to remember that they were fully capable of acting in a similar way, and to people who were supposed to be their brethren in Christ.
The story involves those of us who used to be called the "Eastern rite of the Roman Catholic Church". Today, we are the Eastern Catholic Churches (an important distinction), and specifically, the Metropolitan Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church of Pittsburgh, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. We are descendants of Orthodox Christians of what is now Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary, who entered into communion with the Church of Rome through the Treaty of Brest (1596) and the Union of Uzherod (1646). We share the same liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and disciplines as our Orthodox Mother Churches, but are in communion with the Church of Rome.
Large numbers of Ruthenians (Sub-Carpathian Rusyn) and Ukrainians began arriving in the New World in the 1890s, driven out of their homeland by a combination of poverty and the process of "Magyarization" within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They tended to settle in the coal country and steel towns of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey, and when a substantial number had formed into communities, they wrote to their bishops back home asking for priests to be sent over to tend their spiritual needs.
As with the Orthodox Church, the "Greek Catholics", as they were known, had a bifurcated clergy consisting of married parish priests and celibate monastic priests, with bishops chosen from among the monastic clergy. So, when the bishop in Muckachevo received requests for priests, he dispatched either married or widowed men to fill the job.
As there was no Greek Catholic hierarchy in the United States at that time, the priests presented themselves to the local ordinaries to receive their faculties to celebrate the Liturgy and administer the sacraments. They were not received with outstretched arms. Rather, the (predominantly Irish) bishops were horrified, scandalized and outraged: here were priests who dressed differently, wore beards, and worse still! often had a wife and children in tow.
Not only were they denied faculties, they were ordered to return home, and a blizzard of letters went forth from America asking that the so-called "Eastern rite" be suppressed in the New World. The language used by the American bishops in their dealings with the Ruthenian priests was rude, insulting and immensely offensive.
In the most famous case of its kind, a widowed priest, Father Alexis Toth, was told by that pillar of American Roman Catholicism, Bishop John Ireland of Minneapolis, that he did not want him in his diocese, that he did not consider him a legitimate priest, that the wives of married priests were nothing more than legitimized concubines, and that if the Ruthenians needed a parish, they could go to the Polish one down the block. As the Church Lady might say, "Isn't that. . .special?"
At the insistence of the American Roman Catholic hierarchy, an Encyclical Letter entitled Cum data fuerit (1896) directed that only celibate priests could serve in Ruthenian churches in America, that infant communion was prohibited, that the sacrament of Chrismation (confirmation) would be separated from the other Sacraments of Initiation. This was an attack upon the very foundations of Greek Catholic liturgy, theology, doctrine and spirituality. It was also a direct violation of the Acts of Union by which the Greek Catholics had first come into communion with Rome.
The most significant result of Cum data fuerit was the defection of perhaps 150,000 of the 250,000 Ruthenian Greek Catholics to what was then called the "Russian Orthodox North American Mission"--today's Orthodox Church in America. Prior to this time, the Orthodox presence in the U.S. had consisted of some small Russian and Greek ethnic communities; with the influx of former Greek Catholics (led by Father Alexis Toth, today one of the OCA's Saints of North America), Orthodoxy acquired a numerical and geographical strength it had formerly lacked. Some people think the OCA should have glorified Bishop John Ireland, too, since he was, in a real sense, the true Father of Orthodoxy in this country.
Except for the directive on married priests, the Greek Catholics managed to evade most of the restrictions of Cum data fuerit. Over time, they also managed to circumvent the restriction on married priests as well, mainly by organizing parishes as social clubs, so as to avoid control by the local Latin ordinary. And with the arrival of a Ruthenian exarch at the turn of the century, while married Greek Catholic men continued to serve as priests.
By 1930, married priests were visible enough that the Latin bishops once more complained to Rome, which issued a "constitution" for the Ruthenians in North America (and later, Australia) called Ea Semper. It prohibited Ruthenian bishops in the U.S from ordaining married men to the clergy, but it also created an eparchial (diocesan) structure for the Ruthenian Church (which, at the time, also encompassed the Ukrainian Greek Catholics). The suppression of married priests once again fomented a schism, though this time some 50,000 of the remaining Greek Catholics entered communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the "Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown". Resultant lawsuits over ownership of those parishes incorporated as "social clubs" lasted for decades and resulted in lingering bitterness that is only now passing.
While all this was going on within the Greek Catholic community as a result of Latin interference in their internal affairs, the Latin bishops proceeded to follow pastoral policies intended to reduce Greek Catholics to second class status within the Catholic Church in America, and to promote transfers from the "Greek rite" to the Latin rite--in other words, a deliberate policy of ecclesiacide by one group of Catholics against another.
For example, until after World War II, Roman Catholics were prohibited from receiving communion in a Greek Catholic church--but Greek Catholics were welcome in Roman Catholic churches. Roman Catholic women were prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) from marrying Greek Catholic men--but Greek Catholic women were permitted to marry Roman Catholic men. Greek Catholic children under the age of seven who had already received all of the sacraments of initiation were refused communion in Roman Catholic churches. Greek Catholic families were required to pay the non-parish tuition for Latin parochial schools, unless they transferred to the Latin parish. And, once there, Greek Catholic children, who had already been chrismated as infants, were often presented to the Latin bishop for confirmation.
The net effect of all this was a continual leakage of Greek Catholics from the "Eastern rite" to the "Latin rite", so that today the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church numbers less than 50,000 active members. An additional 30,000 or so who are canonically Ruthenian Catholics are worshiping in Latin parishes.
While most of the more obnoxious policies of the Latin Church towards the Greek Catholics have ended (thanks in no small part to Pope John Paul's Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen), and we are being encouraged to recover the fullness of our own Tradition (most Greek Catholic Churches--though not the Ruthenian--now ordain married men and have ditched most of their latinizations, much damage has been done, possibly fatal in the long run.
So, when Roman Catholics want to feel sorry for themselves or outraged over their treatment at the hands of non-Catholics since the 19th century, they should try to remember that they were fully capable of acting in a similar way, and to people who were supposed to be their brethren in Christ.
9.3.2010 | 2:12pm
Reader says:
Chuck laughably wrote:
"Just as Muslims are a convenient target today, Jews were vilified in the past. "
Since when do Jews have a 14 century long history of imperialism and a theology of dhimmitude?
Your inability to see past your emotions is very sad.
"Just as Muslims are a convenient target today, Jews were vilified in the past. "
Since when do Jews have a 14 century long history of imperialism and a theology of dhimmitude?
Your inability to see past your emotions is very sad.
9.3.2010 | 2:12pm
L A Stich says:
Nice essay. So what?
1) IIRC, the Catholics in America never proposed to establish a church on top of what was acknowledged as a 'hallowed ground.'
2) Islam is both State and Religion. The implications are extremely significant and different from the American understanding. To pretend that Muslims will utterly reject the Koranic command to 'subjugate' infidels is pollyanna-esque.
1) IIRC, the Catholics in America never proposed to establish a church on top of what was acknowledged as a 'hallowed ground.'
2) Islam is both State and Religion. The implications are extremely significant and different from the American understanding. To pretend that Muslims will utterly reject the Koranic command to 'subjugate' infidels is pollyanna-esque.
9.3.2010 | 2:52pm
Paul R says:
Mr. Gillis - are Buddhists being "persecuted" in the USA? Sikhs? Hindus?
If, as you say, American history is simply one long tale of oppression and bigotry, then why have these groups escaped religious bigotry in these highly charged times?
If, as you say, American history is simply one long tale of oppression and bigotry, then why have these groups escaped religious bigotry in these highly charged times?
9.3.2010 | 3:02pm
dwl says:
American Protestants genuinely believed that the papacy and the entire religious bureaucracy of which it was the head represented a real threat to American freedom, understood spiritually, morally, and politically.
“If they could read the Bible…their darkened intellect would brighten, and their bowed down mind would rise If they dared to think for themselves, the contrast of protestant independence with their thraldom, would awaken the desire of equal privileges”
Both trusteeism and the encyclical *Testem Benevolentiae* shows the continued attraction of traditional Eurocentric episcopal and papal responses to American religious culture. (I want to make clear from the standpoint of the spiritual and religious integrity of Catholicism, there were valid points on both sides of these debates.)
Yes, American Roman Catholics themselves finally insisted on Americanization, but only because Protestants continued to resist the possible renewal of a papal-episcopal hegemony.
Likewise, Muslims *might* finally Americanize, which *de facto* means Protestantize. But we must do our job in resisting any subversion of the specifically American modes of religious freedom.
“If they could read the Bible…their darkened intellect would brighten, and their bowed down mind would rise If they dared to think for themselves, the contrast of protestant independence with their thraldom, would awaken the desire of equal privileges”
Both trusteeism and the encyclical *Testem Benevolentiae* shows the continued attraction of traditional Eurocentric episcopal and papal responses to American religious culture. (I want to make clear from the standpoint of the spiritual and religious integrity of Catholicism, there were valid points on both sides of these debates.)
Yes, American Roman Catholics themselves finally insisted on Americanization, but only because Protestants continued to resist the possible renewal of a papal-episcopal hegemony.
Likewise, Muslims *might* finally Americanize, which *de facto* means Protestantize. But we must do our job in resisting any subversion of the specifically American modes of religious freedom.
9.3.2010 | 3:09pm
Edward Alleyn says:
To PS: I merely point out that the history of religion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is more complex than Prof. Gillis presents it.
Why were Catholics persecuted? One answer is that they persecuted Protestants in Europe.
Prof. Gillis seems to be in a Catholic-as-victim frame of mind. "Look at us Catholics, you poor Muslim victims, we are victims too and have been for a long while," he seems to say.
Why were Catholics persecuted? One answer is that they persecuted Protestants in Europe.
Prof. Gillis seems to be in a Catholic-as-victim frame of mind. "Look at us Catholics, you poor Muslim victims, we are victims too and have been for a long while," he seems to say.
9.3.2010 | 3:21pm
Aimee says:
Indeed, history is complex, when one doesn't want to own the truth. The assertion that, say, English Protestants in America were persecuted by Catholics is just laughable. Catholics were persecuted in America because they were being persecuted in England and other Protestant countries, and people brought their prejudice with them.
Equally laughable is the parallel being drawn between the way Ctaholics have been treated in America and the furor over the Mosque. I suppose if you squint real hard, you can't see the differences.
Equally laughable is the parallel being drawn between the way Ctaholics have been treated in America and the furor over the Mosque. I suppose if you squint real hard, you can't see the differences.
9.3.2010 | 5:23pm
Maria V. says:
Could this be an expression of some yearning on campus of Georgetown for the Islamic style of discipline ...that good Catholics should have had all along , out of reverence for God and His temple , our bodies ..
May be a week or a month of practice of Islamic culture could cure some of the ills of the rebellious , destrucive young - who not only are a threat to themselves by their insistence on fornication as a right ,even to be subsidised by a Catholic college but destructive on all around and all involved - such are the truths of spiritual kingdoms ..
Thus , a week or a month devoted to strict enforcement - anyone ( or would it be only be for any woman , under Islamic rule ! ) caught fornicating , flogged publicly etc : ; thus the nation and esp. the campus get a taste of what we wish for , esp. by overt or covert actions that call for 'submission ' under stricter aunthority , when we prove we cannot handle freedom well .. !
As to Catholics being welcomed or not in this land, may be heaven had other plans , as evidenced by these lands having been claimed for a Mother , as early as 1531 and there is nothing better for this land than faithful Catholics and Church and anything that undermines same , to be viewed with a wary eye ..
It is fascinating to read about the mystery depicted on the Tilma of our Lady of Guadalupe , the war between the powers in the heavens and our own role in same ..
True, we have to be charitable, just , truthful to our own calling etc : but again, the concerns expressed by many , about the fundamental beliefs and ways of what we are dealing with seem legitimate !
May be a week or a month of practice of Islamic culture could cure some of the ills of the rebellious , destrucive young - who not only are a threat to themselves by their insistence on fornication as a right ,even to be subsidised by a Catholic college but destructive on all around and all involved - such are the truths of spiritual kingdoms ..
Thus , a week or a month devoted to strict enforcement - anyone ( or would it be only be for any woman , under Islamic rule ! ) caught fornicating , flogged publicly etc : ; thus the nation and esp. the campus get a taste of what we wish for , esp. by overt or covert actions that call for 'submission ' under stricter aunthority , when we prove we cannot handle freedom well .. !
As to Catholics being welcomed or not in this land, may be heaven had other plans , as evidenced by these lands having been claimed for a Mother , as early as 1531 and there is nothing better for this land than faithful Catholics and Church and anything that undermines same , to be viewed with a wary eye ..
It is fascinating to read about the mystery depicted on the Tilma of our Lady of Guadalupe , the war between the powers in the heavens and our own role in same ..
True, we have to be charitable, just , truthful to our own calling etc : but again, the concerns expressed by many , about the fundamental beliefs and ways of what we are dealing with seem legitimate !
9.3.2010 | 5:49pm
FRISCOSAN says:
The ground zero mosque is not a religious issue for the Imam or the other Muslim militants. It is purely political. It is the continuation of the 14 century long scam that militant Muslims have been perpetrating on ignorant and gullible non-believers to achieve their ancient dream of world conquest. The greatest, most successful scam in world history thrives even today because Westerners are unable to understand the meaning of the five Arabic words that govern Muslim culture. Look these five words up, connect the dots and know whaaasssup! The five are: Naskh (abrogation), Taqiyah (dissimulation), Ijma' (consensus), Dhimmitude (humiliation), and Jizya (poll tax). All five meanings originate in the Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith.
This ancient scam will end only when non-believers know what these words mean to Muslims and people start calling the militants on them. What an elegantly simple way to dis-empower the con game of all time and advance human progress! But, people will not believe it until they see for themselves. I am willing to bet 10 bucks no one else will make the same effort I made to know the truth and this potential for human progress will end with me.
This ancient scam will end only when non-believers know what these words mean to Muslims and people start calling the militants on them. What an elegantly simple way to dis-empower the con game of all time and advance human progress! But, people will not believe it until they see for themselves. I am willing to bet 10 bucks no one else will make the same effort I made to know the truth and this potential for human progress will end with me.
9.3.2010 | 6:01pm
greggo says:
Stuart Koehl, Thank you for a comment many Roman brothers were not aware of or would rather not admit. It seems that power East or West is never given but must be taken. Those in power never share it unless forced to share.
9.3.2010 | 6:12pm
Porcell says:
Equating prejudice against Catholics with that of present concern regarding militant Islamism is absurd. The Catholic people never engendered a radical wing that employed terrorism or stealth jihadi tactics.
The dominant Anglo Protestant culture, while undoubtedly biased against toward Catholics, over time had the good sense to accept the reality of their presence. In the Boston area, where I live, the Catholics even came to displace the dominant Anglo-Protestant culture, whose denizens are now denigrated as WASPS.
Americans, if anything at present, are reluctant to face the reality that the militant terrorists and "peaceful" stealth jihadis seriously intend to extend their Shariah law, The supposedly moderate Muslims who could rein in the militant ones have so far turned out ro be a pleasant illusion.
Most Americans have no idea that until the 19th century, when Ottoman/Islam military power steeply declined, Islam was a formidable and dangerous enemy to the West. It still is.
The dominant Anglo Protestant culture, while undoubtedly biased against toward Catholics, over time had the good sense to accept the reality of their presence. In the Boston area, where I live, the Catholics even came to displace the dominant Anglo-Protestant culture, whose denizens are now denigrated as WASPS.
Americans, if anything at present, are reluctant to face the reality that the militant terrorists and "peaceful" stealth jihadis seriously intend to extend their Shariah law, The supposedly moderate Muslims who could rein in the militant ones have so far turned out ro be a pleasant illusion.
Most Americans have no idea that until the 19th century, when Ottoman/Islam military power steeply declined, Islam was a formidable and dangerous enemy to the West. It still is.
9.3.2010 | 8:26pm
Edward Alleyn says:
The slaughter of Huguenots (French Protestants) by Catholics at Sens, Burgundy in 1562 occurred at the beginning of more than thirty years of religious strife between French Protestants and Catholics. These wars produced numerous atrocities. The worst was the notorious St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in Paris, August 24, 1572. Thousands of Huguenots were butchered by Roman Catholic mobs. Although an accommodation between the two sides was sealed in 1598 by the Edict of Nantes, religious privileges of Huguenots eroded during the seventeenth century and were extinguished in 1685 by the revocation of the Edict. Perhaps as many as 400,000 French Protestants emigrated to various parts of the world, including the British North American colonies.
9.4.2010 | 9:01am
Brian English says:
We should also give credit where credit is due.
With regard to the Muslim GI, Naser Abdo, who is seeking conscientious objector status to avoid being deployed to Afghanistan, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy ("AIFD") has comes out swinging:
"Muslims serve with distinction throughout the United States Military and AIFD sees Abdo’s traitorous public assertions as a slap in the face to all American Muslims especially those Muslims who fight in our armed forces for the liberty and freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution."
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of AIFD stated: “Abdo’s actions are an affront to every American Muslim who has proudly donned a U.S. military uniform. His assertions are not built on Islamic teachings but on a feeble adherence to the global political ideology of Islamism that threatens our security and radicalizes our Muslim youth.”
Dr. Jasser, who is a former lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, is the type of Muslim-American the media should be paying more attention to. I think he speaks for far more Muslim-Americans than many of the more high-profile "representatives" we see.
The entire article on this is over at the FoxNews website.
With regard to the Muslim GI, Naser Abdo, who is seeking conscientious objector status to avoid being deployed to Afghanistan, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy ("AIFD") has comes out swinging:
"Muslims serve with distinction throughout the United States Military and AIFD sees Abdo’s traitorous public assertions as a slap in the face to all American Muslims especially those Muslims who fight in our armed forces for the liberty and freedom guaranteed by the American Constitution."
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of AIFD stated: “Abdo’s actions are an affront to every American Muslim who has proudly donned a U.S. military uniform. His assertions are not built on Islamic teachings but on a feeble adherence to the global political ideology of Islamism that threatens our security and radicalizes our Muslim youth.”
Dr. Jasser, who is a former lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, is the type of Muslim-American the media should be paying more attention to. I think he speaks for far more Muslim-Americans than many of the more high-profile "representatives" we see.
The entire article on this is over at the FoxNews website.
9.4.2010 | 9:17am
Scott123 says:
This Professor Gillis needs to go back to school. How can he say with a straight face that Catholics came to an America dominated by Protestant money-power. If anything the world of finance was and remains to a considerable extent Jewish.
Sure that's politically correct, but isn't a university supposed to choose truth over politics?
Also, Cordoba House is so named as a provocation considering the Islamic claim of the Cathedral of Cordoba is Spain that was originally a Church then taken and made a Mosque and then again a Church. The muslims in Spain want it back.
If anything why don't the muslims scale down the project and make it a mosque of reparation..... No one would protest that.
What people are against is the provocation this Mosque represents and of course academia is so caught up in their own self-censoring prejudices that can't even see it for what it is.
Sure that's politically correct, but isn't a university supposed to choose truth over politics?
Also, Cordoba House is so named as a provocation considering the Islamic claim of the Cathedral of Cordoba is Spain that was originally a Church then taken and made a Mosque and then again a Church. The muslims in Spain want it back.
If anything why don't the muslims scale down the project and make it a mosque of reparation..... No one would protest that.
What people are against is the provocation this Mosque represents and of course academia is so caught up in their own self-censoring prejudices that can't even see it for what it is.
9.4.2010 | 9:25am
Diane says:
It is so sad to see the hate here under the guise of information and knowledge.
The Crusades were led by Catholics in the name of religion. How many Muslims were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes?
But let me pose a question.
Why did we lose over 4,000 American lives in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraq citizens if we do not want Muslims to have the same rights as we have?
We should never compare ourselves to other countries. We have religious freedom and many other liberties that others do not share. Are they wrong? Are others persecuted in those countries? I believe yes. BUT unless the US is willing to declare war and destroy other countries and set up new democracies, then we need to lead by example.
If we, as Christians, do not feel that we should be faulted for other Christians who kill (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) then we cannot tie all Muslims to the heinous acts of others.
The Crusades were led by Catholics in the name of religion. How many Muslims were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes?
But let me pose a question.
Why did we lose over 4,000 American lives in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraq citizens if we do not want Muslims to have the same rights as we have?
We should never compare ourselves to other countries. We have religious freedom and many other liberties that others do not share. Are they wrong? Are others persecuted in those countries? I believe yes. BUT unless the US is willing to declare war and destroy other countries and set up new democracies, then we need to lead by example.
If we, as Christians, do not feel that we should be faulted for other Christians who kill (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) then we cannot tie all Muslims to the heinous acts of others.
9.4.2010 | 10:05am
Jacob says:
Edward, are you aware that many of those fleeing France where Catholics whose families had been killed during the Terrors?
If you want to write an article about the horrible persecution the Huguenots faced then by all means do so.
I'm not sure though how bringing that up means that this gentleman shouldn't have written this article about a very important subject.
I would agree that comparing the threat of Catholics back then and Muslims now seems a little bit off. But I would fret to condescend his conclusion that we should love Muslims as Protestants should have loved Catholics (and Catholics should have loved Huguenots.)
But it seems that the comment section hear has been denigrated by FT's increasing popularity.
If you want to make an intellectual argument then ok, but how many comments do I have to read that say "I really hate what you're saying..so you're an evil stupid hypocritical poopy head for writing it!"???
I think some of our distinguished commentors need to take a logic class and pay extra close attention to the section on Ad Hominem..
If you want to write an article about the horrible persecution the Huguenots faced then by all means do so.
I'm not sure though how bringing that up means that this gentleman shouldn't have written this article about a very important subject.
I would agree that comparing the threat of Catholics back then and Muslims now seems a little bit off. But I would fret to condescend his conclusion that we should love Muslims as Protestants should have loved Catholics (and Catholics should have loved Huguenots.)
But it seems that the comment section hear has been denigrated by FT's increasing popularity.
If you want to make an intellectual argument then ok, but how many comments do I have to read that say "I really hate what you're saying..so you're an evil stupid hypocritical poopy head for writing it!"???
I think some of our distinguished commentors need to take a logic class and pay extra close attention to the section on Ad Hominem..
9.4.2010 | 10:53am
Shan Gill says:
Mr. Gillis seeks to present the multicultural, moral-equivalency argument of the two vastly different faith communities - Roman Catholic/Christian and Muslim/Islam.
But let's be clear.
The groups worship two very different Gods - the God of the Quran is also known as the Greatest Deceiver (Al-Mu'akhir - one of his 99 names), while Catholics worship the one God who neither deceives nor can be deceived, and who says of Himself, "I am the Truth, the Life and the Way".
But let's be clear.
The groups worship two very different Gods - the God of the Quran is also known as the Greatest Deceiver (Al-Mu'akhir - one of his 99 names), while Catholics worship the one God who neither deceives nor can be deceived, and who says of Himself, "I am the Truth, the Life and the Way".
9.4.2010 | 10:59am
frb says:
Spoken like a true Ivory Tower Liberal. No need to mention he teaches at Georgetown U, I could've figured that out...
9.4.2010 | 12:55pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Jacob: here's my point. It's not enough for Prof. Gillis to write about the persecution of Catholics by Protestants in the US without at least mentioning the reasons or possible reasons for the persecution. I don't condone persecution, past or present.
He also draws a parallel between the persecution of Catholics and the . . . what? . . . certainly not "persecution" . . . of Muslims in the US today. His meta-theme is the time-worn Leftist cliche — victimhood.
There are countless good reasons why many Americans distrust and fear Muslims, even the allegedly "moderate" ones. Here are some of those reasons: as a religion or cult, they lie to infidels; they hate Jews; they persecute Christians; they torture and kill women and homosexuals; and they wish to impose Sharia law on the world, including Catholics in the USA.
He also draws a parallel between the persecution of Catholics and the . . . what? . . . certainly not "persecution" . . . of Muslims in the US today. His meta-theme is the time-worn Leftist cliche — victimhood.
There are countless good reasons why many Americans distrust and fear Muslims, even the allegedly "moderate" ones. Here are some of those reasons: as a religion or cult, they lie to infidels; they hate Jews; they persecute Christians; they torture and kill women and homosexuals; and they wish to impose Sharia law on the world, including Catholics in the USA.
9.4.2010 | 1:16pm
Brian English says:
"It is so sad to see the hate here under the guise of information and knowledge.
The Crusades were led by Catholics in the name of religion. How many Muslims were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes?"
How many Catholics were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes from Muslims in the 450 years that preceded the First Crusade?
"But let me pose a question.
Why did we lose over 4,000 American lives in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraq citizens if we do not want Muslims to have the same rights as we have?"
Muslims do have the same rights as all Americans. The First Amendment protects people from action by the government. The local government appears to love the idea of the Mosque, so Muslims have nothing to fear from them. The people who oppose the Mosque have a First Amendment right to express their opposition to the Mosque. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It has to do with common-human decency and making compromises to foster understanding.
"BUT unless the US is willing to declare war and destroy other countries and set up new democracies, then we need to lead by example."
We do lead by example. That is why so many people want to come here. That doesn't mean we have to accept every offensive action directed at us.
"If we, as Christians, do not feel that we should be faulted for other Christians who kill (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) then we cannot tie all Muslims to the heinous acts of others."
Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist who blew up a government building. He certainly realized most of the people who were going to be killed were Christians, but could not have cared less. His "Christianity" had nothing to do with it.
The Crusades were led by Catholics in the name of religion. How many Muslims were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes?"
How many Catholics were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes from Muslims in the 450 years that preceded the First Crusade?
"But let me pose a question.
Why did we lose over 4,000 American lives in Iraq and hundred of thousands Iraq citizens if we do not want Muslims to have the same rights as we have?"
Muslims do have the same rights as all Americans. The First Amendment protects people from action by the government. The local government appears to love the idea of the Mosque, so Muslims have nothing to fear from them. The people who oppose the Mosque have a First Amendment right to express their opposition to the Mosque. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It has to do with common-human decency and making compromises to foster understanding.
"BUT unless the US is willing to declare war and destroy other countries and set up new democracies, then we need to lead by example."
We do lead by example. That is why so many people want to come here. That doesn't mean we have to accept every offensive action directed at us.
"If we, as Christians, do not feel that we should be faulted for other Christians who kill (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) then we cannot tie all Muslims to the heinous acts of others."
Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government terrorist who blew up a government building. He certainly realized most of the people who were going to be killed were Christians, but could not have cared less. His "Christianity" had nothing to do with it.
9.4.2010 | 2:03pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The Crusades were led by Catholics in the name of religion. How many Muslims were slaughtered protecting their own religion and homes?"
Gee, Diane,
Let me pose another question: Just what were those Muslims doing in Syria-Palestine, anyway? How do you think they got there? You seem to be a "right thinking" type of person who would regard the oppression of a majority population by a foreign occupying power as an affront against human dignity.
So, why do you give a pass to the Muslim conquerors of what had been, for the three centuries prior to 632, a thriving, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and religiously pluralistic society? Both Arab and Muslims were interlopers in the Middle East. They came tearing out of the Arabian desert in the 620s, hopped up on religious fanaticism and the promise of easy plunder. The rapidly conquered what had been the Roman Near East--Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and parts of Anatolia, as well as the remains of the Sassanid Persian Empire.
The Muslim conquerors had no inclination or capacity to run these areas themselves, so they left the previous administrators and ruling class in place, subjugated to a small Arab Muslim overclass. Few of the Jews and Christians of the Middle East converted to Islam, but they were reduced to the status of "dhimmis", subject to all sorts of social, economic and legal disabilities, and living precariously at the whim of the Muslim rulers.
The situation had not changed by the time the area was overrun by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century--most of the people were Christians, but there was a substantial Jewish minority, and Muslims constituted a relatively small portion of the population. The Seljuks differed from previous Muslim rulers in actively oppressing the majority population (the Christians), destroying Christians shrines and churches, and interfering with the pilgrim traffic from Europe to Jerusalem (imagine the outcry if a European government interfered with the ability of Muslims to make the Haj).
This, plus the Seljuk threat to Constantinople, were the proximate causes of the First Crusade. The Muslims were not sitting around, minding their own business, when evil Christians came rampaging through their lands. They had been invading Christian lands for ages, seizing and holding what was not theirs in the first place. And, of course, they did so in the name of religion, for, contrary to what you might have been told and dearly want to believe, "jihad" does not really mean "inner struggle", it means conquest and subjugation of infidel lands in accordance with Allah's law as expressed in the Quran.
Was the Crusade bloody? Of course it was--that was the nature of war then and now. Both sides butchered civilians, especially after storming a city (it was generally impossible to keep troops under control when loot and women were available in quantity, and commanders did not discourage rape and pillage, as it tended to encourage cities to submit rather than resist). But don't think the Muslims were innocent victims, then or now.
As a member of a Middle Eastern Christian Church, I can bear witness to a 1600 year history of oppression by the "religion of peace". Because Islam does not permit Muslim women to marry Christian men, and treats apostasy as a capital offense, while there has been a steady stream of conversions from Christianity to Islam over the centuries, no reciprocal movement ever happened. This means the Middle Eastern members of my Church are the direct descendants of the people conquered and subjugated by the Arabs in the 7th century. The thriving civilization they had built disappeared--and it was not the Crusaders who did it.
The Crusades may have been badly conceived and executed. They definitely failed to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. But they were not a naked act of Christian aggression. Tell such to the Marines (or perhaps the Jesuits), but not to me, who knows his history and listens to the story of people whose families have lived under the Muslim thumb for sixteen centuries.
Gee, Diane,
Let me pose another question: Just what were those Muslims doing in Syria-Palestine, anyway? How do you think they got there? You seem to be a "right thinking" type of person who would regard the oppression of a majority population by a foreign occupying power as an affront against human dignity.
So, why do you give a pass to the Muslim conquerors of what had been, for the three centuries prior to 632, a thriving, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and religiously pluralistic society? Both Arab and Muslims were interlopers in the Middle East. They came tearing out of the Arabian desert in the 620s, hopped up on religious fanaticism and the promise of easy plunder. The rapidly conquered what had been the Roman Near East--Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and parts of Anatolia, as well as the remains of the Sassanid Persian Empire.
The Muslim conquerors had no inclination or capacity to run these areas themselves, so they left the previous administrators and ruling class in place, subjugated to a small Arab Muslim overclass. Few of the Jews and Christians of the Middle East converted to Islam, but they were reduced to the status of "dhimmis", subject to all sorts of social, economic and legal disabilities, and living precariously at the whim of the Muslim rulers.
The situation had not changed by the time the area was overrun by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century--most of the people were Christians, but there was a substantial Jewish minority, and Muslims constituted a relatively small portion of the population. The Seljuks differed from previous Muslim rulers in actively oppressing the majority population (the Christians), destroying Christians shrines and churches, and interfering with the pilgrim traffic from Europe to Jerusalem (imagine the outcry if a European government interfered with the ability of Muslims to make the Haj).
This, plus the Seljuk threat to Constantinople, were the proximate causes of the First Crusade. The Muslims were not sitting around, minding their own business, when evil Christians came rampaging through their lands. They had been invading Christian lands for ages, seizing and holding what was not theirs in the first place. And, of course, they did so in the name of religion, for, contrary to what you might have been told and dearly want to believe, "jihad" does not really mean "inner struggle", it means conquest and subjugation of infidel lands in accordance with Allah's law as expressed in the Quran.
Was the Crusade bloody? Of course it was--that was the nature of war then and now. Both sides butchered civilians, especially after storming a city (it was generally impossible to keep troops under control when loot and women were available in quantity, and commanders did not discourage rape and pillage, as it tended to encourage cities to submit rather than resist). But don't think the Muslims were innocent victims, then or now.
As a member of a Middle Eastern Christian Church, I can bear witness to a 1600 year history of oppression by the "religion of peace". Because Islam does not permit Muslim women to marry Christian men, and treats apostasy as a capital offense, while there has been a steady stream of conversions from Christianity to Islam over the centuries, no reciprocal movement ever happened. This means the Middle Eastern members of my Church are the direct descendants of the people conquered and subjugated by the Arabs in the 7th century. The thriving civilization they had built disappeared--and it was not the Crusaders who did it.
The Crusades may have been badly conceived and executed. They definitely failed to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. But they were not a naked act of Christian aggression. Tell such to the Marines (or perhaps the Jesuits), but not to me, who knows his history and listens to the story of people whose families have lived under the Muslim thumb for sixteen centuries.
9.4.2010 | 4:09pm
FW Ken says:
Such a collection of nonsense:
1.) The English settlers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, from whence we get our national mythology, were either fleeing the protestant Church of England (where it was also illegal to be Catholic) or simply adventuring and fortune-seeking. I'm not sure where these supposed French Huguenots settled - perhaps in Canada?
2.) Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. He was baptized Catholic, but renounced Christianity. There were rumors he received the Sacraments before his execution; we should hope that's true. And let's save time: Eric Rudolph is also not a Christian.
3.) Eastern Rite Catholics do not have the same theology as Eastern Orthodox. They are dogmatically Catholic, or they would not be in Communion with the larger Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism have serious theological differences, and a person cannot be both. And since I'm at it: while we might wish the Latin Rite bishops had been nicer, it's entirely possible that their actions toward the Eastern Rite clerics might well have saved American Catholicism from the jurisdictional scandal that is Orthodoxy in the United States.
4.) Oh, dear, the Crusades... I'm not going to bother, except to note that of course, Catholics acted badly. And I'm sure that when the Muslims conquered Palestine some centuries before the Crusaders took it back (sort of, for awhile), they were perfect gentlemen. Muslims are, of course, a peaceful people except for the few who commit acts of terror against the west (nicely listed in a couple of comments), or those who dance in the cafes when said acts were committed, or those who riot and burn churches when a Danish newspaper publishes pictures they don't like, or when someone converts to Christianity, or.... or... or...
5.) Does anyone know, or care, that about as many Catholics died under the Tudor monarches as protestants? Or that protestants (like Cramner) supported capital punishment of heretics, disagreeing only as to who actually was heretic? I wonder how many Catholics died at protestant hands on the continent. Probably not a lot, because the Calvinists and friends were busy killing the radical protestants.
You know, I read Dr. Gillis' essay with a wary eye. I think he whines too much. Yes, Catholics experienced personal, social, and legal persecution along the way, just like anymore group of newcomers or minority group. But the fact is that we could form the various Catholic societies for mutual support. We could build churches, monasteries, convents, schools, orphanages, hospitals, and so on. The fact is that we could thrive as a community. And so will the Muslims.
Or not. I'm not convinced that Islam and western democracy are compatible. I hope I'm wrong.
1.) The English settlers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, from whence we get our national mythology, were either fleeing the protestant Church of England (where it was also illegal to be Catholic) or simply adventuring and fortune-seeking. I'm not sure where these supposed French Huguenots settled - perhaps in Canada?
2.) Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. He was baptized Catholic, but renounced Christianity. There were rumors he received the Sacraments before his execution; we should hope that's true. And let's save time: Eric Rudolph is also not a Christian.
3.) Eastern Rite Catholics do not have the same theology as Eastern Orthodox. They are dogmatically Catholic, or they would not be in Communion with the larger Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism have serious theological differences, and a person cannot be both. And since I'm at it: while we might wish the Latin Rite bishops had been nicer, it's entirely possible that their actions toward the Eastern Rite clerics might well have saved American Catholicism from the jurisdictional scandal that is Orthodoxy in the United States.
4.) Oh, dear, the Crusades... I'm not going to bother, except to note that of course, Catholics acted badly. And I'm sure that when the Muslims conquered Palestine some centuries before the Crusaders took it back (sort of, for awhile), they were perfect gentlemen. Muslims are, of course, a peaceful people except for the few who commit acts of terror against the west (nicely listed in a couple of comments), or those who dance in the cafes when said acts were committed, or those who riot and burn churches when a Danish newspaper publishes pictures they don't like, or when someone converts to Christianity, or.... or... or...
5.) Does anyone know, or care, that about as many Catholics died under the Tudor monarches as protestants? Or that protestants (like Cramner) supported capital punishment of heretics, disagreeing only as to who actually was heretic? I wonder how many Catholics died at protestant hands on the continent. Probably not a lot, because the Calvinists and friends were busy killing the radical protestants.
You know, I read Dr. Gillis' essay with a wary eye. I think he whines too much. Yes, Catholics experienced personal, social, and legal persecution along the way, just like anymore group of newcomers or minority group. But the fact is that we could form the various Catholic societies for mutual support. We could build churches, monasteries, convents, schools, orphanages, hospitals, and so on. The fact is that we could thrive as a community. And so will the Muslims.
Or not. I'm not convinced that Islam and western democracy are compatible. I hope I'm wrong.
9.4.2010 | 5:59pm
Stuart Koehl says:
".) Eastern Rite Catholics do not have the same theology as Eastern Orthodox. They are dogmatically Catholic, or they would not be in Communion with the larger Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism have serious theological differences, and a person cannot be both."
With regard to (3): There is no such thing as an "Eastern rite Catholic". There are 22 ecclesiae sui juris within the Catholic communion, following four distinct rites. Greek Catholics have EXACTLY the same liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a fact borne out not only by the Instructions for Implementation of the Liturgical Instructions of the Codex Canonorum Ecclesiae Orientalium (1996), by the Encylical Letter of John Paul II Ecclesia in America (1999), and by the words of the two principal Greek Catholic leaders, Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch ("I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus. . . I am in communion with the Church of Rome"), and Patriarch Lybumir of Kyiv ("Between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox there are no theological distinctions"). In other words, we Greek Catholics are, or should be, Orthodox in all things except being in communion with the Church of Rome.
There are plenty of us who manage to do this-- and we are heartily tired of being criticized by clueless Roman Catholics for doing PRECISELY what the Holy See has directed us to do for more than a century. As for the rest of your statements regarding the behavior and attitudes of the American bishops towards the Greek Catholics--stuff it. You have no real knowledge or understanding of the subject.
With regard to (3): There is no such thing as an "Eastern rite Catholic". There are 22 ecclesiae sui juris within the Catholic communion, following four distinct rites. Greek Catholics have EXACTLY the same liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, a fact borne out not only by the Instructions for Implementation of the Liturgical Instructions of the Codex Canonorum Ecclesiae Orientalium (1996), by the Encylical Letter of John Paul II Ecclesia in America (1999), and by the words of the two principal Greek Catholic leaders, Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch ("I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus. . . I am in communion with the Church of Rome"), and Patriarch Lybumir of Kyiv ("Between the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox there are no theological distinctions"). In other words, we Greek Catholics are, or should be, Orthodox in all things except being in communion with the Church of Rome.
There are plenty of us who manage to do this-- and we are heartily tired of being criticized by clueless Roman Catholics for doing PRECISELY what the Holy See has directed us to do for more than a century. As for the rest of your statements regarding the behavior and attitudes of the American bishops towards the Greek Catholics--stuff it. You have no real knowledge or understanding of the subject.
9.4.2010 | 8:23pm
Stuart Koehl says:
1.) The English settlers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, from whence we get our national mythology, were either fleeing the protestant Church of England (where it was also illegal to be Catholic) or simply adventuring and fortune-seeking. I'm not sure where these supposed French Huguenots settled - perhaps in Canada?
Regarding (1): Your best bet would be acquiring (and reading) a copy of David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four American Folkways" and Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins Wars", both of which deal with the various waves of colonial immigration and early American demographics. Most of your assertions here are (surprise!) incorrect. The settlers of New England were dissenters, 'tis true--but they were, if anything, more hostile to "popery" than members of the Church of England from which they were dissenting (largely because the CofE was perceived as too "popish".
In the Middle Atlantic colonies of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, there was tremendous ethnic and religious diversity--Dutch (mainly Calvinist); English (mainly Anglican); Scots-Irish (violently Calvinist); French (mostly Catholic); German (a broad range including Lutherans, Catholics, and Anabaptists) and Scots (Presbyterians and Catholics); one also finds in places like Pennsylvania clusters of sectarians such as the Quakers.
The southern states were originally English and Anglican, but in Maryland one can find a significant number of Catholics. Later on, they were joined by Scots-Irish, who settled mainly in the back country; and by--wait for it--Huguenot refugees fleeing from Louis XIV's France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
Huguenots became important members of the English merchant class and even rose quickly into the aristocracy through military service--e.g., Field Marshal Jean Louis Ligonier, First Lord Ligonier, born in Castres, France, who entered British service in the War of Spanish Succession, became an important member of Pitt's government during the Seven Years War, serving as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in 1757. Ligonier, Pennsylvania, is named after him.
Many Huguenots of more modest means settled in America, including such notables as John Sevier, first governor of the State of Tennessee. Huguenots founded the towns of New Palz and New Rochelle in New York. Some 700 Huguenot families were offered land grants in Virginia in 1700, settling in what is today Powhatan and Chesterfield Counties. They were also among the founders of Charleston, and were numbered among the leading families of South Carolina down through the Civil War. Other Huguenots settled in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including a family named DuPont, which I hear made a name for itself in chemicals.
In short, the Huguenots made major contributions in both Britain and its American colonies after their expulsion from France. You can't just brush them off because you never heard of them.
Point of grammar: It's "whence", not "from whence", which is redundant.
Regarding (1): Your best bet would be acquiring (and reading) a copy of David Hackett Fischer's "Albion's Seed: Four American Folkways" and Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins Wars", both of which deal with the various waves of colonial immigration and early American demographics. Most of your assertions here are (surprise!) incorrect. The settlers of New England were dissenters, 'tis true--but they were, if anything, more hostile to "popery" than members of the Church of England from which they were dissenting (largely because the CofE was perceived as too "popish".
In the Middle Atlantic colonies of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, there was tremendous ethnic and religious diversity--Dutch (mainly Calvinist); English (mainly Anglican); Scots-Irish (violently Calvinist); French (mostly Catholic); German (a broad range including Lutherans, Catholics, and Anabaptists) and Scots (Presbyterians and Catholics); one also finds in places like Pennsylvania clusters of sectarians such as the Quakers.
The southern states were originally English and Anglican, but in Maryland one can find a significant number of Catholics. Later on, they were joined by Scots-Irish, who settled mainly in the back country; and by--wait for it--Huguenot refugees fleeing from Louis XIV's France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
Huguenots became important members of the English merchant class and even rose quickly into the aristocracy through military service--e.g., Field Marshal Jean Louis Ligonier, First Lord Ligonier, born in Castres, France, who entered British service in the War of Spanish Succession, became an important member of Pitt's government during the Seven Years War, serving as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in 1757. Ligonier, Pennsylvania, is named after him.
Many Huguenots of more modest means settled in America, including such notables as John Sevier, first governor of the State of Tennessee. Huguenots founded the towns of New Palz and New Rochelle in New York. Some 700 Huguenot families were offered land grants in Virginia in 1700, settling in what is today Powhatan and Chesterfield Counties. They were also among the founders of Charleston, and were numbered among the leading families of South Carolina down through the Civil War. Other Huguenots settled in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including a family named DuPont, which I hear made a name for itself in chemicals.
In short, the Huguenots made major contributions in both Britain and its American colonies after their expulsion from France. You can't just brush them off because you never heard of them.
Point of grammar: It's "whence", not "from whence", which is redundant.
9.4.2010 | 10:49pm
FW Ken says:
Mr. Koehl,
Oddly, enough, I have heard of the Huguenots, having been through Church History at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I just was not aware of a significant settlement in the U.S. Which is not the same as brushing them off. But perhaps you know that already.
Returning to this interesting point, you continue to claim that Eastern Catholics have the same theology as the Orthodox. Would that include the filioque? The papal claims? The Immaculate Conception?
...stuff it. You have no real knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Of course, you have no idea what I know or understand, now do you. But I'll take it from your comment that you have no rational response and waste no more time on you.
Thanks for the grammar lesson.
Oddly, enough, I have heard of the Huguenots, having been through Church History at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I just was not aware of a significant settlement in the U.S. Which is not the same as brushing them off. But perhaps you know that already.
Returning to this interesting point, you continue to claim that Eastern Catholics have the same theology as the Orthodox. Would that include the filioque? The papal claims? The Immaculate Conception?
...stuff it. You have no real knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Of course, you have no idea what I know or understand, now do you. But I'll take it from your comment that you have no rational response and waste no more time on you.
Thanks for the grammar lesson.
9.4.2010 | 11:00pm
Mark VA says:
One of the parallels the author seems to make is that adherents to this religion, like immigrant Catholics of the past, desire acceptance and pluralism. I would propose that, for at least some of their leaders, this may be a debatable proposition.
Two, there is no mention in this article of the fact that the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have a very long history of dealing with this religion. There is a wealth of historical data and analysis on this subject, that should be digested by anyone who wishes to offer informed opinions in this area. Yet, the argument in this article is made without reference to this history.
If pluralism is the goal proposed here, then we owe it to ourselves to be better informed on where the interested parties truly stand on it.
Two, there is no mention in this article of the fact that the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have a very long history of dealing with this religion. There is a wealth of historical data and analysis on this subject, that should be digested by anyone who wishes to offer informed opinions in this area. Yet, the argument in this article is made without reference to this history.
If pluralism is the goal proposed here, then we owe it to ourselves to be better informed on where the interested parties truly stand on it.
9.5.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Returning to this interesting point, you continue to claim that Eastern Catholics have the same theology as the Orthodox. Would that include the filioque?"
As a matter of fact, yes. The Filioque has been omitted from the Creed since the early 1990s. And the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity issued a "clarification" on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit which pretty much concedes the field to the Orthodox on this one, stating that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. The Pope himself omits the clause when celebrating Mass in the presence of Orthodox representatives, and leave it out of official Vatican documents pertaining to ecumenical issues. The retention of the Filioque in Creed is thus reduced to a peculiarity of the Latin Church (one which, in its own glacial pace, the USCCB is attempting to eliminate in order to bring liturgical practice into line with official doctrine), and not a binding matter of faith.
"The papal claims?"
The only substantive issue still open. Eastern Catholic hierarchs have significant issues with the definition and exercise of primacy as presently defined, particularly the issue of universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church, including particular Churches besides the Church of Rome. The most radical stance has been taken by the synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, which recognizes the primacy as it was understood in the first millennium. And in this, they are doing nothing more than reiterating what was asserted by a certain Joseph Ratzinger, first in a lecture at Graz in 1977, then in his 1985 book, "Introduction to Catholic Theology": "[regarding the primacy], the Catholic Church can ask no more of the Orthodox than was recognized and lived by the Church of the first millennium, before the separation". In accordance with the request of Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, they are working to help the Pope find a definition and modality of primacy that will further rather than hinder the cause of Christian unity.
"The Immaculate Conception? "
Is pretty much an irrelevancy in Byzantine Orthodox anthropology. As Orthodox theology does not recognize any inherited "sin" from Adam, man is not born into a "state of sin" as per Western theology. From that perspective, all men are "immaculately conceived". We do believe that man inherits from Adam a liability to death and corruption, which in Adam's descendants results in disordered passions of the flesh which incline all men to sin. The doctrine of the immaculate conception, while necessary under the assumptions of Latin theology to explain how Christ could be sinless, is not necessary under Byzantine-Orthodox assumptions. The immaculate conception is, therefore, christological and not marian. There is, however, no difference in the underlying christological perspectives of the Orthodox and the Latins: Christ alone is sinless in nature. Period. For their part, the Orthodox also believe that Mary, the Most Holy, All-Pure Theotokos was preserved without sin by divine grace through her entire life--so there is no difference between the Latin and Orthodox perspective there, either. The Orthodox and Greek Catholics simply do not see the need to speculate on how or when this great mystery was effected. The principal Orthodox objections to the "dogmatization" of the immaculate conception are (a) the manner of its promulgation; (b) its implicit attempt to make Latin theological assumptions normative on all Traditions; and (c) that such speculations are not the proper subject for dogmatization in any case.
To preempt matters a bit, the manner of its promulgation is the only Orthodox objection to the dogmatization of the dormition and assumption of Mary, which of course, was a major feast of the Eastern Church before it was ever even known in the West. Finally, the doctrine of purgatory is also specific to Latin assumptions about the nature of sin and salvation, and cannot fit into the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition. We simply believe that the souls of the departed require purification before finally entering into the presence of God, and that prayers for the departed are efficacious in this process, but refuse to speculate further. It should be noted neither the Filioque, nor papal perquisites, nor purgatory are mentioned in the official three-volume Eastern Catholic catechism, "Light for Life", which could be used without any changes in any Orthodox religious education program. For my part, during my catechesis, we used exclusively Orthodox educational materials, "Light for Life" not yet having been published.
"Of course, you have no idea what I know or understand, now do you. But I'll take it from your comment that you have no rational response and waste no more time on you."
I made an educated deduction on the extent of your knowledge based on your initial comments, which deduction I find validated in your response. As for the grammar lesson, you are most welcome, any time.
As a matter of fact, yes. The Filioque has been omitted from the Creed since the early 1990s. And the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity issued a "clarification" on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit which pretty much concedes the field to the Orthodox on this one, stating that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. The Pope himself omits the clause when celebrating Mass in the presence of Orthodox representatives, and leave it out of official Vatican documents pertaining to ecumenical issues. The retention of the Filioque in Creed is thus reduced to a peculiarity of the Latin Church (one which, in its own glacial pace, the USCCB is attempting to eliminate in order to bring liturgical practice into line with official doctrine), and not a binding matter of faith.
"The papal claims?"
The only substantive issue still open. Eastern Catholic hierarchs have significant issues with the definition and exercise of primacy as presently defined, particularly the issue of universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church, including particular Churches besides the Church of Rome. The most radical stance has been taken by the synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, which recognizes the primacy as it was understood in the first millennium. And in this, they are doing nothing more than reiterating what was asserted by a certain Joseph Ratzinger, first in a lecture at Graz in 1977, then in his 1985 book, "Introduction to Catholic Theology": "[regarding the primacy], the Catholic Church can ask no more of the Orthodox than was recognized and lived by the Church of the first millennium, before the separation". In accordance with the request of Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, they are working to help the Pope find a definition and modality of primacy that will further rather than hinder the cause of Christian unity.
"The Immaculate Conception? "
Is pretty much an irrelevancy in Byzantine Orthodox anthropology. As Orthodox theology does not recognize any inherited "sin" from Adam, man is not born into a "state of sin" as per Western theology. From that perspective, all men are "immaculately conceived". We do believe that man inherits from Adam a liability to death and corruption, which in Adam's descendants results in disordered passions of the flesh which incline all men to sin. The doctrine of the immaculate conception, while necessary under the assumptions of Latin theology to explain how Christ could be sinless, is not necessary under Byzantine-Orthodox assumptions. The immaculate conception is, therefore, christological and not marian. There is, however, no difference in the underlying christological perspectives of the Orthodox and the Latins: Christ alone is sinless in nature. Period. For their part, the Orthodox also believe that Mary, the Most Holy, All-Pure Theotokos was preserved without sin by divine grace through her entire life--so there is no difference between the Latin and Orthodox perspective there, either. The Orthodox and Greek Catholics simply do not see the need to speculate on how or when this great mystery was effected. The principal Orthodox objections to the "dogmatization" of the immaculate conception are (a) the manner of its promulgation; (b) its implicit attempt to make Latin theological assumptions normative on all Traditions; and (c) that such speculations are not the proper subject for dogmatization in any case.
To preempt matters a bit, the manner of its promulgation is the only Orthodox objection to the dogmatization of the dormition and assumption of Mary, which of course, was a major feast of the Eastern Church before it was ever even known in the West. Finally, the doctrine of purgatory is also specific to Latin assumptions about the nature of sin and salvation, and cannot fit into the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition. We simply believe that the souls of the departed require purification before finally entering into the presence of God, and that prayers for the departed are efficacious in this process, but refuse to speculate further. It should be noted neither the Filioque, nor papal perquisites, nor purgatory are mentioned in the official three-volume Eastern Catholic catechism, "Light for Life", which could be used without any changes in any Orthodox religious education program. For my part, during my catechesis, we used exclusively Orthodox educational materials, "Light for Life" not yet having been published.
"Of course, you have no idea what I know or understand, now do you. But I'll take it from your comment that you have no rational response and waste no more time on you."
I made an educated deduction on the extent of your knowledge based on your initial comments, which deduction I find validated in your response. As for the grammar lesson, you are most welcome, any time.
9.5.2010 | 8:57am
Stuart Koehl says:
"One of the parallels the author seems to make is that adherents to this religion, like immigrant Catholics of the past, desire acceptance and pluralism. I would propose that, for at least some of their leaders, this may be a debatable proposition. "
For most of their leaders, it is a debatable proposition. The fundamental tenets of Islam reject the very notion of pluralism in the accepted sense of the word; i.e., a polity in which different religious faiths compete openly for adherents without compulsion. Islam can tolerate the existence of other monotheistic faiths, but cannot tolerate a situation in which Islam is subordinate to any of them. Indeed, all other faiths must be subjugated to Islam, and their followers reduced to the status of "tributaries" (dhimmis).
And, while apologists for Islam like to quote the verse that says there is no compulsion in religion, the reality of the past 1600 years speaks rather differently. First of all, insofar as polytheists or atheists are concerned, there most certainly is compulsion of a very basic "Convert or die" sort. And while dhimmis are not overtly compelled to convert, they are subjected to all sorts of social, legal and economic disabilities that incline them in that direction. Finally, almost all Muslims, even the most westernized, consider conversion to Islam to be irrevocable: apostasy from Islam is punishable by death, and this is not mere theory--the penalty has been carried out both judicially and extra-judicially, even here in the United States.
So, the notion of a peaceful, tolerant, pluralistic Islam is mostly an exercise in mirror imaging on the part of Western leaders--including some members of the Church hierarchy, who really ought to know better (that the Church attempted the same sort of rapprochement with the communists in the 1960s shows that bad ideas die hard). I suspect that, ultimately, an Islamic reformation as drastic as that which affected Western Christianity will be needed, unless and until the West develops a spine and rises to the defense of its own culture and values (even at the risk of being "intolerant" of those who reject tolerance). This is most likely to occur in the United States, whose dominant, broadly Protestant culture has proven remarkably adept at both diluting divergent religious faiths and assimilating them into the civil religion of the society.
Thus, e.g., Samuel Huntington is correct in remarking that most American Catholics are simply Protestants who go to Mass and love Mary. The same might be said of mainstream American Judaism--Reform Jews are just Unitarians without the theological rigor. Even Mormonism has been worn down into a kind of wishy-washy Protestantism whose gnostic aspects are generally downplayed and of little interest to the rank-and-file.
This corrosive effect of American culture should, ultimately, work its magic on Islam, providing, of course, we can shake off the curse of multiculturalism, which is the secular faith of the secular elite, generally rejected by the majority of Americans. We may well be coming to the point where the people themselves rise up and reject that false faith of the elites, because, if nothing else, the people have much more common sense than their putative leaders.
For most of their leaders, it is a debatable proposition. The fundamental tenets of Islam reject the very notion of pluralism in the accepted sense of the word; i.e., a polity in which different religious faiths compete openly for adherents without compulsion. Islam can tolerate the existence of other monotheistic faiths, but cannot tolerate a situation in which Islam is subordinate to any of them. Indeed, all other faiths must be subjugated to Islam, and their followers reduced to the status of "tributaries" (dhimmis).
And, while apologists for Islam like to quote the verse that says there is no compulsion in religion, the reality of the past 1600 years speaks rather differently. First of all, insofar as polytheists or atheists are concerned, there most certainly is compulsion of a very basic "Convert or die" sort. And while dhimmis are not overtly compelled to convert, they are subjected to all sorts of social, legal and economic disabilities that incline them in that direction. Finally, almost all Muslims, even the most westernized, consider conversion to Islam to be irrevocable: apostasy from Islam is punishable by death, and this is not mere theory--the penalty has been carried out both judicially and extra-judicially, even here in the United States.
So, the notion of a peaceful, tolerant, pluralistic Islam is mostly an exercise in mirror imaging on the part of Western leaders--including some members of the Church hierarchy, who really ought to know better (that the Church attempted the same sort of rapprochement with the communists in the 1960s shows that bad ideas die hard). I suspect that, ultimately, an Islamic reformation as drastic as that which affected Western Christianity will be needed, unless and until the West develops a spine and rises to the defense of its own culture and values (even at the risk of being "intolerant" of those who reject tolerance). This is most likely to occur in the United States, whose dominant, broadly Protestant culture has proven remarkably adept at both diluting divergent religious faiths and assimilating them into the civil religion of the society.
Thus, e.g., Samuel Huntington is correct in remarking that most American Catholics are simply Protestants who go to Mass and love Mary. The same might be said of mainstream American Judaism--Reform Jews are just Unitarians without the theological rigor. Even Mormonism has been worn down into a kind of wishy-washy Protestantism whose gnostic aspects are generally downplayed and of little interest to the rank-and-file.
This corrosive effect of American culture should, ultimately, work its magic on Islam, providing, of course, we can shake off the curse of multiculturalism, which is the secular faith of the secular elite, generally rejected by the majority of Americans. We may well be coming to the point where the people themselves rise up and reject that false faith of the elites, because, if nothing else, the people have much more common sense than their putative leaders.
9.5.2010 | 9:54am
FW Ken says:
The filioque is still in the liturgical texts of the Latin Rite; I will be saying it in about 2 hours from now. You accurately state the Catholic interpretation of the matter. In the west, it was a hedge against a resurgence of Arianism (in France, I think, but maybe not). It's entirely optional. The Orthodox have a different take on the subject: it's a Trinitarian heresy and saying it is not optional. Quite a theological difference on two levels.
You prove my point on the papal claims, though I deduce (in an educated manner, of course) that you think you didn't.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php
for an actual Orthodox take.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is binding on Catholics, East and West. Perhaps you would profit from reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in addition to local catechisms.
You prove my point on the papal claims, though I deduce (in an educated manner, of course) that you think you didn't.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php
for an actual Orthodox take.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is binding on Catholics, East and West. Perhaps you would profit from reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in addition to local catechisms.
9.5.2010 | 1:03pm
Michael says:
As Lord Macauley put it
“To punish a man because he has committed a crime, or because he is believed, though unjustly, to have committed a crime, is not persecution. To punish a man, because we infer from the nature of some doctrine which he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime is persecution, and is, in every case, foolish and wicked….
If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended.”
“To punish a man because he has committed a crime, or because he is believed, though unjustly, to have committed a crime, is not persecution. To punish a man, because we infer from the nature of some doctrine which he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime is persecution, and is, in every case, foolish and wicked….
If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended.”
9.5.2010 | 1:09pm
Stuart Koehl says:
No thanks. I am not a Roman Catholic with a cabaret license, thanks very much, but an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome. I do not need Roman Catholics to tell me what I need to believe--that's why we have our own bishops.
I don't have to read Father Hopko, by the way--I know him and have heard him speak. Four the past fourteen years I have helped organize and run the annual Orientale Lumen Conferences in Washington, DC, and have had the Catholic Church's official position on the Eastern Catholics explained by such luminaries as Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy and Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch (my primate, thanks), and the Orthodox position on primacy, mariology, the procession of the Holy Spirit, and myriad other matters explained to me by Hopko, David Bentley Hart, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, Archbishop Peter of New York, and Professor John Ericksson of St. Vladimir's seminary, among others.
Put a different way--this is my life, whereas it's your vague afterthought. You haven't done enough research to have an opinion on the matter.
I don't have to read Father Hopko, by the way--I know him and have heard him speak. Four the past fourteen years I have helped organize and run the annual Orientale Lumen Conferences in Washington, DC, and have had the Catholic Church's official position on the Eastern Catholics explained by such luminaries as Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy and Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch (my primate, thanks), and the Orthodox position on primacy, mariology, the procession of the Holy Spirit, and myriad other matters explained to me by Hopko, David Bentley Hart, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA, Archbishop Peter of New York, and Professor John Ericksson of St. Vladimir's seminary, among others.
Put a different way--this is my life, whereas it's your vague afterthought. You haven't done enough research to have an opinion on the matter.
9.5.2010 | 1:20pm
Dave Noonan says:
I was not all that familiar with First Things. I see now, via the comment box, that it seems to be a gathering place for uninformed loons. Most of you could stand to take a course on the basics of Islam--and after that, on the Crusades.
9.5.2010 | 2:04pm
Richard says:
Dave Noonan,
Better to light one little candle than curse the darkness. Elucidations, please.
Richard
Better to light one little candle than curse the darkness. Elucidations, please.
Richard
9.5.2010 | 2:16pm
Nancy says:
one more thing...
Amen! In Sh' Allah! words of Dom Christian de Cherge, prior of Our Lady of Atlas Monastery in Tibherine, Algeria. I read these words in the December 1998 Liguorian. I taped them in the front of my Bible and when fear and hate raise their ugly heads, I read them again--which is pretty often.
Amen! In Sh' Allah! words of Dom Christian de Cherge, prior of Our Lady of Atlas Monastery in Tibherine, Algeria. I read these words in the December 1998 Liguorian. I taped them in the front of my Bible and when fear and hate raise their ugly heads, I read them again--which is pretty often.
9.5.2010 | 2:53pm
Maria says:
Wait a minute. It is sacred ground and should be respected. I read the other day that the Pope wouldn't allow a convent to be built in Auschwitz out of respect of what happened there.
Why is this about freedom and not about respecting the place of who and what happened there? This isn't an all out "No Muslim" zone across the US but one in a specific place where Muslims used violence against Americans.
To use history to twist the facts to promote a biased opinion as "fact" and "acceptance".
Why is this about freedom and not about respecting the place of who and what happened there? This isn't an all out "No Muslim" zone across the US but one in a specific place where Muslims used violence against Americans.
To use history to twist the facts to promote a biased opinion as "fact" and "acceptance".
9.5.2010 | 6:28pm
Maria V. says:
Having stayed away from topic of East West diffrences for a while , had hoped that the era of internet helped a lot , to bridge gaps of broken understandings of the issues among the laity ...sadly , the reality seems to be difft. ..
Denying the Incarnation one way or other and its implications , esp. related to dignity and freedom of the human person - if that is the major threat of our times , the antidote for same has been given gracefully to The Church , through the Marian Dogmas ..declared with the power of the keys, thus the trust expressed by The Church, in the goodness of The Father , for even a more powerful ineterventtion from this Mother and we may not realise what such has done for the preceding centuries ..how it also has helped us to see The Son for who He is , as one who reveals The Father ..and who said 'If you have seen Me, you have seen The Father ..' , thus fulfilling the deepest yearning of hearts , "show us The Father " is what Apostle Philip had pleaded ..and The CHurch has been in that mission , still to be carried out with more zeal ..
True, under fallible human beings always not in the best manner ..and thus , at every Holy Mass , the Father figure as well as the faithful pleads ' I confess to you ...my brothers and sisters , that I have sinned ' ..because the leanings to hate God and His goodness is what the enemy brought into our nature ...which a Mother can help to unmask ..and heal ..a Mother , in whose power and role , The Church and people of God has the timely need to trust even more ..thus the dogmas as gifts of the Spirit , to a people who are willing to be tended and fed ..whether of East or West ..and if not wanting so ..a Mother , gracious enough to say , with our Lord - 'if not against Me, you are with Me ' ..
May The Spirit enable us all and esp. those who oath at every Holy Mass , to forgive, even generational holds of hatreds , to look at each other with compassioanate respect , thus to drive out such enemy holds from even those who are not allowed to believe in Incarnation and may the same Spirit also help many to recognise that the proclamation of the integral role of The Son , in the sending forth of The Spirit is the gratitude for same !
Denying the Incarnation one way or other and its implications , esp. related to dignity and freedom of the human person - if that is the major threat of our times , the antidote for same has been given gracefully to The Church , through the Marian Dogmas ..declared with the power of the keys, thus the trust expressed by The Church, in the goodness of The Father , for even a more powerful ineterventtion from this Mother and we may not realise what such has done for the preceding centuries ..how it also has helped us to see The Son for who He is , as one who reveals The Father ..and who said 'If you have seen Me, you have seen The Father ..' , thus fulfilling the deepest yearning of hearts , "show us The Father " is what Apostle Philip had pleaded ..and The CHurch has been in that mission , still to be carried out with more zeal ..
True, under fallible human beings always not in the best manner ..and thus , at every Holy Mass , the Father figure as well as the faithful pleads ' I confess to you ...my brothers and sisters , that I have sinned ' ..because the leanings to hate God and His goodness is what the enemy brought into our nature ...which a Mother can help to unmask ..and heal ..a Mother , in whose power and role , The Church and people of God has the timely need to trust even more ..thus the dogmas as gifts of the Spirit , to a people who are willing to be tended and fed ..whether of East or West ..and if not wanting so ..a Mother , gracious enough to say , with our Lord - 'if not against Me, you are with Me ' ..
May The Spirit enable us all and esp. those who oath at every Holy Mass , to forgive, even generational holds of hatreds , to look at each other with compassioanate respect , thus to drive out such enemy holds from even those who are not allowed to believe in Incarnation and may the same Spirit also help many to recognise that the proclamation of the integral role of The Son , in the sending forth of The Spirit is the gratitude for same !
9.5.2010 | 9:46pm
Mark VA says:
Dave Noonan,
If you have an informed opinion on this subject, please share it. Simply calling those you may disagree with "loons", doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
If you have an informed opinion on this subject, please share it. Simply calling those you may disagree with "loons", doesn't make for an interesting discussion.
9.6.2010 | 7:18am
T. Hanski says:
Dave Noonan says:
"I was not all that familiar with First Things. I see now, via the comment box, that it seems to be a gathering place for uninformed loons. Most of you could stand to take a course on the basics of Islam--and after that, on the Crusades."
I assume that the course D.N. recommends would include reading of Koran, Hadiths and Sirah - the three most sacred texts of Islam. Well, I can't speak of other "loonies" here, but after acquainting myself with these texts I could finally see why Islam today is, what W. Churchill called, "the most retrograde force in the world".
Indeed, a religion established by a murderous, child raping sadist and psychopath had no choice, but to become a perfect social and economic pathology, and that is exactly what Islam has been for centuries.
Can Dave Noonan offer another explanation to that screaming fact? If so, we the "loonies", can't wait to have him enlighten us on the subject.
Of course, there is a possibility that what for us the "loonies" is a fact is not fact for Dave Noonan. If that turns out be the case then I think Dave Noonan would be best advised to exercise his astute analytical faculties exhibited in his comment above in other, less concerned with reality, forums.
"I was not all that familiar with First Things. I see now, via the comment box, that it seems to be a gathering place for uninformed loons. Most of you could stand to take a course on the basics of Islam--and after that, on the Crusades."
I assume that the course D.N. recommends would include reading of Koran, Hadiths and Sirah - the three most sacred texts of Islam. Well, I can't speak of other "loonies" here, but after acquainting myself with these texts I could finally see why Islam today is, what W. Churchill called, "the most retrograde force in the world".
Indeed, a religion established by a murderous, child raping sadist and psychopath had no choice, but to become a perfect social and economic pathology, and that is exactly what Islam has been for centuries.
Can Dave Noonan offer another explanation to that screaming fact? If so, we the "loonies", can't wait to have him enlighten us on the subject.
Of course, there is a possibility that what for us the "loonies" is a fact is not fact for Dave Noonan. If that turns out be the case then I think Dave Noonan would be best advised to exercise his astute analytical faculties exhibited in his comment above in other, less concerned with reality, forums.
9.6.2010 | 12:30pm
Maria V. says:
Yet, may be there is more than a trace of truth in what Mr.Noonan is saying ...why would a group who can use such forces of fear and terror , esp.in area of conversions be so tolerated by world at large ...
And we have been loonies for not having listened to Pope John Paul 11's warnings about going to Iraq ....if we had dealt with the 9/11 aggression with more Godly wisdom from such saintly persons , may be God would have revealed to us already far more effective means - curtailing immigration and travel etc : of any groups that prohibit conversions ,as persons fundamentally opposed to the rules of this land and thus terrorists ...and so on ..
And we have been loonies for having fallen into the lies of the diviser that have kept us from being One ...inspite of the devastation that have been with us from same , for centuries ...
May God have mercy on us !
And we have been loonies for not having listened to Pope John Paul 11's warnings about going to Iraq ....if we had dealt with the 9/11 aggression with more Godly wisdom from such saintly persons , may be God would have revealed to us already far more effective means - curtailing immigration and travel etc : of any groups that prohibit conversions ,as persons fundamentally opposed to the rules of this land and thus terrorists ...and so on ..
And we have been loonies for having fallen into the lies of the diviser that have kept us from being One ...inspite of the devastation that have been with us from same , for centuries ...
May God have mercy on us !
9.6.2010 | 1:48pm
Nick Jost says:
While Stuart covered most of the historical problems I would like to voice two concerns:
First, the history here is shoddy. While East/West struggles are ignored this supposed Catholic unity also ignores things like Lithuanian and Polish rivalries in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. Also, it mentions Catholic organizations as if there weren't Protestant organizations of the exact same function.
Second, anyone who is truly religious believes that religions matter and have consequences. Muslim leaders have made it fairly clear that they oppose the West. This isn't anything new. We have fourteen-hundred years of evidence to refer to. This article blows over that evidence and seems to take the secularist position that one abused religion is just as good as another. Worse, especially for First Things, it seems to take the capitulation of Catholic leaders that reached its apogee in the 60's as a _good_ thing. I can't imagine why.
First, the history here is shoddy. While East/West struggles are ignored this supposed Catholic unity also ignores things like Lithuanian and Polish rivalries in the coal mines of Pennsylvania. Also, it mentions Catholic organizations as if there weren't Protestant organizations of the exact same function.
Second, anyone who is truly religious believes that religions matter and have consequences. Muslim leaders have made it fairly clear that they oppose the West. This isn't anything new. We have fourteen-hundred years of evidence to refer to. This article blows over that evidence and seems to take the secularist position that one abused religion is just as good as another. Worse, especially for First Things, it seems to take the capitulation of Catholic leaders that reached its apogee in the 60's as a _good_ thing. I can't imagine why.
9.6.2010 | 9:29pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Nick,
Make that Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Rusyn rivalries in the coal fields of Pennsylvania.
There is a great Rusyn story about the Miracle of St. Nicholas Day that bears on this. St. Nicholas is the patron saint of Greek Catholics, and his feast day, 6 December, is possibly a bigger deal than Christmas. So, St. Nicholas Day, the mine operator in this coal town wants everybody to work as always. The Rusyn refuse, to a man, to go into the pits. But the Poles go. That afternoon, the mine collapses and most of the Polish miners are killed. The Rusyn attribute their survival to the miraculous intervention of St. Nicholas, who had the foresight to die on the day the mine was supposed to collapse some 1700 years later.
We put this in our St. Nicholas Day Pageant program book every year.
Make that Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Rusyn rivalries in the coal fields of Pennsylvania.
There is a great Rusyn story about the Miracle of St. Nicholas Day that bears on this. St. Nicholas is the patron saint of Greek Catholics, and his feast day, 6 December, is possibly a bigger deal than Christmas. So, St. Nicholas Day, the mine operator in this coal town wants everybody to work as always. The Rusyn refuse, to a man, to go into the pits. But the Poles go. That afternoon, the mine collapses and most of the Polish miners are killed. The Rusyn attribute their survival to the miraculous intervention of St. Nicholas, who had the foresight to die on the day the mine was supposed to collapse some 1700 years later.
We put this in our St. Nicholas Day Pageant program book every year.
9.7.2010 | 1:28pm
Artaban says:
Let us imagine that our nation was invaded on both east and west coasts, until two-thirds of it was conquered. Then let us imagine that raids were conducted on the remainder of the nation, with the individuals taken in such raids sold as slaves. How would we respond? Would we go to war to retake our lands and end the slave trade?
I think any sane nation would. That scenario describes perfectly the state of affairs under which Christians lived at the outset of the Crusades. The Crusades were there response, and while not all actions taken during them were moral or humane, the basic impulse was entirely justified.
I think any sane nation would. That scenario describes perfectly the state of affairs under which Christians lived at the outset of the Crusades. The Crusades were there response, and while not all actions taken during them were moral or humane, the basic impulse was entirely justified.
9.7.2010 | 6:32pm
Stuart Koehl says:
I'm cool with the Crusades, except for the part where the Franks establish independent kingdoms in Palestine and Syria, expel all the Orthodox bishops and replace them with Latin bishops who proceed to suppress the Eastern Churches.
Oh, and that little fracas in Constantinople in 1204, the desecration of Hagia Sophia (the Turks behaved better in 1453) and the establishment of a Latin patriarch in that city (which titular office existed down to 1964).
Oh, and the continued existence of the titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, too.
The world would be a very different (and probably better) place if the West had merely sent mercenary auxiliaries to fight under the Byzantine flag.
Oh, and that little fracas in Constantinople in 1204, the desecration of Hagia Sophia (the Turks behaved better in 1453) and the establishment of a Latin patriarch in that city (which titular office existed down to 1964).
Oh, and the continued existence of the titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, too.
The world would be a very different (and probably better) place if the West had merely sent mercenary auxiliaries to fight under the Byzantine flag.
9.8.2010 | 4:21pm
Artaban says:
"The world would be a very different (and probably better) place if the West had merely sent mercenary auxiliaries to fight under the Byzantine flag."
Highly debatable. Would mercenaries have led to the potent philosophical and scientific cross-pollination that came from the Crusader states? Would it have led to the rise of modern banking which enabled modern commerce, credit, worldwide trade, and created a middle class (all of which can be attributed to the Templars efforts)? Would mercenaries have founded hundreds--if not thousands of hospitals, many of which are still in existence today? I speak of the Hospitallers and other military religious orders, who own and operate medical services to this day.
Somehow I doubt it.
I'm reminded of the reading from today's cycle (in the Roman Church) "We know that all things work for good for those who love God..." Romans 8: 28.
Highly debatable. Would mercenaries have led to the potent philosophical and scientific cross-pollination that came from the Crusader states? Would it have led to the rise of modern banking which enabled modern commerce, credit, worldwide trade, and created a middle class (all of which can be attributed to the Templars efforts)? Would mercenaries have founded hundreds--if not thousands of hospitals, many of which are still in existence today? I speak of the Hospitallers and other military religious orders, who own and operate medical services to this day.
Somehow I doubt it.
I'm reminded of the reading from today's cycle (in the Roman Church) "We know that all things work for good for those who love God..." Romans 8: 28.
9.8.2010 | 5:16pm
Maria V. says:
Good to see this section still active .
What has been found rather puzzling about the East -West relationships is the concept of Holy Wisdom , as personified female , to represent our Lord !..and the Hagia Sophia , built under that title ! ...in my limted readings of things , has wonderd if this has been THE error that led to much else ...and that such an error would not have happened , may be if there were closer ties / fidelity to the Papacy..
The events that followed pretty soon afterwards - onset of Islam, the largest Plague pandemic , destruction of all major churches named after above ..
and the ongong struggle , in honoring The Father more , by honoring Papacy ..
even filioque , indirectly involved ..
As to the poor Polish minors who got killed in the mining accident , hoping that their prayers would afford better protection for all , from any and all curses
( anathemas ) uttered as a part of any liturgy ..
The Divine Mercy prayers include the words of trusting in the Precious Blood and water . ..
Hoping that those esp. entrusted with efforts at driving out agents of division would be blessed with wisdom to look into all these areas !
What has been found rather puzzling about the East -West relationships is the concept of Holy Wisdom , as personified female , to represent our Lord !..and the Hagia Sophia , built under that title ! ...in my limted readings of things , has wonderd if this has been THE error that led to much else ...and that such an error would not have happened , may be if there were closer ties / fidelity to the Papacy..
The events that followed pretty soon afterwards - onset of Islam, the largest Plague pandemic , destruction of all major churches named after above ..
and the ongong struggle , in honoring The Father more , by honoring Papacy ..
even filioque , indirectly involved ..
As to the poor Polish minors who got killed in the mining accident , hoping that their prayers would afford better protection for all , from any and all curses
( anathemas ) uttered as a part of any liturgy ..
The Divine Mercy prayers include the words of trusting in the Precious Blood and water . ..
Hoping that those esp. entrusted with efforts at driving out agents of division would be blessed with wisdom to look into all these areas !
9.10.2010 | 7:00am
John Bluto says:
I recently stumbled across this short chart detailing the "Christian violence" throughout history and, given that I am currently an ignoramus in Christian history, am having difficulty refuting its specific claims. It starts off as follows:
"The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this violence and blood bath with the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him)."
http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm
Anyone want to help a poor guy out?
"The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Even so, Muslims will never associate this violence and blood bath with the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him)."
http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm
Anyone want to help a poor guy out?
9.10.2010 | 3:39pm
Drew says:
The seed article I thought was about religious tolerance. I have read all the posts here and have never read so much BS put so eloquently. I want my click back!
9.11.2010 | 1:46am
KarenT says:
Maybe Muslims are not facing as much persecution in the U.S. as we are led to believe:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/106023/
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/106023/
11.13.2010 | 5:46pm
Augusta Gilfillan says:
1.) The English settlers of New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, from whence we get our national mythology, were either fleeing the protestant Church of England (where it was also illegal to be Catholic) or simply adventuring and fortune-seeking. I'm not sure where these supposed French Huguenots settled - perhaps in Canada? The situation had not changed by the time the area was overrun by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century--most of the people were Christians, but there was a substantial Jewish minority, and Muslims constituted a relatively small portion of the population. The Seljuks differed from previous Muslim rulers in actively oppressing the majority population (the Christians), destroying Christians shrines and churches, and interfering with the pilgrim traffic from Europe to Jerusalem (imagine the outcry if a European government interfered with the ability of Muslims to make the Haj).
It is not a religion but a cult. It preaches its 'gospel' but does not allow us to preach our Gospel in its lands. If we can score with a few converts then the apostates can be killed.
It cannot 'demand' and enjoy full rights in a democratic
system that it denies peoples of other faiths anywhere in the Muslim world.
The Mosque in lower Manhattan is more of a triumphalist display and propaganda.
It should not be allowed to open there.