Surrender Unto Surrender
January 4, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
Since the recent, horrifying reports of Coptic Catholics being slaughtered at worship in Iraq and Egypt each day’s email has brought at least one, and sometimes several, angry and emotional missives—diatribes which generally begin by ruing the day that the post-9/11 George W. Bush declared, “Islam means peace.” 
“It does not mean ‘peace,’” they write. “It means ‘surrender,’ and that is what they want; the death of the Jews and the ‘surrender’ of Christians.” Ordinarily these missives prophecy an “end to Western Civilization” unless Islam is somehow eradicated or disarmed, and they end with a call for Christians to become familiar with the Koran in order to do battle in the theological trenches before the “inevitable war” (or “clash of civilizations”) comes upon us.
A pastoral, comparative resistance to Islam is a good notion, but one that is fraught with risk in our politically-correct society, where the meaning of “tolerance” has been successfully shifted from “bearing-with” to “surrendering-unto.” Christians—conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, in particular—are routinely poked with the three-tined trident of labels (“racistsexisthomophobe") any time they insist, in obedience to their religious beliefs, on maintaining mere respectful forbearance of others, rather than blind approval.
It seems to me that beginnings of a stealth New Crusade may be taking root in the minds of some of my Christian correspondents, none of whom, it must be said, found the time to offer me links to the Midnight Mass homily of Pope Benedict XVI at Christmas, where he acknowledged the continued threat to Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere: “It is true that the 'rod of his oppressor' is not yet broken, the boots of warriors continue to tramp and the 'garment rolled in blood' still remains.”
Later in his remarks, the pope said “Anyone who catches a glimpse of God experiences joy, and on this night we see something of his light.”
But the angels’ message on that holy night also spoke of men: “Peace among men with whom he is pleased”. The Latin translation of the angels’ song that we use in the liturgy, taken from Saint Jerome, is slightly different: “peace to men of good will”. The expression “men of good will” has become an important part of the Church’s vocabulary in recent decades.
But of the two which, he continues, is the right translation? Neither, or rather both.
We must read both texts together; only in this way do we truly understand the angels’ song. . . . Both elements belong together: grace and freedom, God’s prior love for us, without which we could not love him, and the response that he awaits from us, the response that he asks for so palpably through the birth of his son. We cannot divide up into independent entities the interplay of grace and freedom, or the interplay of call and response. The two are inseparably woven together. So this part of the angels’ message is both promise and call at the same time.
It has always been the “men of good will,” after all, toward whom “God is pleased.”
But what does “good will” entail? Certainly, it must include educating ourselves about each other; it must include forbearing each other, generously; it must even include being “nice,” which does not mean cowardly or silent. But looking at the other side, the side that demands blind “tolerance,” must “good will” demand surrender of our beliefs, which largely define our selves? And if so, to whom?
Jesus surely didn’t preach that; he didn't preach a crusade either. He taught us to turn the other cheek.
Our instincts tell us that turning the other cheek is stupid, but this is what Christ preached. He did not teach that we were meant to conquer others—be they radical Islamists, or gay activists, or evangelical atheists—but that we were to conquer ourselves, and in so doing, bring others into surrender by our own humble example of submission to his Will.
That, of course, means trust; the toughest nut for all Christians. It is hard to trust him, when we have our world before our eyes, but only once we trust him can be surrender ourselves to him in a way that might change the world.
Christianity is a blood religion, like Judaism, and like Islam. But it's not the spilling of other’s blood that matters. The early martyrs died for their beliefs, but not in an effort to control others. Their trust in Christ, their surrendering to him ending (as they knew it would) in the shedding of their blood, ultimately turned hearts and minds in another direction, toward a horizon marked by the cross.
The only power resides is in the spilling of Christ’s blood, and ours for his sake.
For his sake. Not for ours; not even for our civilization's. The civilization—-and indeed the American Exceptionalism characterized by “baseball, Mom, Chevrolet, and apple pie,” that helped to bring the West to its culmination—is already on the wane. Baseball has been corrupted, motherhood has been redefined, Chevrolet is a shadow of itself; all we may soon be left with is apples we may not eat.
And then, perhaps, comes the New Eden.
Christ’s coming—which we confess in our Creed, but somehow believe we can stave off if we just keep the world in check—will transcend even the glories of Western Civilization. We are creatures in exile from our home; for all we know, Western Civilization may be nothing more than makework, meant to keep us busy until that appointed time. It is a certainty that if Christians try to compel others via crusades or Congressional maneuvers, the civilization will continue to devolve. These are not the ways or means modeled by Christ.
We are fooling ourselves if we believe that anything we do is going to change what was set in motion in Eden, or turn back a narrative thrust of divine origins. In that case, let us get on with the difficult task of conquering ourselves through surrender to Christ alone. Once we have become his, in his measure, he will himself know how to best bestow us upon others.
It is the only possible peace through surrender.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributor to First Things where she blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES:
Benedict XVI’s homily at Midnight Mass.
Comments:
1.4.2011 | 4:53am
Webster Bull says:
Wow, powerful stuff and courageous! Good for you, Elizabeth! We're going to need lots more of this in the weeks and years ahead, I'm afraid. Or no, I'm not afraid!
1.4.2011 | 7:31am
Wolf Paul says:
What, please, are "evangelical atheists" ???
I think I know what you mean, but I resent this use of the word "evangelical".
It's like "fundamentalist Muslims" -- Muslims as narrow-minded, bigoted, and extreme as those first called Fundamentalists, i.e. conservative Protestants.
Similarly, I think you mean atheists as keen to share their convictions and to foist them upon others as those commonly called Evangelicals, i.e. conservative Protestants.
Shall we call those who are striving to establish access to abortion as a UN-recognized "human right", "catholic abortionists"? After all, they are trying to make abortion worldwide, universal, and that's one meaning of catholic.
I have resigned myself to secular journalists not knowing how to use such terms, but expect better from First Things which is, after all, linked to "Catholics and Evangelicals Together."
I think I know what you mean, but I resent this use of the word "evangelical".
It's like "fundamentalist Muslims" -- Muslims as narrow-minded, bigoted, and extreme as those first called Fundamentalists, i.e. conservative Protestants.
Similarly, I think you mean atheists as keen to share their convictions and to foist them upon others as those commonly called Evangelicals, i.e. conservative Protestants.
Shall we call those who are striving to establish access to abortion as a UN-recognized "human right", "catholic abortionists"? After all, they are trying to make abortion worldwide, universal, and that's one meaning of catholic.
I have resigned myself to secular journalists not knowing how to use such terms, but expect better from First Things which is, after all, linked to "Catholics and Evangelicals Together."
1.4.2011 | 9:36am
The Moz says:
What a beautiful and insightful appeal to the true source of the strength of our faith. I hope that that same lesson will enable me to put my trust more fully in Christ and his Church and Faith. I hope that 2011 has much less talk and alot more walk.
1.4.2011 | 10:26am
RJ says:
I take it there is a distinction between not retaliating to personal insults (turning the other cheek) and fulfilling our civic duty by defending our country or our civilisation and thereby protecting others.
1.4.2011 | 10:27am
Michael says:
“Our instincts tell us that turning the other cheek is stupid, but this is what Christ preached. He did not teach that we were meant to conquer others—be they radical Islamists, or gay activists, or evangelical atheists—but that we were to conquer ourselves, and in so doing, bring others into surrender by our own humble example of submission to his Will.”
It is heartening to hear Scalia preach the gospel so well. This point must be central to all Christian thinking and action in response to Islamic terrorism.
“A pastoral, comparative resistance to Islam is a good notion, but one that is fraught with risk in our politically-correct society, where the meaning of “tolerance” has been successfully shifted from “bearing-with” to “surrendering-unto.” Christians—conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, in particular—are routinely poked with the three-tined trident of labels (“racistsexisthomophobe") any time they insist, in obedience to their religious beliefs, on maintaining mere respectful forbearance of others, rather than blind approval”
At this crucial point, Scalia is vague. It is hard to know what exactly a “pastoral, comparative resistance to Islam” might mean. Otherwise, she resorts to typical caricatures of political correctness. These caricatures won’t help anyone formulate incisive approaches that help the West defeat Islamic terrorism while protecting the peaceful Islamic communities among us and encouraging the development of humane Islamic regimes abroad.
It is heartening to hear Scalia preach the gospel so well. This point must be central to all Christian thinking and action in response to Islamic terrorism.
“A pastoral, comparative resistance to Islam is a good notion, but one that is fraught with risk in our politically-correct society, where the meaning of “tolerance” has been successfully shifted from “bearing-with” to “surrendering-unto.” Christians—conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, in particular—are routinely poked with the three-tined trident of labels (“racistsexisthomophobe") any time they insist, in obedience to their religious beliefs, on maintaining mere respectful forbearance of others, rather than blind approval”
At this crucial point, Scalia is vague. It is hard to know what exactly a “pastoral, comparative resistance to Islam” might mean. Otherwise, she resorts to typical caricatures of political correctness. These caricatures won’t help anyone formulate incisive approaches that help the West defeat Islamic terrorism while protecting the peaceful Islamic communities among us and encouraging the development of humane Islamic regimes abroad.
1.4.2011 | 10:58am
Barry from Victoria says:
It sounds to me like you are saying we should just give up and not be too worried about a few Christians getting knocked off here and there. Remember, though, that these Christians, in Mesopotamia and Egypt are the remnants of original apostolic churches. Whether it is right or not for Christians to go to war has been considered by the Church Fathers in far more depth than I could hope to manage, but how can there be anything wrong with defending the helpless? From that it follows that there can't be anything wrong with initiating a new Crusade, perhaps a new order of knights to take on the task of defending Christian communities wherever they are under attack. And maybe playing defense isn't enough. Maybe it's time to go on the attack. Islam is a religion of hate, and its practitioners have been colonized by a force of evil.
1.4.2011 | 11:15am
Joe the Human says:
No one should excuse violent Muslims. But to see the historical grounds of their argument against Christianity, see my remarks for instance, on the violent history of Christianity, Catholicism. In the Readers' Comments to First Things article, "Fail Britannica."
Unfortunately, Christianity to be sure, has often attacked the Middle East (and vice-versa to be sure); since the days of the Crusades, onward, through the re-establishment of Israel by military force, c. 1947. ALL that has engendered much ill-feeling in the Islamic community.
The solution? Perhaps it is to be a better Christian. To resist anger; to "turn the other cheek." To confess our sins,on both sides. And then sit down to speak peacefully, on the basis of Humility; a sense of failings on both sides.
Why is it that conservative "Christians" disobey this side of the Bible, and of God?
Unfortunately, Christianity to be sure, has often attacked the Middle East (and vice-versa to be sure); since the days of the Crusades, onward, through the re-establishment of Israel by military force, c. 1947. ALL that has engendered much ill-feeling in the Islamic community.
The solution? Perhaps it is to be a better Christian. To resist anger; to "turn the other cheek." To confess our sins,on both sides. And then sit down to speak peacefully, on the basis of Humility; a sense of failings on both sides.
Why is it that conservative "Christians" disobey this side of the Bible, and of God?
1.4.2011 | 11:45am
Anthony Di Russo says:
Oliver Wendell Holmes or some such Justice is said to have remarked "whatever else the constitution is, it is not a suicide pact."
I think the same can be said of the Gospel. We cannot simplistically regard Jesus' principle to 'turn the other cheek' which is fine for in the family or in the Church quarrels and apply it to the duty government has to protect the people. Was it Peter or Paul who pointed out that magistrates are given the power of the sword?
Women, especially, would find life under Sharia a living Hell. Is that what Ms Scalia wants?
I think the same can be said of the Gospel. We cannot simplistically regard Jesus' principle to 'turn the other cheek' which is fine for in the family or in the Church quarrels and apply it to the duty government has to protect the people. Was it Peter or Paul who pointed out that magistrates are given the power of the sword?
Women, especially, would find life under Sharia a living Hell. Is that what Ms Scalia wants?
1.4.2011 | 12:25pm
Artaban says:
Joe the Human,
Tried to find these "arguments" you said you made in "Fail Brittania", and see nothing that proves "Christianity has often attacked the Middle East".
The Crusades occurred as a response to Muslim aggression against Christian communities, not as wars of Christian conquest or aggression. This is an indisputable fact. In the 8th and 9th centuries Islam conquered 2/3rds of what had (up to the 8th century) been "Christendom". They also conducted raids on Christian nations such that, by the 10th century, between Muslims and Vikings historians estimate 1 of every 10 Europeans was sold into slavery.
If someone landed on the coasts of America or the UK, conquered 2/3rds of our territory and carried 1 in 10 of the remainder into slavery, I dare say a military response would be conducted vigorously (and with ample justification).
Too many people ignore the fact that one can kill without hating the person you're killing (talk to any cop that's had to shoot someone). Similarly, as many scripture scholars have pointed out, the "Turn the other cheek" injunction bears all the marks of hyperbole--deliberate exaggeration meant to shock and get people thinking, but not meant to be received literally.
Tried to find these "arguments" you said you made in "Fail Brittania", and see nothing that proves "Christianity has often attacked the Middle East".
The Crusades occurred as a response to Muslim aggression against Christian communities, not as wars of Christian conquest or aggression. This is an indisputable fact. In the 8th and 9th centuries Islam conquered 2/3rds of what had (up to the 8th century) been "Christendom". They also conducted raids on Christian nations such that, by the 10th century, between Muslims and Vikings historians estimate 1 of every 10 Europeans was sold into slavery.
If someone landed on the coasts of America or the UK, conquered 2/3rds of our territory and carried 1 in 10 of the remainder into slavery, I dare say a military response would be conducted vigorously (and with ample justification).
Too many people ignore the fact that one can kill without hating the person you're killing (talk to any cop that's had to shoot someone). Similarly, as many scripture scholars have pointed out, the "Turn the other cheek" injunction bears all the marks of hyperbole--deliberate exaggeration meant to shock and get people thinking, but not meant to be received literally.
1.4.2011 | 12:55pm
Ray Ingles says:
Wolf Paul - At least she avoided the phrase 'militant atheists'. It's even more horribly misused. I mean, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - those were militant atheists (though I think their communism was a more salient factor). Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett - they might be vociferous or strident, but you just can't call them 'militant'.
1.4.2011 | 12:57pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
""Turn the other cheek" injunction bears all the marks of hyperbole--deliberate exaggeration meant to shock and get people thinking, but not meant to be received literally."
Looked at a crucifix, lately?
Looked at a crucifix, lately?
1.4.2011 | 1:25pm
M. Love says:
"In enjoining us to turn the other cheek [Christ] was setting before us, as always, a personal ideal, not a political project. If I am attacked and turn the other cheek, I exemplify the Christian virtue of meekness. If I am entrusted with a child who is attacked, and I then turn the child's other cheek, I make myself party to the violence."
- Roger Scruton, "The West vs. the Rest"
"Looked at a crucifix, lately?"
- Elizabeth Scalia
Yes, I've looked at a crucifix recently (there's one right above my monitor), and it doesn't seem to be telling me that I should surrender my children to bloodthirsty barbarians. I hope that I will be able to summon the courage to offer up my own life for my faith, if required, but my children's lives (like those of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or the unborn) are not at my disposal.
I am certain that Mrs. Scalia did not mean to argue that we should abandon the defenseless to their fates, but her argument is (uncharacteristically) vague to the point of being open to almost any interpretation.
"Once we have become [Christ's], in his measure, he will himself know how to best bestow us upon others."
And what if, having surrendered to Him, He then enjoins us to a vigorous defence of "Western Civilization", not (surely) on our own behalf, but on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and who would be (and are) incomparably worse off under the rule of barbarians, domestic or foreign?
- Roger Scruton, "The West vs. the Rest"
"Looked at a crucifix, lately?"
- Elizabeth Scalia
Yes, I've looked at a crucifix recently (there's one right above my monitor), and it doesn't seem to be telling me that I should surrender my children to bloodthirsty barbarians. I hope that I will be able to summon the courage to offer up my own life for my faith, if required, but my children's lives (like those of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or the unborn) are not at my disposal.
I am certain that Mrs. Scalia did not mean to argue that we should abandon the defenseless to their fates, but her argument is (uncharacteristically) vague to the point of being open to almost any interpretation.
"Once we have become [Christ's], in his measure, he will himself know how to best bestow us upon others."
And what if, having surrendered to Him, He then enjoins us to a vigorous defence of "Western Civilization", not (surely) on our own behalf, but on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and who would be (and are) incomparably worse off under the rule of barbarians, domestic or foreign?
1.4.2011 | 1:34pm
Artaban says:
Mrs. Scalia,
Of course Christ could not himself respond with force--if he had one of us fallen humans would eventually have mistaken such a response as a condemnation on that particular group of people.
Do not confuse the necessity of his personal response as a mandate to all Christians. Indeed, He also proclaimed in Luke 22: 35-37 "...But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one".
There is no requirement that Christians ascribe to pacifism. If there were, Peter would not have baptized the centurion Cornelius. Christ would not have praised the centurion for his faith--instead he doesn't demand he amend his way of life, as he does with the woman caught in adultery.
Of course Christ could not himself respond with force--if he had one of us fallen humans would eventually have mistaken such a response as a condemnation on that particular group of people.
Do not confuse the necessity of his personal response as a mandate to all Christians. Indeed, He also proclaimed in Luke 22: 35-37 "...But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one".
There is no requirement that Christians ascribe to pacifism. If there were, Peter would not have baptized the centurion Cornelius. Christ would not have praised the centurion for his faith--instead he doesn't demand he amend his way of life, as he does with the woman caught in adultery.
1.4.2011 | 1:45pm
Dblade says:
Ray:
Militant also means aggressive in the support of, and if it's one thing that crowd is, it's aggressive. I'd say atheists in general are: go to a random atheist board or blog and masquerade as a well-meaning fundamentalist christian, and watch the militancy fly.
Militant also means aggressive in the support of, and if it's one thing that crowd is, it's aggressive. I'd say atheists in general are: go to a random atheist board or blog and masquerade as a well-meaning fundamentalist christian, and watch the militancy fly.
1.4.2011 | 1:47pm
Patricia Cornell says:
Ms. Scalia talks about 'turning the other cheek." I must be missing something in the reading of her essay.
9-11, Crusades, and iolent attacks on two Christian churches within the last month. In one of the churches where the insruders killed outright first the priests and then the people, a little boy kept running after the intruders crying out: Enough! Enough! to each one. Finally one of them, in frustration, turned and shot him!
I for one would like to see some articles on what our response should be to these horrible, horrible attacks.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
9-11, Crusades, and iolent attacks on two Christian churches within the last month. In one of the churches where the insruders killed outright first the priests and then the people, a little boy kept running after the intruders crying out: Enough! Enough! to each one. Finally one of them, in frustration, turned and shot him!
I for one would like to see some articles on what our response should be to these horrible, horrible attacks.
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
1.4.2011 | 1:59pm
Gil Costello says:
In the film "The Mission" two priests are radically involved in a call to holiness. Towards the end of the film one priest chooses an absolute passive response to an assault on the innocent, and the other priest is prepared to obediently fulfill his vow to his superior of a non-violent response also. He returns to his room an lays down on his bed contemplating the humbling aspects of his decision, and a child walks into his room and hands him the sword he had thrown away when he entered the priesthood, the child requesting that he, a known great fighter, would protect him and the other children from the assault, and he honors the child’s request.
For me this is not a story illuminating and justifying liberation theology, but a story of two men caught up in the dialects of the world, always in some degree removed from the perfection of Our Lord. For me this is a story of two men who through God’s grace are subsumed in holiness and who choose two different paths in love, and I feel certain that both men would enter heaven upon death.
For me this is not a story illuminating and justifying liberation theology, but a story of two men caught up in the dialects of the world, always in some degree removed from the perfection of Our Lord. For me this is a story of two men who through God’s grace are subsumed in holiness and who choose two different paths in love, and I feel certain that both men would enter heaven upon death.
1.4.2011 | 2:12pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
I really hate responding to comments because it always ends up consuming time I don't have and then I fall behind and end up working til midnight, and today I really won't have much time to spare at all.
Suffice to say that if people are taking away from this piece a stark message of passivism, then either they're reading it quickly or I have written it very poorly. Very likely it is the latter. My point--and I think I clarified it well over at my blog--is that we are too much in the world and too enthralled by our own feelings and our own solutions. We're reacting outwardly to "the macro" relationship of ourselves to the world/nations to each other, etc - trying to fix "everything else" and spending less and less time and effort building and fortifying the "micro"--our relationship with Christ. And in doing that, we are surrendering to the world, not to Him. And if we are surrendered to the world and its notions and machinations and its misbegotten "way" then we cannot be fully and truly surrendered to Christ. The world will pass. Christ will not. We are supposed to FIRST adapt to his way, then TAKE his way into the world. It doesn't mean "no warriors." It's means "Christ's first." Which is actually, I think, quite similar to the message of The Mission, too.
Suffice to say that if people are taking away from this piece a stark message of passivism, then either they're reading it quickly or I have written it very poorly. Very likely it is the latter. My point--and I think I clarified it well over at my blog--is that we are too much in the world and too enthralled by our own feelings and our own solutions. We're reacting outwardly to "the macro" relationship of ourselves to the world/nations to each other, etc - trying to fix "everything else" and spending less and less time and effort building and fortifying the "micro"--our relationship with Christ. And in doing that, we are surrendering to the world, not to Him. And if we are surrendered to the world and its notions and machinations and its misbegotten "way" then we cannot be fully and truly surrendered to Christ. The world will pass. Christ will not. We are supposed to FIRST adapt to his way, then TAKE his way into the world. It doesn't mean "no warriors." It's means "Christ's first." Which is actually, I think, quite similar to the message of The Mission, too.
1.4.2011 | 2:29pm
Walter says:
So, what about all of the saints who were Crusaders? St. Louis? Or even Bernard who did not fight but vigorously preached the Crusade? Are they not really saints? Jesus taught more than turning the other cheek. He certainly did not turn the other cheek when he used force to run to the money changers out of the Temple. Jesus was most intolerant of evil. Did Jesus (through his angels and saints) instruct St. Joan of Arc to take up arms against the English or not? Ms. Scalia would have us return the glorious crowns of many saints! I for one, will refuse to do that. Deus Vult!
1.4.2011 | 2:30pm
Dan Buckley says:
There is a big distinction to be made in Christ's teaching about turning the other cheek. That is meant for an offense against one's own person, not for an offense against my mother or my brother. When His Father was affronted by the buyers and sellers, He made a whip of cords (He may have used them) and violently overturned their tables.
1.4.2011 | 3:05pm
Gil Costello says:
The message I take from Scalia's piece is in what she sums up towards the end: "Once we have become his, in his measure, he will himself know how to best bestow us upon others."
Everyone's different. For me it is much easier to die for Christ than to live for him, which begs the question: Is dying for Christ from a homicidal or suicidal (possibly unconscious) impulse martyrdom?
There's a great mystery in this, and I'm prone to mostly agree with Scalia's argument here. But I'm still convinced that whatever we do in Christ, which means from love absolute, is good. If in defending the innocent I have anything but love on the battlefield for my "enemies", which would include an understanding of how they are tragically imprisoned in the maze of the world that Satan controls, then I will have failed as a Christian. To love one's enemies is the only measure we can trust, and we must be honest in reflecting on whether that love is real, meaning are we moving in the world from the love that is God?
Everyone's different. For me it is much easier to die for Christ than to live for him, which begs the question: Is dying for Christ from a homicidal or suicidal (possibly unconscious) impulse martyrdom?
There's a great mystery in this, and I'm prone to mostly agree with Scalia's argument here. But I'm still convinced that whatever we do in Christ, which means from love absolute, is good. If in defending the innocent I have anything but love on the battlefield for my "enemies", which would include an understanding of how they are tragically imprisoned in the maze of the world that Satan controls, then I will have failed as a Christian. To love one's enemies is the only measure we can trust, and we must be honest in reflecting on whether that love is real, meaning are we moving in the world from the love that is God?
1.4.2011 | 3:14pm
In Cruce Semper Fidelis says:
Daunting, in an unprecended way, is the pastoral challenge of converting those who might otherwise surrender to suicidal/homicidal tendencies and possibly bring harm/death to others in the process. Disputing any 'theology' which encourages this behavior is a worthy enterprise. It is premature to consider such efforts futile. This intellectual 'fight' ---civilization's best hope--- every 'soldier' of good will should take to the 'battlefield' of our 'enemies'. Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
1.4.2011 | 4:14pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
I echo artaban's response to Joe the Human. (Perhaps "Joe the Accepter of Modern Stereotypes" would be closer.)
The Christians in Western Europe played defense for 950 out of the 1000 years of Islamic Crusade against the west. Even when we went on offense, it was with the limited goal of securing the Holy Land so that Christians retained access, not the conquering of Persia or Arabia, or Algeria. Significantly, various Islamic tribes allied with Christians during those counterinvasions, in hopes of advantage in their own internecine conflicts. There were evil deeds done by Christians, but the perspective should not be lost.
Ask the Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Hungarians, etc about it, all of which endured slaughter from repeated invasions from the east. If the western church is to be blamed, it is for letting those groups bear the brunt so often.
Additionally, Arabs had pretty much forgotten about the counterinvasions until the 19th C, when they started sending their sons to universities in England and France. They got offended when they saw how proud we were of those battles, and made them a cause at that late date.
The Christians in Western Europe played defense for 950 out of the 1000 years of Islamic Crusade against the west. Even when we went on offense, it was with the limited goal of securing the Holy Land so that Christians retained access, not the conquering of Persia or Arabia, or Algeria. Significantly, various Islamic tribes allied with Christians during those counterinvasions, in hopes of advantage in their own internecine conflicts. There were evil deeds done by Christians, but the perspective should not be lost.
Ask the Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians, Hungarians, etc about it, all of which endured slaughter from repeated invasions from the east. If the western church is to be blamed, it is for letting those groups bear the brunt so often.
Additionally, Arabs had pretty much forgotten about the counterinvasions until the 19th C, when they started sending their sons to universities in England and France. They got offended when they saw how proud we were of those battles, and made them a cause at that late date.
1.4.2011 | 5:07pm
Fred says:
"Joe the Acceptor of Modern Stereotypes"
LOL! Easier than thinking, isn't it?
LOL! Easier than thinking, isn't it?
1.4.2011 | 5:35pm
Mary S says:
Just a note to the author, those attacked on New Year's were not Catholic, but Coptic Orthodox Christians.
1.4.2011 | 5:42pm
Ray Ingles says:
Dblade - Oddly enough, when speaking of religion, pretty much the only time the word 'militant' is used in the sense of "aggressive in the support of" is when talking about atheists. There's a huge double-standard about that word.
I propose my own Internet exercise. Search for the phrases "militant Islamist" and "militant Christian". You will be searching a long time before you find any references to 'a guy who really wants to convince you about Islam' or 'somebody who passionately wants to persuade you to be a Christian'. No, when talking about religious believers, "militant" means 'picking up a gun and shooting someone'.
Now search for "militant atheist". Suddenly, you'll have to search just as hard to find anyone talking about atheists who are actually violent, or even propose violence. No, they'll be referring to 'somebody who speaks both passionately and positively about atheism'. Or sometimes, just 'somebody who says they are atheist' or even 'someone who doesn't speak negatively about atheism'.
I propose my own Internet exercise. Search for the phrases "militant Islamist" and "militant Christian". You will be searching a long time before you find any references to 'a guy who really wants to convince you about Islam' or 'somebody who passionately wants to persuade you to be a Christian'. No, when talking about religious believers, "militant" means 'picking up a gun and shooting someone'.
Now search for "militant atheist". Suddenly, you'll have to search just as hard to find anyone talking about atheists who are actually violent, or even propose violence. No, they'll be referring to 'somebody who speaks both passionately and positively about atheism'. Or sometimes, just 'somebody who says they are atheist' or even 'someone who doesn't speak negatively about atheism'.
1.4.2011 | 5:51pm
kt says:
'We're reacting outwardly to "the macro" relationship of ourselves to the world/nations to each other, etc - trying to fix "everything else" and spending less and less time and effort building and fortifying the "micro"--our relationship with Christ. And in doing that, we are surrendering to the world, not to Him.'
We are? Who is "we", exactly? Do you have some sort of cosmic microscope that allows you to see inside the souls of people whose political views you happen to find distasteful? In the vast majority of cases, only God is able to determine our individual spiritual landscapes with such devastating precision. You provide no evidence for the blanket assertions you make about the state of other people's souls. It's really quite presumptuous.
We are? Who is "we", exactly? Do you have some sort of cosmic microscope that allows you to see inside the souls of people whose political views you happen to find distasteful? In the vast majority of cases, only God is able to determine our individual spiritual landscapes with such devastating precision. You provide no evidence for the blanket assertions you make about the state of other people's souls. It's really quite presumptuous.
1.4.2011 | 5:54pm
Joshua Graham says:
I understand and respect your sentiments, and that you are not advocating bare suicidal passivity. In your reflections on Western society's downward trajectory leading to the End of Days, I would only ask you to include the biblical example of King Josiah. He, too, was in no position to alter the larger course of history unfolding according to the will of God. But because he not only prayed and sought the face of God, but took powerful, practical steps to restore his society from its corruption, God honored his struggle, and granted him that the foretold destruction would not occur during his lifetime.
1.4.2011 | 6:00pm
donald todd says:
We think like Catholics or Christians or enlightened westerns in the midst of modernity, and attempt to apply that mode of thought to people who are not Catholics or Christians or enlightened westerns in the midst of modernity.
There are those who are willing to kill innocent people for the sake of their own martyrdom. There are others, such as the Palestinians, who cheered when they heard that the Americans had experienced 3000 deaths with the destruction of the World Trade Center.
So what do I do? I am a Roman Catholic, an American, and I was a United States Marine who served in combat. There are things worth dying for, and things worth defending.
A former Secretary of War noted that the murderers of 911 flew machines that they could not invent into buildings that they could not construct.
That episode was followed by Muslims killing Muslims for being of the wrong Muslim group, while on the side westerners were being kidnapped and beheaded.
That does not appear to leave a lot of room for dialog, plenty for prayer, but not for a conversation. How can you treat with someone who believes you unworthy of life?
There are those who are willing to kill innocent people for the sake of their own martyrdom. There are others, such as the Palestinians, who cheered when they heard that the Americans had experienced 3000 deaths with the destruction of the World Trade Center.
So what do I do? I am a Roman Catholic, an American, and I was a United States Marine who served in combat. There are things worth dying for, and things worth defending.
A former Secretary of War noted that the murderers of 911 flew machines that they could not invent into buildings that they could not construct.
That episode was followed by Muslims killing Muslims for being of the wrong Muslim group, while on the side westerners were being kidnapped and beheaded.
That does not appear to leave a lot of room for dialog, plenty for prayer, but not for a conversation. How can you treat with someone who believes you unworthy of life?
1.4.2011 | 6:11pm
nabi says:
please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/first-commandment-quote-of-the-day-248/
1.4.2011 | 7:02pm
Margaret says:
Artaben says, "The Crusades occurred as a response to Muslim aggression against Christian communities, not as wars of Christian conquest or aggression."
Artaban, I think Joe the Human is right in saying there was aggression in both camps. Many Muslims in those days were nomadic warriors. Many Christians also sought to expand/build empires. It was an age of warfare and violence. It's a little hard for us Americans to accuse Muslims of aggression in occupying Asia Minor when we had no hesitation in taking over Indian land here in the US. For the Christians to insist on retaking Jerusalem in 1099 would be equivalent to the Native Americans insisting on booting whites out of Georgia, for example. Bear in mind that Alexius Comnenus, the basileus of Constantinople, pleaded for help in about 1076 from Kilij Arslan's father, Suleyman, a Muslim, in defeating the Christian, Roussel of Bailleul, who, having formed an autonomous state in Asia Minor, decided to march on Constantinople. The cavalry of the Seljuk Turks managed to defeat Roussel, so Muslims at times partnered with Christians. In taking Muslim cities en route to Jerusalem, the "Franj" (as they were called by Muslims) didn't exactly demonstrate pristine Christian ethics. On taking Jerusalem, they were happy to slaughter virtually every man, woman, and child they could lay their hands on, and to lock the Jews of the city, who had fought with the Muslims, in their synagogue and burn them alive. The crusaders were very happy to rape, loot, and pillage as much as possible. I doubt the Seljuk Turks were any better. This was the way of the world at the time. I think it's very simplistic to try to glorify the crusaders as Christians defending Christianity from Muslim aggression. Or vice versa.
Artaban, I think Joe the Human is right in saying there was aggression in both camps. Many Muslims in those days were nomadic warriors. Many Christians also sought to expand/build empires. It was an age of warfare and violence. It's a little hard for us Americans to accuse Muslims of aggression in occupying Asia Minor when we had no hesitation in taking over Indian land here in the US. For the Christians to insist on retaking Jerusalem in 1099 would be equivalent to the Native Americans insisting on booting whites out of Georgia, for example. Bear in mind that Alexius Comnenus, the basileus of Constantinople, pleaded for help in about 1076 from Kilij Arslan's father, Suleyman, a Muslim, in defeating the Christian, Roussel of Bailleul, who, having formed an autonomous state in Asia Minor, decided to march on Constantinople. The cavalry of the Seljuk Turks managed to defeat Roussel, so Muslims at times partnered with Christians. In taking Muslim cities en route to Jerusalem, the "Franj" (as they were called by Muslims) didn't exactly demonstrate pristine Christian ethics. On taking Jerusalem, they were happy to slaughter virtually every man, woman, and child they could lay their hands on, and to lock the Jews of the city, who had fought with the Muslims, in their synagogue and burn them alive. The crusaders were very happy to rape, loot, and pillage as much as possible. I doubt the Seljuk Turks were any better. This was the way of the world at the time. I think it's very simplistic to try to glorify the crusaders as Christians defending Christianity from Muslim aggression. Or vice versa.
1.4.2011 | 7:31pm
Martin Snigg says:
I'm sorry 'nabi' but in here most are familiar with the God of love found in the Bible as well as the textual and historical evidence for Christian claims. On these standards and many more Islam is found badly wanting. I think you are on a hiding to nothing trying to subvert discussions about the proportions of Islamic inspired terrorism going on around the globe. A bitter denunciation of muslim violence at this point would go much further.
1.4.2011 | 7:46pm
rpm64 says:
This article brings to my mind the success of Gandhi in India. He used friendly passive resistance to win independence from the British (a Christian nation) very successfully. Would his method have worked in any Muslim country? I don't believe so. The Catholics at Mass in Baghdad and in Egypt were slaughtered for being non-Muslims not because they were fighting Islam. Some comments above mention the Crusades as if we should be ashamed of this violence. Why do we forget that for 500 years after the death of Mohammad more than half of the worlds Catholics were slaughtered? Islam spread throughout the middle east, Turkey, Persia, North Africa, Southern Spain and parts of eastern Europe. Muslim raiders terrorized the European and Mediterranean shores as late as the 1800's. If not stopped at the Battle of Tours and by the King of Poland at Vienna all of Europe would have succumbed to Islam (as it may do in the next 50 years). In 1091 the Crusades were launched with the sole purpose of recovering Jerusalem, our holy land. They lasted for 200 years. Much blood was shed and many were killed by the Crusades as happens in all war. The Crusades did not compare to the 500 years of Muslim violence preceding them. Christian men were slaughtered,woman were taken as concubines and boys were castrated and sold off as eunuch slaves. Does "turn the other cheek" mean we cannot defend ourselves against Islamic terrorism? I think not. We must cling to our Catholic principles, judge all men by their fruits, do all we can to understand Islam and be ready at all times to defend our faith. No church leaders or politicians will mention this history because they know it will trigger more Muslim violence as did the Pope's speech at Regensburg.
Christians are facing a major threat from Islam throughout the world. I believe we must live up to our Catholic values more than ever before but we must also be ready to defend our faith by force of arms if necessary. Is Catholicism and the rest of Christianity worth fighting for? It certainly is! Will we ever be able to live side by side in peace as equals with Muslims? History indicates that this is impossible without a radical change in the tenets of Islam.
Christians are facing a major threat from Islam throughout the world. I believe we must live up to our Catholic values more than ever before but we must also be ready to defend our faith by force of arms if necessary. Is Catholicism and the rest of Christianity worth fighting for? It certainly is! Will we ever be able to live side by side in peace as equals with Muslims? History indicates that this is impossible without a radical change in the tenets of Islam.
1.4.2011 | 8:20pm
Edward Alleyn says:
What did Jesus mean when He said to "turn the other cheek"? Did He mean that if a Muslim feels it his duty to kill me, I should allow the Muslim to do so? That is hard to believe because Jesus clearly understood that God and His Goodness has enemies.
And who is my neighbor? Am I to love even those who do not wish to be a neighbor? Is that what He meant when He said "love thy enemy"? Did He mean that if a Muslim insists upon being my enemy and feels it his duty to kill me, I should allow the Muslim to do so out of love?
God will forgive our sins as we have forgiven those Muslims who have sinned against. But in forgiving the Muslim, am I to allow him to destroy me?
And who is my neighbor? Am I to love even those who do not wish to be a neighbor? Is that what He meant when He said "love thy enemy"? Did He mean that if a Muslim insists upon being my enemy and feels it his duty to kill me, I should allow the Muslim to do so out of love?
God will forgive our sins as we have forgiven those Muslims who have sinned against. But in forgiving the Muslim, am I to allow him to destroy me?
1.4.2011 | 8:21pm
Thirstfor TRuth says:
The Christ said alot of things ....things that were meant to teach us how to live in this world that we might be worthy of the next. As pointed out He never told us to ignore evil. Rather he told us to go and evangelize and teach others the Way. To defend one's life or the lfe of another is not a refutation of the injunction to "turn the other cheek". To refute the false religion of Islam is to defend the faith...something we promise at Confirmation to strive to always do. I think Elizabeth Scailia has said some very important things here, undeniable
tuths. However we are left with the over-all impression that pacifism is the only Christian response to an unjust attack on life. Our newest martyrs in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mid"East had little opportunity to "turn the other cheek" but surely could not have been condemned for running for the nearest exit had they had but the opportunity. Such blood thirsty jihad should be condemned and bother not" turning the other cheek "nonsense as interpreted here. Yes, we must never place our trust in princes and kings, as the psalmist warn us, but
we must follow the Christ when we confront evil.
tuths. However we are left with the over-all impression that pacifism is the only Christian response to an unjust attack on life. Our newest martyrs in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mid"East had little opportunity to "turn the other cheek" but surely could not have been condemned for running for the nearest exit had they had but the opportunity. Such blood thirsty jihad should be condemned and bother not" turning the other cheek "nonsense as interpreted here. Yes, we must never place our trust in princes and kings, as the psalmist warn us, but
we must follow the Christ when we confront evil.
1.4.2011 | 9:23pm
Dynan says:
I have surrendered to Jesus. I will channel my anger to protect myself and the others that I love.
Recall that the whole of the law is to worship God with your body, mind and soul AND to love your neighbor as yourself.
Before you build a tower, have a plan and enough money to finish the tower
lest you appear foolish to your neighbors.
Vince Lombardi once remarked that the best defense is a good offense.
Recall that the whole of the law is to worship God with your body, mind and soul AND to love your neighbor as yourself.
Before you build a tower, have a plan and enough money to finish the tower
lest you appear foolish to your neighbors.
Vince Lombardi once remarked that the best defense is a good offense.
1.4.2011 | 11:11pm
Anonymous 3 says:
The passages that ask one to turn the other cheek starts with the exhortation to love our enemies .
In the context of the violence against Christians , we would have to ask what are the best ways to love our enemies !
Church unity that comes with the promise of a world that would believe and thus the resultant better possibilty of salvation for our Moslem brethren would be in this line ; it is a good thing that the missteps in the major Churches that started the division and the resultant start of Islam are being dealt with , through efforts of the recent Popes and prayers of the faithful .
The prayer intention of the Holy Father for this month is the same !
The move for the 5th Marian Dogma , to declare and thus invite in the Motherly intervention of The Mother of all the living into lves of all , to drive out the powers of hatred also another hopeful sign !
Christians and Catholics living more Spirit dominated lives and thus being able to have the power to call on the Spirit of purity, selfcontrol and unity even more , esp. by recognising such truths as that every murder in what is to be the sacred space of a mother's womb also would give more room for diabolical powers and its resultant victories !
If we see a child with a knife trying to attack another child, in misguided intent , there would be efforts to separate both - similar measures may have to be adpoted all throughout, if Islam is unable to take in what real Godly mercy and peace is about !
Efforts to educate them such as in their misinterpretation of the verse that says 'no one but God alone is good ' ,which is used to deny our Lord's divinity and thus to mislead others too can also be dealt with .
In a fallen world that no longer is 'good ' as it was when God created it , where we now have poverty , tears and death and sufferings , all humans take part in these that are 'not good ' !
Our Lord in His human nature , out of love and compassion for our ' not so good' sitaution and His Mother too thus came to be in the ' not so good '
world , to help it to become a better world , to lead us into a world that is all good !
Again - the basic issue of how to love those who want to be our enemies and thus lead themselves and their future generations and lands into harm's paths and arrid cursed places !
Hoping that the Assisi conference would have enough wise leaders that would propose that any violece similar to the atrocities against the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq or the Coptics in Egypt would be met with enough repercussions from their own people and leaders - to ensure that the West would not have to adpot massive measures to separate away the immature children !
Meanwhile , there is the silver lining that in these days of internet communique and fast news relays , plenty of potential targets of conversion by Moslems are witnessing what is going on and are taking in the witness of the God given , merited through The Cross capacity among Christains , to not retaliate in kind but to be able to be merciful , trust with more ardent pleadings and hopefully holier , more faithful lives that could make all the diffrence , including even the hint of the return of our Lord !
In the context of the violence against Christians , we would have to ask what are the best ways to love our enemies !
Church unity that comes with the promise of a world that would believe and thus the resultant better possibilty of salvation for our Moslem brethren would be in this line ; it is a good thing that the missteps in the major Churches that started the division and the resultant start of Islam are being dealt with , through efforts of the recent Popes and prayers of the faithful .
The prayer intention of the Holy Father for this month is the same !
The move for the 5th Marian Dogma , to declare and thus invite in the Motherly intervention of The Mother of all the living into lves of all , to drive out the powers of hatred also another hopeful sign !
Christians and Catholics living more Spirit dominated lives and thus being able to have the power to call on the Spirit of purity, selfcontrol and unity even more , esp. by recognising such truths as that every murder in what is to be the sacred space of a mother's womb also would give more room for diabolical powers and its resultant victories !
If we see a child with a knife trying to attack another child, in misguided intent , there would be efforts to separate both - similar measures may have to be adpoted all throughout, if Islam is unable to take in what real Godly mercy and peace is about !
Efforts to educate them such as in their misinterpretation of the verse that says 'no one but God alone is good ' ,which is used to deny our Lord's divinity and thus to mislead others too can also be dealt with .
In a fallen world that no longer is 'good ' as it was when God created it , where we now have poverty , tears and death and sufferings , all humans take part in these that are 'not good ' !
Our Lord in His human nature , out of love and compassion for our ' not so good' sitaution and His Mother too thus came to be in the ' not so good '
world , to help it to become a better world , to lead us into a world that is all good !
Again - the basic issue of how to love those who want to be our enemies and thus lead themselves and their future generations and lands into harm's paths and arrid cursed places !
Hoping that the Assisi conference would have enough wise leaders that would propose that any violece similar to the atrocities against the Chaldean Catholics in Iraq or the Coptics in Egypt would be met with enough repercussions from their own people and leaders - to ensure that the West would not have to adpot massive measures to separate away the immature children !
Meanwhile , there is the silver lining that in these days of internet communique and fast news relays , plenty of potential targets of conversion by Moslems are witnessing what is going on and are taking in the witness of the God given , merited through The Cross capacity among Christains , to not retaliate in kind but to be able to be merciful , trust with more ardent pleadings and hopefully holier , more faithful lives that could make all the diffrence , including even the hint of the return of our Lord !
1.5.2011 | 12:51am
Ender says:
The command to turn the other cheek is a directive about how we are to react to attacks or insults to ourselves; it has nothing whatever to do with how we - or governments - are to react to attacks on others and it is a gross misunderstanding to believe that we have a Christian duty to passivity and surrender. In fact, the opposite is true.
[i]The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Crysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Crysostom ] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked."[/i] (Aquinas, Summa Theologia)
Or, as the Catechism says (2265): [i]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life.[/i]
[i]The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Crysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Crysostom ] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked."[/i] (Aquinas, Summa Theologia)
Or, as the Catechism says (2265): [i]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life.[/i]
1.5.2011 | 1:57am
Paulr says:
Ms. Scalia's article is simplistic, and dare I say - full of the same self-loathing that is common among multi-culturalists. Hers is a point of view which can exist, and will only exist, for a brief period in 21st century America.
She treats Islam as a uniform force, a movement outside of us, like the weather, which one can do nothing about. It is not. It is made up of men, with many failings - indeed, many of them poor, violent, and uneducated. It is full factions rising and falling, and full of struggle. Christians should seek understanding, but should Christians meekly roll-over when confronted with a very poor substitute for their own culture and religion? If so, why is Ms. Scalia a Christian at all?
Must Christians "turn the other cheek" and accept corrupt and hypocritical theocratic politics which is the norm in Islam? Must Christians "accept with love" organized violence against women or "infidels?" Must Christians roll-over for the superstitious belief in "dumb-luck," and faith in capricious and vengeful God who operates outside of love or reason?
Indeed, Christians must not overlook, or dumbly accept, such things.
She treats Islam as a uniform force, a movement outside of us, like the weather, which one can do nothing about. It is not. It is made up of men, with many failings - indeed, many of them poor, violent, and uneducated. It is full factions rising and falling, and full of struggle. Christians should seek understanding, but should Christians meekly roll-over when confronted with a very poor substitute for their own culture and religion? If so, why is Ms. Scalia a Christian at all?
Must Christians "turn the other cheek" and accept corrupt and hypocritical theocratic politics which is the norm in Islam? Must Christians "accept with love" organized violence against women or "infidels?" Must Christians roll-over for the superstitious belief in "dumb-luck," and faith in capricious and vengeful God who operates outside of love or reason?
Indeed, Christians must not overlook, or dumbly accept, such things.
1.5.2011 | 8:29am
Anonymous3 says:
Africa , with its vast lands and suffering , persecuted people may be the best hope , if things get worse !
Those displaced and killed by Moslems and thus with fresh memories of what is being faced , to be recriuted enmasse , to be trained in ways of exorcism and merciful treatments of large scale peace camps where those rescued from lands that have learned to listen only to diabolical voices to be brought , in sudden, well coordinated efforts , in several 747s , with a mission of mercy , not of killings ... and feeding them , esp. in real truth and ways of mercy , caring for them until they are free from harm's paths, for this world and the next , with plenty of missionary persons involved , from all over !
May be a good way for Africa and Europe to be rehabilitated faster into Christian ways too !
Meanwhile, we are called to keep bringing all , living and deceased , separated and unbeliever , lukewarm and the lost into His mercy - and we aleardy see how so many who could be tools of the enemy are not so , due to the graces being poured forth , through the prayers of a Church Victorius in heaven who love us so and pray for us ; the suffering Church miltant here as well as the Church being purified , in the loving flames of purgatory !
Those displaced and killed by Moslems and thus with fresh memories of what is being faced , to be recriuted enmasse , to be trained in ways of exorcism and merciful treatments of large scale peace camps where those rescued from lands that have learned to listen only to diabolical voices to be brought , in sudden, well coordinated efforts , in several 747s , with a mission of mercy , not of killings ... and feeding them , esp. in real truth and ways of mercy , caring for them until they are free from harm's paths, for this world and the next , with plenty of missionary persons involved , from all over !
May be a good way for Africa and Europe to be rehabilitated faster into Christian ways too !
Meanwhile, we are called to keep bringing all , living and deceased , separated and unbeliever , lukewarm and the lost into His mercy - and we aleardy see how so many who could be tools of the enemy are not so , due to the graces being poured forth , through the prayers of a Church Victorius in heaven who love us so and pray for us ; the suffering Church miltant here as well as the Church being purified , in the loving flames of purgatory !
1.5.2011 | 12:40pm
Harold says:
"Joe the Human" is incorrect in saying that Israel was established by military force in 1947. Israel was not established by military force. It was established by a United Nations Partition Plan which divided British Mandatory Palestine into two independent states, thereby granting independence both to Jews and to Palestinian Arabs. The Zionist response to this plan was to accept it. The Arab response to this plan was a push to drive the Jews into the sea. The Arabs' resort to military force in 1947-48 failed.
1.5.2011 | 12:53pm
PaulR says:
I personally believe the quote from Matthew 5:38-40: "turn the other cheek" is misused to the point of cliche - usually by people who want Christians to roll-over and accept some kind of evil.
A more suiting passage for our age should be Luke 12:49-52
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
A more suiting passage for our age should be Luke 12:49-52
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
1.5.2011 | 1:57pm
Artaban says:
I am incredibly heartened by the comments on this post. At the same time I wish to assure Mrs. Scalia that she has written a very good post with many cogent points. This issue is one fraught with such deep levels of complexity that clarifications and contentions should not be construed as rejection of a whole work.
I am no pacifist. The love of my life has chosen the most radical form of that path, and though I disagree with her choice and reject it as a thing to which all are called, I value it in her. For her that is the more perfect path to holiness. Quite the opposite for me. It seems to me those on the pacifist side of the issue are more prone to reject their ideological "opponents" than are those of us who support Just War.
Ray Ingles--Just as a passing comment, I would disagree with your characterization of the difference between "militant Christians" and "militant atheists". Catholics use the phrase "church militant" not infrequently, and it has nothing to do with physical force.
Victory against an Islamic radicalism that has often demanded the conversion of others as a condition for the cessation of hostilities will never be achieved through force of arms alone. But neither will it be achieved through quiet prayer and "interreligious dialogue" alone. All are needed, and just as the fulfillment of a vocation is prayer made flesh and action, the testimony of the saints show there is a place in Christianity for radical pacifism AND principled soldiers. I grow frightened when we speak of a faith devoid of one or the other.
I am no pacifist. The love of my life has chosen the most radical form of that path, and though I disagree with her choice and reject it as a thing to which all are called, I value it in her. For her that is the more perfect path to holiness. Quite the opposite for me. It seems to me those on the pacifist side of the issue are more prone to reject their ideological "opponents" than are those of us who support Just War.
Ray Ingles--Just as a passing comment, I would disagree with your characterization of the difference between "militant Christians" and "militant atheists". Catholics use the phrase "church militant" not infrequently, and it has nothing to do with physical force.
Victory against an Islamic radicalism that has often demanded the conversion of others as a condition for the cessation of hostilities will never be achieved through force of arms alone. But neither will it be achieved through quiet prayer and "interreligious dialogue" alone. All are needed, and just as the fulfillment of a vocation is prayer made flesh and action, the testimony of the saints show there is a place in Christianity for radical pacifism AND principled soldiers. I grow frightened when we speak of a faith devoid of one or the other.
2.16.2011 | 8:52am
Itani Darci says:
And who is my neighbor? Am I to love even those who do not wish to be a neighbor? Is that what He meant when He said "love thy enemy"? Did He mean that if a Muslim insists upon being my enemy and feels it his duty to kill me, I should allow the Muslim to do so out of love? Those displaced and killed by Moslems and thus with fresh memories of what is being faced , to be recriuted enmasse , to be trained in ways of exorcism and merciful treatments of large scale peace camps where those rescued from lands that have learned to listen only to diabolical voices to be brought , in sudden, well coordinated efforts , in several 747s , with a mission of mercy , not of killings ... and feeding them , esp. in real truth and ways of mercy , caring for them until they are free from harm's paths, for this world and the next , with plenty of missionary persons involved , from all over !
3.3.2011 | 1:46am
Andree Itani says:
I personally believe the quote from Matthew 5:38-40: "turn the other cheek" is misused to the point of cliche - usually by people who want Christians to roll-over and accept some kind of evil. And what if, having surrendered to Him, He then enjoins us to a vigorous defence of "Western Civilization", not (surely) on our own behalf, but on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and who would be (and are) incomparably worse off under the rule of barbarians, domestic or foreign?
I believe in living a holy life and being strong enough to overcome evil when it threatens the pursuit of a holy life.