Will desecrating the Eucharist receive same attention as burning the Koran?

From a reader:

I see that the plan of one small church in America to burn a Koran has gained world-wide attention, interventions by the Secretary of State and religious leaders, and a spot on the BBC’s front page.

Does this mean we can confidently expect the next, sadly inevitable, act of desecration against the Most Blessed Sacrament to elicit such a response?

Somehow, I think not.



About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Vetdoctor says:

    Try blowing up two buildings in New York and continuing to kill people for desecration and you’ll get their attention too. They don’t care because its insulting to Muslims, they care because Muslims blow up buildings. Might as well envy Hugh Hefner for the praise he gets-today.

  2. Glen M says:

    Sadly, anti-Catholicism is still the last socially acceptable prejudice. We are the most visible and structured religion thus the easiest target. When Islamo-fascists get offended the kill people. When Catholics get offended they pray for the offender.

  3. B.C.M. says:

    Two thoughts:

    Why, exactly, are prominent Catholics such as Bill D. of the Catholic League against burning this novel? I’m not particularly FOR it but I’m certainly not against it. And try not to give too-lefty of an answer…

    My second thought is this- when I was a kid we had a parish priest who would joke around about forming an army for the pope and for Christ to defend them both against physical peril. Can we form that army now and do something real to defend our Lord with not only our prayers but with our bodies and our might? I’m just askin.

  4. traditionalorganist says:

    It’s amazing to see how far Protestantism has fallen. This Koran burning is definitely a nationalist-type stunt. It benefits no one and only lends towards western blind arrogance. We have exalted so called freedom of speech above all else. Besides being an uncharitable act that does not help dialogue with honest Muslims, the Koran burning will only increase hatred towards ALL Christians. I think Catholics, because of the all-too-frequent cases of Eucharistic desecration, are one of the few cultures out there now that understand the idea of something Sacred. Protestants only have the Bible, and even that is mass-produced to the level of becoming cheap and mundane, often with paper covers and flimsy pages. Should not Sacred things be made of the finest materials, or in the case of the Eucharist, kept safe in containers of precious metals, etc? We must safeguard against desecration by every means possible, so that hopefully, we won’t have to deal with a public desecration, infinitely more offensive than this Koran-burning nonsense.

  5. pberginjr says:


    “Protestants only have the Bible, and even that is mass-produced to the level of becoming cheap and mundane, often with paper covers and flimsy pages. Should not Sacred things be made of the finest materials, or in the case of the Eucharist, kept safe in containers of precious metals, etc?”

    You’re right they should be made of the finest materials, but have you looked at some of the Catholic bibles for sale? The paperback NABs (St. Joseph Editions) fall apart in just a few years and even the hardbacks have terrible bindings. The RSV-2CE from Ignatius is, IMO, the only quality AFFORDABLE Catholic Bible in print. You can get a KJV of equal or better quality for less cost, and there are far more options available (customization).

    On a tangential point, while the libri and graduali from Solesmes are excellent in their content (generally) the bindings on them seem so poor that they may fall apart on me after just one year of use. A friend of mine blogs on bibliography (i.e. book quality, etc.) and reviews books at absnospin.blogspot.com, addressing issues similar to this. Catholic publishing has a lot of catching up to do in quality of materials to the Protestants (remember what they did with the printing press after all…)

  6. archer says:

    I actually find it very unfortunate that a person who “professes” Christ and acts in the contrary (hypocrite?)give all Christians a bad name. As for our Blessed Eucharist, the anti-Catholics have done everything possible to desecrate it, which I pray they do in pure ignorance. We can only offer up prayers for reparation for the blasphemies committed. Anti-Catholicism is ignorance, and we must fight tooth and nail at ever opportunity–the best method of a good fight is to use EDUCATION. The Muslim situation is due to the very spirit of “extremism” that the protestants who are going to burn the Koran have. If they truly knew the message they are sending, they would not do it. Perhaps a petition is in order. It is not free speech, but the abuse of it. I can see not one ounce of justification in it.

    Traditionalorganist has made good points. I would not wonder if the Muslims will not retaliate–they will view it as what all Christian do. Nothing seems to be sacred anymore (to too many people). Catholics have a keen understanding of the sacred and how it is to be treated. We get accused of idolatry because of the outward evidences we present.I don’t let such matter bother me, as one can simply imagine the answer they will give Our Lord and Blessed Lady when they ask,”Did you honor me?” I hope to be one to answer in the affirmative. Pray for them to see the error they are committing.

  7. Andrew says:

    The desecration of the Eucharist and the burning of Koran are two different actions. The recently reported eucharistic desecration was perpetrated by an arrogant catholic youngster. The Koran burning is being proposed (I don’t know if it had taken place or not) by a christian (sectarian) community as an anti-muslim act. That’s a huge difference. If muslims were to hold a public bible-burning, then we might be dealing with two comparable actions.

    This Koran burning is stupid, useless, and provocative. Religion, morality, and culture are so intertwined, that to scorn someone’s religion amounts to a scorn of a large segment of humanity. Today, the Vatican website published a condemnation of this action.

  8. torch621 says:

    Burning the Koran in public is needlessly provocative and offensive and will more than likely turn Muslims off from the Gospel.

    That said, the pastor is right about one thing; Islam is evil. Any religion that sanctions the murder of apostates and demands that all governments and peoples submit to being dhimmis under Sharia can only come from one source, and it aint heaven.

  9. Marcin says:

    On principle I don’t care about burning Koran, because it is not a _truly_ sacred book. But it is sacred for some people, therefore I wouldn’t.

    On pragmatic grounds I certainly agree with gen. Petraeus that the burning project is ill-advised and could worsen situation on the front, and I suppose that’s why the government it running crazy to denounce it. Card. McCarrick said it would be un-American. Why so, pray tell? Un-Christian – yes, but still it’s loony pastor’s constitutional right. Burning an American flag used to be a favorite pastime for some…

    Imam Rauf too has a right to build a mosque in Manhattan. But it would be indecent, ill-advised and could worsen the domestic situation. And right it may do so just now.

    The best would be if both the pastor and the imam back off.

  10. Luke says:

    An act such as burning the Koran is on par with a war cry. Such an act should never be done by a Christian Church. Wouldn’t it be better to “egg them on” with kindness and the banner of Truth? It seemed to work for the Early Church at any rate.

    Andrew: Thanks for letting us know about the Vatican’s condemnation of this act. I’ll go and read it today.

  11. SimonDodd says:

    I think that desecration is the right comparison. My understanding is that Muslims regard not only the substantive content of the Koran (as we do that of the Bible) as sacred, but the book itself—the physical object. The apt comparison isn’t to burning a flag,* but to desecrating a sacramental. We’d be pretty steamed about that, right?

    While the comparison to the blessed sacrament (vs. a sacramental) may be a little much, I’ll add this. There are plenty of people out there who (1) think it’s crazy to believe that a little bread wafer becomes something more than that when a priest waves his arms and says some hocus pocus, yet (2) understand that I believe it, and can (3) understand how horrified I would be at its desecration. Can’t we display at least as much empathy as apostates and atheists?

    *To which we object only insofar as it expresses disrespect to the flag as a symbol, to the extent it expresses contempt for what the flag represents, not because we have an attachment to the cloth itself. Cf. 4 U.S.C. §8(k) (burning is the preferred option for disposing of a flag).

  12. JonM says:

    In the same spirit of BCM, I’m not particularly for this event, but at the same time I’m not hyperventilating over it. Predictably, Vatican sources are wetting themselves over the prospect of a Koran being burned. How caring…

    Desecration of the Eucharist is a direct, literal assualt on God Himself. It is never acceptable. Ever.

    On the other hand, burning a bastardized version of truly inspired texts could be acceptable, positive, neutral, or negative. It would seem to me that this would depend on the context and the intent.

    I’m not prone to agree with this event; whatever the sincerity of this community leader, he wrongly asserts himself as Pastor and bases his own sect around a particular (his) interpretation of a vital, but component volume (the Bible, his incomplete at that.)

    With little effort, in a slightly different political climate, I could easily see such a community burn Catholic (that is, true Christian) symbols, materials, and works. That is not to say this particular community would; I am not making that accusation. Indeed, breakaway communities claiming the ‘true word of God’ have a rich history of iconoclasm and anti-Catholic violence.

    We are not crusading against Islamic oppression (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are entirely politically based, so much so that the US Army burned thousands of Bibles which incidentally received scant coverage) With this in mind, to burn a text that a lot of people consider sacred essentially in an arbitrary mannder seems, well, uncharitable.

    It also seems like an excellent way to sir up a lot of people given to violence.

    Further, since the Vatican is too busy with its idol of Vatican II and as such is gooey over ‘inter-religious dialogue,’ we can expect that little martial spirit will return anytime soon. Lacking any call for a true crusade to liberate millions, the best form of evangelism should be modeled after the original Jesuits, who came close to completely converting Japan and the court of China.

    But to answer Father’s question, no of course desecration of the Eucharist will receive no attention. It happens at an astoundingly normal rate with the ease provided by Communion in the hand. Last I checked, PZ Myers was not fired from his job.

    This Protestant/non-demoninational leader is correct about somethings however: Sharia courts are deeply evil and Islam is a false religion. Too bad we can’t hear that from the Vatican.

  13. Fr. Basil says:

    FWIW, all that this conventicle in Gainesville, Fl seems to have to burn are translations of the Coran.

    It is believed that only the Arabic is a genuine Coran. No translation carries the authority or even holiness of the original.

  14. Desertfalcon says:

    Islam is in error and there may be many Muslims who use their faith in order to try to justify unjustifiable acts, but the vast majority of the Muslim people in the world worship the God of Abraham that we do and use their faith as a moral guide to their lives. I much prefer that to the secular, materialistic, modern, sexually obsessed, cesspool, that has become ‘western civilisation’.

  15. Re: burning

    This is what happens when publishers and writers oppose used bookstores. :)

    Re: Protestants and the printing press

    Oh, come on. Italy, France, and Catholic parts of Germany and Austria were as quick or quicker to use the printing press for Catholic evangelization, both in Latin and in the vernacular. We’re just used to seeing more Protestant incunabula because we speak English, and most of the English Catholic incunabula got destroyed. Places like Paris, Venice, Milan, and Rome were not just printing centers of edifying books, either; they rapidly started churning out newspapers full of politics and gossip!

    And of course, Gutenberg himself was Catholic; he printed papal letters and indulgences, and his Bible was the Vulgate.

    Also, many of the really popular “books” were picture broadsheets, which could be used for evangelization to the unlettered; or saint cards and cards of the Holy Name. This sort of ephemera, which was one of most common forms of printing and predated movable type by long centuries, is drastically underrepresented in our view of the non-modern world.

  16. Luke says:

    Deesertfalcon: While some Muslims do have redeeming qualities they should not be pitted against the cesspool of Western civilization. All Muslims follow the Koran and the Koran is itself the problem. Islam has a problem that is similar to those of Catholicism: A majority of proponents of both faiths are uncatehized. The god of those who submit to the Islamic faith is not the same God who we worship. You should check out, Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics, ISBN 0965922855. There is nothing innocent about those who willfully submit to Islam. Regarding those pagans who make up modern Western civilization: They are just that, god-less.

    It is true that only the Arabic Koran is given much credence, but that line is also used as an excuse by Islam to cover up what many today read in the numerous translations, only to find themselves in shock. There will be Muslims who take great offense at the burning of any Koran. What a foolhardy thing to do as a Christian. . .

  17. lucy says:

    I fear that this act of burning the Qu’ran will be blamed for the next “hit” by Extremist Muslims. The 10th anniversary is near and they are fond of anniversaries. This pastor should not do this, because all Christians will then be blamed for their act of hostility, furthering the bad opinion of Christians by all other peoples. The fifth anniversary hit was found out in time and stopped. Will the 10th anniversary see the same result especially since our groups who work on these things have been weakened by our president ? I hope this pastor changes his mind and does not do this thing.

  18. DisturbedMary says:

    I keep thinking back to Regensberg and how Pope Benedict’s gentle reference to historic irrationality (forgive me, I’m no scholar) how that reference set off violence around the Muslim world. If our sweet, careful, intelligent, loving, universal Pope can set off a calamity like that, what do we expect from us ordinary people who perceive (perhaps rightly) the Koran as a declaration of war from God on non-Muslims. Whether it’s this pastor or some other in our increasingly Islamic future, something is going to blow. Non-Muslims, New Yorkers, Americans, Christians, Evangelicals — we don’t know where we are going with the Koran.

  19. Desertfalcon says:

    @ Luke, that is why I was careful to state first that Islam was in error. In no way would I defend Islam as a faith. I am simply stating that within Islam can be found a good measure of the moral law. That Islam demands the worship of God and prayer, contrition and penance for sin, charity to the poor and needy and respect for family, should be pointed out as objectively good. That doesn’t mean I defend jihad or cases of disrespect for women or unjust intolerance in their communities. I was stationed in the Islamic world a couple of times and my experience of their deep faith in God, their respect for family and their charity to the poor, impressed me greatly.

  20. IMHO, this public burning of the Koran is a needlessly inflammatory act which is not likely to lead anyone from error to Truth but rather apt to confirm many in error and harden their hearts further to the Truth.

  21. Luke says:

    Desertfalcon: I hear what you are saying. I do. I would argue that the submitter’s motivation for the things that you admire in them is misplaced, however. Those who live well their Catholic Faith are a much finer example of what God can do in us when we are receptive to his gifts.

  22. Supertradmum says:

    Even though it is theoretically correct to burn books which are dangerously anti-Truth, this act is selfish and senseless, as well as irrational. I am glad the Vatican paper carried a statement against this burning of the Koran this morning. Even though the book is not inspired and leads to hatred and intolerance, the burning mirrors what the Koran is about-intolerance which leads to violence. I would hope rationality would win the day. Catholics have always seemed more rational in their approach to inter-faith dialogue than some protestant denominations (John Hagge, etc.)

    Boniface did cut down the sacred oak, Oak of Thor at Geismar, the Donar Oak of the Franks, but he seemed to have God’s help with some big wind. It was a test, like Elijah and the prophets of Baal. However, this burning event seems not to be in the same prophetic category and is misjudged zeal.

  23. Elle says:

    Unfortunatly there is the desecration of The Holy Eucharist every day. In one manner or another.

    General Petraus is worried our troops will be in more harm
    if the Koran(s) are burned.
    Pray for our military.

  24. Desertfalcon says:

    @ Luke, no doubt. @ Elle, absolutely!

  25. Luke says:

    Desertfalcon: I didn’t mean to come off the wrong way. Apologies. It just seems to me that we should be careful how much credit we give to a false religion. Having said that, I too have been impressed by certain submitter values–especially as an American who sees his brothers and sisters in Faith struggle against a materialistic nation.

  26. JPK says:

    I do heartedly agree that burning the Koran in a public spectacle is offensive to Muslims. However, to turn this act into such a public event tells us more about our own society than those misguided Protestants. Namely, Islam is obviously enjoying an ascendency here in the US no one would have thought possible on 9/12 2001. To think that 50 unknown people from Gainesville Florida could elicit such responses from the Secretary of State, a Theatre Commander in Afghanistan, as well as the Vatican itself its breathtaking.

    This goes beyond Political Correctness. I think fear is the correct emotion. General Patraeous should know better than to make a public statement like he did. The Taliban (who control most of Afghanistan) will kill American soldiers regardless of what Americans civilians do in Florida. And by openly condeming these Floridians our elites admit to two realities:

    a)Muslims are at heart dangerous and violent people who fly into fits of rage at the slightest offense.

    b)Our elites live in fear of Muslims as a group, and they will go to great lengths to accomodate and appease them.

    We’ve seen this before being played out in Europe. To me, the real story isn’t the grandstanding Protestants in Gainsville (Heck, Fundamentalists in my opinion, have said and done much worse to the RCC than this jolly group of misfits), but the reaction of our elites.

  27. JPK says:

    “..All Muslims follow the Koran and the Koran is itself the problem. Islam has a problem that is similar to those of Catholicism: A majority of proponents of both faiths are uncatehized. The god of those who submit to the Islamic faith is not the same God who we worship.”

    Unlike the RCC, Islam has no official Teaching Magesterium. And because of this, there are sects within Islam that are rivals. The interpetation of the Koran has caused rifts that go back over 1000 years. But it is one of the newer sects, Wahhabisim, that is one of the fastest growing sects within Islam. And its members are getting younger every year. It’s energy and vitality come from its strict interpetation of the Koran. Some say Islam has yet to see the kind of Reformation that Christianity saw. Others say that the Muslim Reformation began with the rise of the Wahhabists.

  28. greg the beachcomber says:

    I don’t have a problem with someone burning a Koran; if I had one I wanted to get rid of, I’d probably burn it, too. I do have a problem with bringing attention to the burning, and in this case, making it an international spectacle. At that point, you’re just being provocative.

    There’s such a thing as bad books, and I don’t mean poorly written ones. I’d no more donate a Dan Brown book – which qualifies as both bad AND poorly written – to the library than give a Ouija board to Goodwill. In fact, I have a box of bad books awaiting a quiet burning on the beach this month, now that the tourists have gone home.

  29. annieoakley says:


    You make a good point about helping Christians to defend themselves. When I hear news reports about Christians being attacked in Pakistan or the Middle East a part of me wonders why they can’t protect themselves. I hope they don’t think that the Christian approach is to simply sit there and take it. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and their families from attack.

    Perhaps these people don’t know how to defend themselves and perhaps it would be a good idea if there were other Christians who would go over there and show them how. We seem to act as if there’s nothing we can do – would Our Lord consider that a sin of omission?

  30. Iconophilios says:

    For all those christians in those muslim countries being attacked, they risk being arrested for assault if they retaliate. If that happens, they might receive harsh treatments from the government and police, if they aren’t already causing the attacks. And of course , they risk increased violence against them by the surrounding muslim community.
    In Nag Hammadi, there was a massacre on Coptic Christmas (Jan 7) last year at a church, which led to eight deaths and seven injuries. The only non-christian harmed was a police officer (who died) trying to put an end to it.
    Later, the police force actually arrested as many muslims as they did christians, and denied it was provoked by hatred against chrsitians.
    The murderers unsuccessfully tried to assasinate the local bishop in the attack.

  31. AnAmericanMother says:

    We have a perfectly good shredder, and there’s a no-burn order in effect here anyhow.

    That said, it really doesn’t make any difference what we do.

    The muslims will riot and burn and murder Christians and other non-muslims whenever they see an opportunity to do so. And they will seize any opportunity, because the “offense” is simply an excuse to intimidate and terrorize.

    It is not possible for us to placate them, no matter how sensitive we try to be to their feelings, because their feelings are not at issue and they do not wish to be placated. What they wish is for us to be dead, dhimmis, or muslims.

    So my own inclination is to take the fight to them in any way possible. But then I am Scotch-Irish to the backbone and not a particularly peaceable character.

  32. skellmeyer says:

    As I recall, we not only burned Arius’ works at the Council of Nicea, and Jan Hus’ works at the Council of Constance, we also burned Hus.

    That started the Hussite wars, but the Church kept at it nonetheless.

    A century later, Pope Leo ordered Martin Luther’s works burned, Giardano Bruno got himself burned in 1600.

    Aquinas recommends death to the infidel, and would have no problem burning the infidel’s works.

    Since Aquinas is specifically recommended for study by Vatican II, isn’t the burning of the Koran in accordance with the wishes of the Fathers of the Council?

    If not, why not?

    And I find the concern about violence to be somewhat disengenuous, given that Muslims don’t seem to need a reason to kill Christians. Just ask the bishop in Turkey, who was killed by his Muslim chauffeur because he impudently gave the man a job, food, a home and medical care.

    You could just as easily argue that giving Muslim children an orphanage to live in and be cared for is terrorism. Oh, wait. They already say that.

    I have further ruminations in this vein at http://www.skellmeyer.blogspot.com, if anyone is interested.

  33. bookworm says:

    “Will desecrating the Eucharist receive the same attention?”

    It might if some alleged “church” announced IN ADVANCE that they were going to be desecrating Hosts at a particular time and place in protest against some Catholic action they considered an atrocity, like clergy sex abuse, as well as to demonstrate their conviction that the Eucharist is merely symbolic and not the actual Body of Christ (a belief some fundamentalists consider rank blasphemy).

    However, aside from the occasional instances where gay rights protestors disrupt Masses, most instances of Eucharistic desecration aren’t announced ahead of time.

  34. Traductora says:

    I’m not particularly concerned about the Muslim response, because they already hate us and try to kill anybody who even looks at them. But what I am concerned about in this stupid, publicity seeking stunt is the response of the US government.

    Our government is already biased in favor of Islam, and this is going to give Obama and Holder all the PR fuel they need to adopt the UN resolution condemning criticism of religion, which is written in such a way that only Islam qualifies for protection. And I think our courts are so undermined now that they won’t object.

    Thanks, Terry Jones (I used to live in Gainesville and I am familiar with some of the players here).

  35. chcrix says:

    “Our government is already biased in favor of Islam”

    With respect Traductora, our government is like the government of the ancient Rome. It is biased in favor of Empire – not against or for any specific religion. Of course to a degree, it is against all religion for the simple reason that any religion is a competing source of authority.

    Insulting the local dieties upsets the local population and is discouraged. Remember, Augustus wished to have sacrifices offered in his name at the Temple of Jerusalem. Was he biased in favor of Judaism?

    Our government spends as much money on the military as all of the other countries of the world combined, keeps troops in 120-140 countries of the world when there are only about 190 countries all told, is involved in three wars against majority Moslem states and is contemplating a fourth. The last time the majority opinion of the Moslem world could have unequivocally endorsed an action of the US government was 1956 when Ike told the British, French, and Israelis to get out of Egypt – and most Moslems are too young to remember that.

    The attacks of 9/11/2001 may have required fanatical dedication, but they were motivated by opposition to US government policy – as stated by OBL himself.

  36. Luke says:

    Skellmeyer: Did burning any of those works do away with the heresy? And don’t you think that you are taking St. Thomas out of context? Was he advocating a war or making a statement about justice for the sake of the common good? Is it reasonable to burn a book that would cause more strife and do no good whatsoever? Reason dictates that a peaceful religion should act peacefully. Or FOR the sake of peace as you pointed out.

  37. skellmeyer says:

    Yes, in many cases burning the works DID do away with the heresy.
    Have you run into any acolytes of Giardona Bruno lately?

    As I recall, Thomas had no problem with advocating just war, so I don’t see your point on that one. You can argue about whether any particular war is just, but you can’t argue that Thomas doesn’t advocate in favor of war. He does.

    I don’t see what difference it makes to burn a Quran.
    Muslims don’t need an excuse to kill non-Muslims.
    The fact that you are non-Muslim has proven to be more than sufficient.

    I say we burn a Quran every time there is an act of Muslim violence, until they start seeing a correspondance between their actions and ours. If they are so worried about Koran’s being burnt, and we burn one every time they do something vicious and foolish, then maybe they’ll stop blowing people up, beheading them and raping them.

    Nothing else has worked.
    I don’t see why we can’t try this.

    We’ve tried the peaceful route with Islam.
    Between 632 and 1091, the Church had only peaceful responses to Islam (although individual Christian kings fought back, the Church did not advocate a military solution. This despite the fact that Muslims SACKED St. Peter’s Basilica and St. Paul Outside the Walls in the 800’s, desecrating the altars and the tombs.

    Then we tried Crusades and wars.
    That worked a lot better.
    It took a millenium, but it ended with the total destruction of the Ottoman Empire, all the Muslims under armed guard by Western powers and we had peace for a space of about fifty years.

    Now all the armed guards are gone and the Muslims are back out of the asylum.
    Historically speaking, there is only one solution that has EVER worked with Muslims and it ain’t conference calls.

  38. JonM says:

    I agree with the points Skellmeyer brings up.

    What is getting lost in this debate is that it is entirely right to incinerate documents that are deeply troubling to truth. We have forgotten this since information production has become so easy with technology.

    I have no problem with the concept, per se, of burning the Koran. As I wrote, it is a bastardized version of the Bible, composed in part by a deeply troubled Arabian warrior and later edited by various successors.

    However, my objection to this individual’s BBQ is the intent and context. This Pentacostal group’s stunt, and it is exactly that — a stunt –, is not intended to bring about mass conversions to Christ’s Church or even what these 30 people believe is Christ’s Church (if they even believe in a universal Catholic Church at all.)

    This smacks of typical Protestant Americanism; with slightly different political winds, Terry Jones might well be burning images of Mary, Papal Bulls, and even the Eucharist.

    When the Church order heretical documents burned (or the heretics themselves) it did so to protect the masses from confusion and to defend the true faith from usurpation. The Dove Outreach group, on the other hand, is looking for its 15 minutes and in my view doesn’t care if the cost is paid by others (like, real Churches, Marines/soldiers, etc.)

    Furthermore, this entire event is arbitrary. If we were embarking on a Crusade, then sure this would make sense. If the Vatican decided to preach to faith with clarity, then sure I could see the angle. But in this case there is no legitimate context (the 9th anniversary of 9/11 does not count.)

    Frankly, I would be shocked if there were not some violent response (indeed this sort of proves a point here, but is still gratutitous.)

  39. JonM says:

    I forgot a bit…


    They were actually entirely just and a needed response to incredible Islamic conquest and harassment of pilgrims. They were successful so long as Europe stopped fighting itself and put ahead of temporal concerns the Church.

    There would have been more lasting success had the Eastern Orthodox not been so resentful. Actually, I think history is clear how things panned out for them as a result of their approach to the Muslim onslaught.

  40. catholicmidwest says:

    NOPE, because we roll over a take it, like good stupid Westerners.

  41. catholicmidwest says:


    No one has any right whatsoever to get violent over this minister burning a few pieces of paper in his own yard (or churchyard). Violence isn’t commensurate with this.

    I will tell you what is commensurate. If non-Muslims have to put up with any crap from Muslims qua Muslims, any crap at all, we should as a country go Ferdinand and Isabella on them. THEy have no right to be here other than the right we give them on the condition that they behave themselves and assimilate.

  42. DHippolito says:

    Islam is in error and there may be many Muslims who use their faith in order to try to justify unjustifiable acts, but the vast majority of the Muslim people in the world worship the God of Abraham that we do and use their faith as a moral guide to their lives. I much prefer that to the secular, materialistic, modern, sexually obsessed, cesspool, that has become ‘western civilisation’.

    Desert Falcon, that is the kind of attitude that makes contemporary Catholics — starting with John Paul II — unaware when it comes to Islam. In fact, JPII was the one who started all this nonsense. Why not forge such alliances with Jews or evangelical Protestants, who have more in common with Catholics than Muslims do?

    I suggest you get a copy of Commentary Magazine from May 2004 and read an article by a French Catholic scholar, Alain Besancon, entitled, “What Sort Of Religion Is Islam?” Besancon argues that Allah is in no way equivalent to Yahweh, especially when it comes to ideas of redemption and God’s “fatherhood.”

  43. DHippolito says:

    Here are some of Besancon’s comments extracted from a commentary I wrote for Front Page Magazine in 2006:

    …Benedict and his bishops must confront what French historian Alain Besancon called the “indulgent ecumenicism” that dominates the Christian response to Islam, whether through…superficial multiculturalism or through the wistful yearning for traditionalist transcendence that Besancon described in Commentary magazine:

    “Contributing to the partiality toward Islam is an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist individualistic arrangements…. Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe, these writers cannot but admire Muslim devoutness…. Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”

    Influencing that attitude was the work of European scholar Louis Massignon, who popularized the ideas of the Koran as a kind of biblical revelation and of Muslims as being among Abraham’s spiritual children.

    “An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe,” Besancon wrote, “much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas.”

    Though all three faiths are monotheistic, Islam rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, no concept of a covenant between God and humanity exists in Islam. Instead, Allah decrees his law “by means of a unilateral pact, in an act of sublime condescension (that) precludes any notion of imitating God as is urged in the Bible,” Besancon wrote.

    Islam also rejects the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of mediation between God and humanity. In the Koran, Jesus “appears… out of place and out of time, without reference to the landscape of Israel,” Besancon wrote.

    Most importantly, Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of divinity revolve around one irreconcilable difference:

    “Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and even more so to the Christian conception of God, is ‘Father’ – i.e., a personal god capable of a reciprocal and loving relation with men,” Besancon wrote. “The one God of the Koran, the God Who demands submission is a distant God; to call him ‘Father’ would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege.”

Comments are closed.