VIDEO Archbp. Lefebvre on Islamic (aka Religion of Peace) immigration invasion of France

While I do not agree with everything that the late Archbp. Marcel Lefevbre (founder of the SSPX) did, people who know something about the whole arc of his life recognize that he was in his day a great churchman and missionary.  Based on his life’s experience, the late Archbishop knew more than his prayers.

One of you readers sent me the link to a video which, given the events in Paris (which I am sure will be replicated elsewhere) and about members of the “Religion of Peace” is interesting.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Semper Paratus, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, The Religion of Peace and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Prayerful says:

    What is so sad is to contrast the clear eyed perception of Archbishop Lefebvre with the mushy minded Bishops, exponents of the New Mass, who will welcome every sort of pagan, be it Moslem or Hindu, yet at best will regard faithful, Traditional Catholics with cold hostility. #prayforparis

  2. acardnal says:


  3. Auggie says:

    The media are now busy disseminating their “answer” to terrorism: an Eiffel Tower peace sign. Yeah, that will work. No need for the prayers of the Church, or for Sacraments or Sacramentals to help battle evil. Who needs Saints, Self-Discipline, The Body of Christ and The Cross when you have an Eiffel peace sign? I’m sure the terrorists will be happy to place that sign over all the new graves.

  4. FranzJosf says:

    What is it about people who are deeply schooled in Latin? People who seem to know everything about everything? I don’t know if Chaucer studied Latin, but I’d guess he did. Read the writings of Victor Davis Hanson, a classics scholar who writes for National Review, or of Donald Kagan, recently retired Classics professor from Yale. They are absolutely clear-eyed about human nature. If you can find it on Youtube, listen to the Archbishop’s Sermon on the day he consecrated the four bishops. Even if you disagree with his action, you’ll hear a dead-on synopsis of the sloppy thinking that has led to the crisis of the West in general and the Church in particular.

    Classics scholars rock!

  5. Imrahil says:

    I don’t think the Archbishop doesn’t accurately describe the problem – however, I wonder about his solution.

    First, it presupposes basically that the State takes the big step and officially distinguishes between the true religion and false ones such as Islam.

    That, of course, squares well with both 1. the Archbishop’s particular stand towards a certain Vatican II document, and 2. the actual Church teaching which said document (contrary to rumour) did not change at all. (This isn’t a riddle-game: I’m referring in the first to Dignitatis humanae, and in the second to the fact that DH, while allowing the others some respectfully non-triumphant celebrations even in public, did not change by a yota what the Church had laid down in Quas primas and elsewhere.)

    This is, in the present climate, for practical reasons out of the question. (Alas.)

    Second, if it were not, then we can assume our Christian faith also to be a lot stronger than it actually is. Wouldn’t it, then, be somehow advisable even that (some) Muslims come here? Their crimes are crimes wherever committed; but we can only supervise them with police and all in our own country, not in theirs; also, even in the present climate, much more so in a climate where Christian faith would be stronger, it seems a lot easier to defect from Islam converting to Christianity in a Christian country than in a Muslim one.

    Also, I’m not arguing that they would “play a fair game”. But even if they don’t, when they trouble our missionaries while we do not trouble their immigrants, we can at least reproach them for it and say that they are being unfair. That is not entirely unimportant.

    I don’t agree with the Archbishop on the particular point concerning DH, but in his general stand against secularization, against abandoning the very idea of a Christian state, etc., he’s on the right general track:

    and what, alas, is very probable to happen is this.

    The secularist mindset will, in part consciously, in part because it is imbibed deep enough to dominate the subconscious, hinder people to attribute terrorism to Islam (or to radical Islam or to a certain conviction within Islamic mindset – that is a battle of its own, but not here the point).

    But it must be attributed to something.

    Consequently, we’re facing a dreadfully high probability that it will be attributed to religion(-taken-seriously).

    Some may answer that “not all are like it”. If the subject of the sentence is “Muslims”, that’ll go down well enough; after all, “Muslims” are still largely, even if wrongly, perceived as an ethnic category and people don’t like to be racist. If, however, the subject is “religious people”, that barrier could fall away; the answer might be: “maybe not, but religion is nonsense anyway, so why take the risk and not wipe them all out”.

    But they won’t have the decency to just wipe us out by martyrizing us. No; the Western secularist is thoroughly an offshot of Christian culture; he knows the value of martyrdom and he also knows that we Christians, leastways in our good moments, don’t fear death. He’ll try to corrupt us; he’ll try,

    to take just one tiny example that actually is politically discussed these days,

    to ban religious clothing and jewellery worn in public and get our assent because it’s supposed to be directed against Islam. Afterwards, in the name of fair and non-partisan execution-of-law, it will of course be applied against Christians just as harsh.

    The solution?

    Pull back the feast of Christ the King to any date within the Church’s calendar – any date – that does not suggest He would be king only hereafter. (Of couse, “last Sunday in October” seems to be a natural choice.) Save the liturgy, save the world.

    When once the Christians are convinced that Christ cannot command the Christians only but anyone on Earth, then they may start to convince others to start some little anti-Islamic measures (however, as I wrote in that other comment: always prudently making sure that not to make out of our perhaps half-hearted allies, the well-meaning Muslims, full-blooded enemies).

    But as for measures not yet on our statute-books (such as the “murder is forbidden”, etc.) that are directed unspecifically against religion-taken-too(?)-seriously, beware.

  6. Supertradmum says:

    Some of us have seen this coming as well, especially those of us who have lived in Europe and visited many times. I was in France for the minute of silence for Je suis Charlie and I am in Europe again. The problem, of course, is that a certain religion does not want to assimilate, but take over the world. Those who think otherwise are either in denial or adding to the problem.

    Secularists are either part of the one world government movement, which is behind all the chaos, or in denial, not understanding the zeal of religions. The Catholic Church and the West have been fighting this same enemy for over a 1,000 years.

    I saw the changes in Dublin, in London, and first-hand, three times, experienced racism against me by men of this certain religion, a religion which does not grant equal status or spiritual life to women.

    The chaos has been planned by those who, as St. Ignatius states, choose freely to follow the standard of Babylon, the standard of evil, not the standard (as in flag), of Christ, who is represented by the City of Jerusalem in the Exercises.

    For Ignatius’ famous meditation, see here.

  7. Imrahil says:

    The problem, of course, is that a certain religion does not want to assimilate, but take over the world.

    Well yes. There is. And it is called Catholic Christianity.

    And also, of course, many other religions for which the same is true – all, in fact, that can be taken seriously. Among which, Islam. (We are not yet talking, here, about which of all the false ones is more repulsive to our tastes or also denies yet a bit more of particular morality, etc.)

    What, then, is the different between, say, Catholicism and Islam?

    We are right. They are wrong.

    Ceterum censeo: There is no substitute for truth, certainly not in procedural rules.

  8. Ferde Rombola says:

    @Imrahil. Unfortunately you have no facts to back you up. I don’t see Catholics in suicide vests packed with explosives murdering hundreds at a time. Your take on DH is just as flakey the notion you’re trying to sell here.

    You’re right about ‘there is no substitute for truth’ though.

  9. Pingback: “Migrants”: Archbishop Lefebvre Speaks | Mundabor's Blog

  10. cwillia1 says:

    The secularists want us to treat Islam as if it were just another tolerable, offbeat Protestant sect. It is not – not just another religion and not tolerable. The imposition of what Muslims think is God’s law through violence and second-class status for non-Muslims – slavery, death and dhimmitude – is fundamental to Islam. The secularists refuse to acknowledge the facts, their obsession is to diminish the role of Christianity in our culture and Muslim “victims” are useful to them.

  11. gatormom says:

    What???? By secularists did you mean the Pope and Magesterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Sometimes I feel like I’ve woken up to an alternate universe. God love you, but this statement just has no basis in reality whatsoever. The body of the Catholic Church is acting like some coolaide drinking cult right now. Secularists!???? I just don’t know how you say that unless you have lost your everloving mind, I really don’t.

  12. CountryCatholic says:

    I was praying last night and had a thought about what has happened in Paris: As bad as the situation is, what if this is the Extreme Unction that the eldest daughter of the Church needs to bring her back to life, in a religious sense? As we know God can always bring good out of bad. I just have a hard time believing that God is finished with France.

  13. Kathleen10 says:

    The Great Chastisement has begun.
    For some European nations it is too late. It will not improve over time.
    For the nations who have not yet allowed an invasion there is some time. Unfortunately, liberals have heads like cement and don’t comprehend the reality and scope of the problem. They may never. Many people are living in a fantasy, maybe they can’t handle it. Either way, it’s not helping.
    President Obama, the minute I heard of him, would not say the word Islamic. Won’t say it. If he succeeds in his plan to import Syrians, he will bring this to America for sure.
    People have short memories. 9/11 killed over 3000 Americans. We learned little. Will the world learn from France? Probably not.

  14. robtbrown says:

    Imrahil says:

    The problem, of course, is that a certain religion does not want to assimilate, but take over the world.

    Well yes. There is. And it is called Catholic Christianity.

    I couldn’t disagree more. The synthetic (rather than syncretistic) power of Christian teaching is immense. In fact, ideologies (incl Protestantism) at odds with the Church always are in error because of what they omit.

  15. SKAY says:

    “The Obama administration is moving to increase and accelerate the number of Syrian refugees who might be admitted into the United States by opening new screening outposts in Iraq and Lebanon, administration officials told Reuters on Friday.”

    Will this administration learn anything from what just happened in Paris?
    I read that the Vatican is shocked. Interesting because I am not.
    We should be bringing the Christians to this country who are suffering at the hands of ISIS
    and other affiliated Muslim groups.
    We have been told there is no way to vet these refugees by honest people within our government who I have seen being interviewed. ISIS has told
    us they will infiltrate the migrants going to Europe and America. Once they get into Europe apparently it will be easy for them to come here.
    I live in Louisiana.

  16. Imrahil says:

    Dear Ferde Rombola,

    what I said was “Catholicism does not want to assimilate, but take over the world”.

    And that’s true. Do you doubt it? Certainly not the first part. But not either the second, see, e. g., Quas primas no. 20.

    “But Catholics don’t wear suicide vests!” – No, of course not, thank God not. But that is a question of method. [Are you KIDDING me?] I certainly grant that in method, as well as in the fact who’s right and who isn’t, Islam differs from us; [What I am picking up here is a whiff of moral equivalence. That’s not going to fly, if that’s what you are suggesting.]

    but not in the principal aim to keep undefiled by the respective outside-world and try to conquer it.

    Hence, not this principal aim is the problem. That Islam is wrong is the problem. Islam’s methods are also a problem. This principal aim, though, isn’t. And that was my point.

    Secularists aren’t stupid. If we accuse Islam of “not assimilating and trying to conquer the world”, and not of said methods and the provable wrongness of their doctrine’s claims but just “not assimilating and trying to conquer the world”,

    then they may not unlogically retort: “And you don’t assimilate either. And while you’ve grown perhaps a bit, I think you’d call it, lax about that, I read in your public statements, encyclicals as you call them, that you want to conquer the world too. So… you’re accusing yourself, not only Islam.”

    And that was my point, or, if you will, the notion I was trying to sell here.

    In a nutshell:
    Accuse Islam of suicide vests as much as you will, because Catholics don’t.
    Don’t accuse them, per se, of not-assimilating to a decent multireligious or at least multi-confessional society (conveniently putting religion into the background), because Catholics don’t assimilate either.
    Nor of, per se, trying to transform the State and society according to their religious believes, because Catholics do so too.

    As for DH, you may correct me but the actual change it brought to previous teaching (I care little about “tone” or “how was it taken subsequently, also by the Vatican” – just the word as they stand there, interpreted in the sense of, as far as possible, previous teachings not downrightly abrogated) was this point about the tolerance of public expressions of false religions in a Catholic state which must always be given, not only in circumstances in nature extraordinary (private ones always were tolerated): the rest of the teaching was, in effect, left as developed by previous Popes, including the famous treatise by Pope Ven. Pius XII.

  17. Imrahil says:

    I read that the Vatican is shocked. Interesting because I am not.

    That is the usual political sprachregelung (I’ve been told this is an English word…). It does not, in itself, mean much more than “heartfelt condolences; we pity you”.

  18. MrsMacD says:

    According to wikipedia France has seen a 14% increase in (reported) rape since the 1970’s, tell me that has nothing to do with the muslim presence.

  19. HighMass says:

    The most misunderstood Archbishop in Modern times…..Oh Lets include Pope Benedict in that Mix also as he has been very misunderstood, and Prophetic….Santo Subito for Archbishop Lefebvre, very loyal to the Church!

  20. Imrahil says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    The synthetic (rather than syncretistic) power of Christian teaching is immense. In fact, ideologies (incl Protestantism) at odds with the Church always are in error because of what they omit.

    This is, of course, true. I don’t, though, see how it applies here. (Note for clarity’s sake that the Catholic way of conquering the world uses, of course, only morally allowed methods, and that it and will, in an additive manner, integrate everything into itself that is not downrightly wrong or sinful.)

    But then:

    “Be not conformed to this world.” (Rom 12:2) – in other words, don’t assimilate.

    “In the fullest sense of the word, all mankind is subject to the reign of Jesus Christ. Nor is there any difference to be made, in this respect, between individual people and familiar or civic communities…” – in other words, yes, we do want to erect the Kingdom of Christ in our hearts, families, societies and states.

    And so, even though it is also true about Islam, the attitude “not assimilating, but trying (somehow) to conquer the world”, such as the words stand, is true about Catholicism. And thus we had better accuse it of different things; it’s not like they would be lacking.

    (And before someone gets at it: Islam is a false religion; but Islam is certainly a religion. The 19th century idea that religion is some thing that must be strictly confined to private rooms, may not even be mentioned at dinner tables, has mostly to do with people’s private moralities and beliefs, and everything that goes beyond that isn’t religion, has never been the Catholic attitude on the subject; and now even the world recognizes it as outdated.

    So is the idea that religion and religiosity, taken in the colloquial senses of the word, are good things in whatever flavor. This idea is still at large; but it obviously could only have been brought up by people who have never heard of Moloch and Huitzilopochtli.)

  21. Imrahil says:

    (the second quote is Quas primas 19seq.)

  22. Geoffrey says:

    “Santo Subito for Archbishop Lefebvre, very loyal to the Church!”

    He died in a state of excommunication after disobeying the Vicar of Christ. Not going to happen.

  23. James says:

    Some months ago I saw a link to that video that dated it to 1989. Yet again, the Archbishop shows how prescient he was. Time and again, he showed himself to be a trur prophet. He was ignored, and we are reaping the whirlwind.

    “The media are now busy disseminating their “answer” to terrorism: an Eiffel Tower peace sign. Yeah, that will work.”

    ## I laughed when I saw that. It is so disproportionate to the gravity of what is happening as to be laughable. A murderous cult like that of Baphomet can be met only by a religion with even more steel in its backbone. IOW, by a “hardcore”, “triumphalist”, Catholicism. Secularism hasn’t the spirit, the guts or the spine to withstand Mahometanism.

    “The secularists want us to treat Islam as if it were just another tolerable, offbeat Protestant sect.”

    ## The friendly misdescriptions of Islam by people like T. Blair & D. Cameron imply that Mahometanism is basically an Arabic form of the Church of England. Since it is an anti-Christian death-cult, one wonders where that idea came from. These people mean business – they do not want co-existence, any more than Communism does. Both are evil cults, and it is far past time for churchmen to stop appeasing them. Philo-Mahometan Catholic churchmen never denounce Islam for its immorality. Protestantism is bad enough; how much evil must Catholics not denounce, in order to be Catholic ?

    “I read that the Vatican is shocked. Interesting because I am not.”

    ## Maybe this will wake up the Islam-admirers in the hierarchy – especially at the very top.

  24. acardnal says:

    FranzJosf, I agree with you. Classics scholar Victor Davis Hanson is great! People should read his books. He relates Greek military history to modern times in a cogent manner. I remember a lecture he gave to college students (probably available on YouTube) wherein he emphasized to them that not everyone or every nation is nice and understanding. There are evil people in the world (and thus evil nations). There have always been evil people in the world and there always will be. Often they do NOT respond to talk and negotiations; they are bullies! And they only acquiesce to force. That’s why we need a military, and leaders who will use it.

  25. Johannes de Silentio says:

    One certainly gets the gist of Lefebvre’s comments, which are irrefutable at this juncture, but would any French linguists care to proffer a better translation?

  26. Pingback: Pope Francis: Paris Attacks are Part of 'Piecemeal WWIII' - B.P.

  27. Pingback: VIDEO Archbp. Lefebvre on Islamic (aka Religion of Peace ... - PeaceWords.Us

  28. Jason Keener says:

    While Archbishop Lefebvre was not a perfect man, he has certainly been proven right in many ways.

    This whole situation with radical Islam is an extremely difficult one with no easy answers. It seems the more we engage in the Middle East, the more we agitate the Muslims and create further radicalization and more failed states. On the other hand, if we disengage from the Middle East completely at this point, the terrorists will continue to strike the West with impunity and continue to bring up past grievances (the Iraq War, interventions in Syria, Libya, etc.) as a justification for their continued terrorist attacks. Moreover, not only do some radical Muslims want to right the perceived wrongs of the past, but they want to, of course, establish a worldwide Caliphate. One wonders how this bloody cycle of violence will ever end. Will both sides (the West and radical Muslims) finally come to some sort of truce and leave each other alone? Will the West eventually have to resort to using devastating force that will bring entire populations to the point of begging for the opportunity to surrender unconditionally? Anyway you slice it, this situation is very dire. We must pray that minds will be opened and hearts will be softened.

  29. James says:

    A lot more detail on the Lefebvre interview and what happened afterwards can be found here:

    “During a gathering of the press in France on November 14, 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre was accused of affirming that “the best [thing] for the Moslems [to do] would be to go back home.” (see video below) ” ” 26 years later, he has been proven right, at a terrible cost. And not only in France.

  30. Imrahil says:

    This whole situation with radical Islam is an extremely difficult one with no easy answers.


    Except the easy answer that it would be better if they were all committed, practicing Catholics. But that is not for us to decide.

  31. HighMass says:

    Geoffrey, If my memory serves me correct, I believe there was a Pope or someone who had been excommunicated but was later made a Saint of the R.C. Church???

    Just food for thought…

  32. Gratias says:

    I remember the first trip Pope Francis took. It was to Lampedusa, where he held a crozier made from shipwrecked migrant boats. This mercy will not work out well for Christian civilization in the end.

  33. Alanmac says:

    A country that practices contraception and abortion will be over taken by one that doesn’t.

  34. Papabile says:

    Geoffrey says:
    He died in a state of excommunication after disobeying the Vicar of Christ. Not going to happen.

    Do you really know this? Lefebvre received Last Rights.

    Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

    Sounds like it would be hard for him to die excommunicate.

    I would leave it up to God.

  35. Gratias says:

    Archbishop Lefèbre got the Mahommetans and the Mass right. He should not have ordained four bishops, but from this we got the FSSP at least. I believe that Benedict XVI’s main goal for his pontificate was to reunite the SSPX. He could not and probably the effort cost him his job, but we did get Summorum Pontificum from this. Everything happens for a good reason.

  36. robtbrown says:


    I think the difference is that you are referring to religion, while I am referring to Revelation, which is the Summit of Truth. There is of course going to be conflict between one religion and another, but the Truth of Relevation (natural and supernatural) has immense synthetic power.

    This is no small distinction. The door to religion (i.e., to the Church) is through Truth–not the other way around. Thus, the synthetic power is turned loose, and the medieval maxim emerges: Error is not based on what is affirmed, but what is denied. This is of course the approach of St Thomas, whose philosophy synthesizes Platonic Participation with Aristotle’s Four Causes (cf De Ente et Essentia).

    In the main this has not been the approach for the past 400+ years. Rather, it has been to use religion to find Truth. And the differences between the Ratio Theologiae of the Dominicans and Jesuits (which dominated the Church) reflect this. Jesuit study places a heavy emphasis on Fundamental theology, which includes man’s need for religion. Dominican study goes from the Truth of Philosophy to the Truth of Revelation.

    There was a movement at Vat II to change the emphasis from religion then Truth to Truth then religion. (This includes the attempt to change from the notion of the Church as Perfect Society to the Church as Mystical Body.) Unfortunately, much of what happened at Vat II and afterwards has been a mess, and the change has been to Religion to Ecumania.

  37. Imrahil says:

    Dear robtbrown,

    I am afraid that I wasn’t about anything as detailed as that. I was, I grant, taking “religion” in its colloquial sense. Of course statements contrary to the perennial philosophy are, in reality, bunk (then again, so are the false religions), but for practical purposes, we do collect them together as “the Catholic world-view” etc.

    So, I saw that the dear Supertradmum made two criticisms of Islam (1. does not assimilate, 2. wants to conquer the world) and I merely wanted to point out, respectfully, that such as the words stand, the two statements are true about about Catholicism too: hence, let’s better critizise Islam for something else.

    Nothing more.

  38. Supertradmum says:

    Alanmac, and which countries are those? China and Russia could walk over Canada and take over the US in days, if not weeks. High abortion and contraception use.

    If you think Muslims do not do abortions, go to abroad and help at a woman’s choice center. You may be surprised. For every family that has, there are many which destroy their children as well.

    God uses the evil to punish evil and to purged the good. Do not be naive. There are no “moral” countries, only moral individuals.

  39. Supertradmum says:

    PS apologies for typos. Most Americans have not actually met Muslims and have odd ideas on their so-called morality. There is only one truly moral religion and that is the Catholic Faith.

  40. Supertradmum says:

    I suggest reading Koran 2:191; 3:28; 3:85; 5:33; 8:12 just for starters. Moral?

  41. Kathleen10 says:

    Imrahil, I disagree with you on the definition of assimilation perhaps. I would say Catholics are fully assimilated into most cultures and Muslims only somewhat. It could be argued that Catholics are too assimilated, but there can be no argument that Catholics have enhanced the culture, not just stood outside culture, taking what it needs then seeking to overthrow it.

  42. Supertradmum says:

    Kathleen10, we did not enhance the culture of the West, we created it.

  43. Imrahil says:

    Dear Kathleen10,

    interesting point.

    So, yes, Catholics are more assimilated into (the) cultures (we usually know) than are Moslems. Yes. Often too assimilated; but then this is about what they should do by their religion, not what they actually do. And there’s always a “this far and no further – and how far is decided, for practical purposes, by ourselves*” limit connected with it, which (according, indeed, to my definition) makes assimilation (in the ultimate) impossible.

    Second, we only have Christian(-in-origin) cultures in mind. I wonder whether a Japaneseman – or a Pakistani – would say that of course, Catholics are assimilated.

    They enhanced the cultures, of course. Though many commenters have interpreted the “salt of the earth” parable to refer chiefly to clergymen, there may be some sense in the now popularized interpretation that refers it to the Christians: they are the salt in the soup.

    Third – and this is something of a parenthesis -, I don’t think it can be argued in morality that assimilation is a duty – that would be semi-totalitarian. The state has a right to order things to be done and to forbid things – but no authority to order its subjects assimilation its majority nation. A Pole in Cisleithania was no German-Austrian (the contemporary term for what we now call an Austrian) and was not expected to become a German-Austrian. Hence, the Poles resented Austrian rule rather little (I’m told), as opposed to Russian or – good grief! – Prussian rule, which latter came closest to a policy of assimilation.

    The thing grows complicated today, now States crave on national homogeneity as a substitute for the authority they would gain by referring their authority to God.

    [* pace the dear robtbrown. It is of course, in fact, demanded by the nature of the things themselves, and by Revelation; but for practical purposes, it will simply be regarded the Catholic position.]

  44. Imrahil says:

    “They are the salt in the soup”: one half-sentence is missing: not necessarily the soup.

  45. robtbrown says:


    Of course, it is the Catholic position, but it is Catholic because it is catholic–not the other way around.

    As a convert who also knows a lot of converts, I can say that the question for any convert is not about the Catholic religion. Those considering converting are usually in some way attracted to it. Rather, the question concerns the Church: Is it merely of human origin? Or is its origin Divine–and is is endowed with Divine Authority?

    If we speak of the Catholic religion, we have to include its members and practice. So how is it currently practiced? The liturgy is now in the vernacular, so it is not catholic as practiced And it’s no secret that the morality of the Catholic religion cannot be said to said to be catholic. It’s no secret that most Baptised Catholics in the US and Europe favor (and presumably practice) contraception. And then there are the Catholic politicians who favor homosexual “marriage” and pro abortion policies.

    There is so much confusion in the Church now that referring to the Catholic religion is ambiguous.

  46. Ferde Rombola says:

    Imrahil: “So, I saw that the dear Supertradmum made two criticisms of Islam (1. does not assimilate, 2. wants to conquer the world) and I merely wanted to point out, respectfully, that such as the words stand, the two statements are true about about Catholicism too: hence, let’s better critizise Islam for something else.”

    Imrahil, no matter how you choose to dress this up, it remains nonsense. By your reasoning a lawyer who uses the facts and the law to convince a jury to find for his client has ‘conquered’ the jury. That’s not the case and is a misuse of the word. Coercion is the engine of conquest. Islam uses coercion and has done so from its beginnings. Without at threat of death, there is no Islam.

    “The Church does not impose — the Church proposes.” Pope John Paul II

    There’s a world of difference there. The difference between black and white.

  47. momoffive says:

    As engaged Catholics, please consider calling the USCCB office and request an explanation on why the USCCB is accepting federal government dollars to help resettle Muslim Syrian Refugees. Obama is restricting Syrian Christian refugees,

    Due to the limited amount of Christian refugees being allowed into USA, the Catholic Church will be helping majority Muslims. The number to call is 202-541-3064.

  48. midwestmom says:

    I’m so pissed off. Does anybody else want to question my compassion?

  49. aviva meriam says:

    went to a women’s bible study at a local parish today, where my lack of compassion regarding the Syrian Refugees was just one of many examples of my failure to live a Christian life and hear Jesus calling me. This, after the Sunday Homily where the Priest stated ISIS members act out of alienation and oppression

    I feel like I’m in the wrong place.

  50. midwestmom says:

    I can totally relate. I feel homeless in my Church.

Comments are closed.