Why "dialogue" will never win converts

Why has "dialogue" as a model for interaction between Christians and other religions failed to produce any fruit? Undoubtedly because in a model of interaction between the Church and non-Christian religions that is based on "dialogue" and "meaningful exchange of experiences" there is a misplaced emphasis on learning about one another rather than on the salvation of souls. For a long time I thought this failure of the dialogue approach was a strategic blunder; i.e., I thought it was poorly thought out, untested in Christian history, prone to engender confusion and all in all was just a bad idea. While maintaining all of these things, I now see that any approach to non-Christian religions that is based solely on "dialogue" as its cornerstone is not only strategically a bad move but is actually antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel and is doomed to failure essentially and innately. One who chooses to pursue the route of "dialogue" by that very fact ensures the failure of their efforts.

This thought came to me while reading Josef Pieper's book Tradition: Concept and Claim, which is not so much about the theological or ecclesiological concepts of tradition but rather tradition in the broader, philosophical sense. Pieper points out that Tradition is too often defined as the simple handing on of information from one group to another; this is the definition one gets of tradition in secular dictionaries of sociological college courses that study "folklore." Yet, Pieper says, this in itself cannot be tradition, for otherwise such things as simple reporting would be considered tradition: a reporter goes out and gains information and conveys this information to an audience, yet nobody would claim that tradition has taken place. The same could be said for a scholar publishing a work on an historical epoch. I can write a book about ancient Rome and  pass on the knowledge of ancient Rome to a third party reader via the book, but I am not really passing on a tradition, just knowledge.

One difference, of course, is that Tradition doesn't just pass on knowledge, but passes on knowledge in its cultural context. But the critical distinction needs to be placed on the recipient of the tradition. When a true act of tradition takes place, someone passes on the tradition to a recipient, who assents to it and makes it his own. Pieper says of the act of receiving tradition:

"[This] is what the act looks like, in which the activity of tradition first reaches its goal and is consummated, by means of which alone someone "is part of a tradition" and participates in it. This is reception in the strictest meaning of the term, hearing something and really taking it seriously. I accept what someone else offers me and presents to me. I allow him to give it to me...Taken all together, this means that accepting and receiving tradition has the structure of belief. It is belief, since belief means accepting something as true and valid not on the basis of my own insight. but by relying on someone else" (Pieper, Tradition: Concept and Claim. St. Augustine Press, 2010.pp. 18-19).

According to Pieper, the act of "receiving" a tradition is akin to an act of faith - when receiving a tradition, one is put in a disposition of humility, receiving as a gift something being given by another (hence the verbs about something being "passed on" or "handed down" in relation to tradition). To accept what is handed down is not to just understand facts; rather, it is to assent to and receive the tradition, thus making oneself "part of the tradition" and the next line in the chain. In fact, it is only in assenting to the tradition and becoming part of the tradition that one can even fully understand the tradition.

Here is where the problem with dialogue comes in. The entire Christian message -call it the Gospel, the Good News, the Faith, the Teaching, whatever - is, in its most essential form, Tradition. All throughout the New Testament and the Fathers, the Gospel is spoken of as something that is received and then handed on; i.e., a Tradition, something that is given and that as a tradition demands assent. It is not a set of facts given out for one to ponder, but a tradition that is given and that the recipient must actively receive. Consider these verses and how the Faith is portrayed as a tradition:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, according as they have delivered them unto us... (Luke 1:1-2).

For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: And that he was buried: and that he rose again according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread... (1 Cor. 11:23).


And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15).

In all these verses we see that the Gospel is essentially a Tradition. So he who would really know the Gospel and enter into it must not only learn about it but receive it as a Tradition. But in a situation where the Gospel as tradition is replaced by dialoguing "about" the Gospel, we see that the message is robbed of all its power and vitality because we are no longer seeking to pass on a tradition but to simply relate facts and experiences. No matter how weighty our facts or how compelling our experiences, these can ultimately never produce conversions or belief because the essence of what the Gospel is has now been removed. Without the element of "handing on and receiving" that St. Paul sees as central to the Gospel, how can we be surprised if efforts at simple "dialogue" do not produce conversions? Indeed, they are incapable of doing so, just like a car with its engine removed is no longer capable of transporting anybody anywhere.

When we approach non-Christians from a position of dialogue (versus handing on a message that demands assent, that actually asks something of the hearer), we are merely telling facts and experiences about the Gospel without even preaching the Gospel to them. This is infidelity to the call of Christ and unfair to the hearer, who has a right to hear the Word of Life from the Body of Christ.

Given that this approach has been a dismal failure, we see that the proponents of dialogue have tried to rework the entire notion of Christian missions to say, in effect, "That's okay that our dialogue-based model has not produced any conversions, because we're not really trying to "convert" people anymore anyway. We just want to share mutually validating experiences enriched through dialogue about the contributions our respective faith communities make to our spiritual growth." In other words, they failed to find gold and covered it up by claiming they were never looking for it in the first place. Dialogue-based approaches have failed to win souls for Christ and it is now denied that winning souls is even a goal. That's too outmoded and based on an "ecclesiology of conversion." How medieval.

Is there a place for dialogue? Of course. Every evangelical encounter starts as dialogue, but i(and this is the distinction) t is a dialogue that goes someplace - that leads from the conveyance of facts to the proposition that the hearers take some of concrete action on what they have heard. St. Paul might begin his sermon on the Areopagus with a dialogue about the comparative merits of Greek religion, but this only serves as a springboard to lead him into the essential message - the preaching of the Gospel, where he warns them that God will no longer overlook their ignorance, that He demands all nations repent of their sins because God has fixed a Day of Judgment, and that this Judge will be none other than Jesus Christ. What St. Paul certainly does not do is tell the Greeks how great their paganism is and then encourage them to continue to worship their false gods and petition then for worldly favors like "peace on earth." This is the difference between limp-wristed dialogue and real, Spirit-filled preaching that leads to repentance, conversions and baptisms.

The real place of dialogue, as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the introduction to the Summa (I.Q.1,art.8), is to establish common ground with somebody so as to delineate the parameters of the debate. But that this dialogue should lead to a disputation, with the express purpose of coming to a conclusion, is never questioned by St. Thomas. When we do dialogue with someone, it is to establish our common ground; to know basically from which angle we have to deliver the Gospel message. But to dialogue endlessly without ever delivering the message is to not only fail to fulfill the mandate of Christ to preach to every creature, but is also a failure to even properly use dialogue as a tool, since it substitutes for an end what is only a means.

So long as dialogue and "mutual enrichment" are treated as ends in themselves, no pagans will be moved or impressed with the Catholic Faith. They will only further look down on us for compromising our principles and will continue to siphon off weak members of the Body of Christ who no longer know why they call themselves Christians. I highly recommend Pieper's short and very readable little book on Tradition for a refresher on what Tradition is and how it is handed on. But let us all in the meantime remember St. Paul's malediction in 1 Corinthians and make it our own: "Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel!" (1 Cor. 9:16).

Rabbi pressures Pope to deny Jesus

The Pope's tour to the Holy Land has come under intense scrutiny, partially for things he has said and partially for things he has failed to say. Most recently he was fiercely criticized by Israeli Jews who came to hear him speak at teh Yad Vashem memorial for failing to apologize for the Holocaust. Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said:

"I came to the memorial not only to hear historical descriptions or about the established fact of the Holocaust. I came as a Jew, hoping to hear an apology and a request for forgiveness from those who caused our tragedy, and among them, the Germans and the church. But to my sadness, I did not hear any such thing...everything that we feared came to fruition" (source).
This last sentence is particularly absurd.

At any rate, this demonstrates the fact that in Jewish-Catholic relations, the Jewish side does not really care about what the pope says, or what his message is, or building true understanding between faiths. They simply care about prying an apology out of the pope, and if this can be done, than everything he else he says can be let slide; but if he doesn't apologize, then nothing else he says matters. If you read the article quoted above, you will see that all the Jews who attended the pope's talk did so for the explicit fact that they "expected an apology." The same holds true for the Muslim leaders meeting with the Pope, who were all incensed that he didn't offer an apology for his Regensburg remarks (source).

The Pope certainly has nothing to apologize for on the part of the Church - the quote above is outrageous. It is one thing to say that certain segments of the Church perhaps could have done more to stop the Nazis. Maybe I'd entertain that - but to say that the Church "caused our tragedy," as the Knesset speaker said? That is ludicrous. The Church had no direct or indirect part in causing the Holocaust. Nor can he really apologize as a German, since the Germans have pretty much rejected him as somebody who can speak for the nation. Is every German born person until the end of time going to be pressured to issue all sorts of apologies for the Holocaust?

We have to draw a distinction here: we are rightfully upset if someone expresses anti-Semitism, or denies that the Holocaust happened or similar things. But to see so many people get outraged because, to quote another article, the Pope "failed to express enough remorse for the Holocaust" is stupid (source). Since when is "failing to express enough remorse" a crime, and besides, who judges when someone has "expressed enough remorse"? What is the definition of "enough remorse"? Another Jewish columnist described the Pope as "restrained, almost cold" (source). What does that matter? Is the way a journalist interprets the demeanor of the pontiff any grounds for wild accusations? That's almost as absurd as the Medjugorje enthusiasts claiming JPII approved their apparitions because he smiled at a banner (see here).

Equally shocking is the recent request by a Rabbi that the Pope explicitly declare that Jews do not need to accept Jesus to be saved. Dr. Deborah Weissman, co-chairwoman of some interreligious dialogue council, expressed regret that the Pope's statements on theological issues were still a bit "ambivalent" and stated:

"The pope still had not made it absolutely clear that Jews did not need to embrace the belief that Jesus was the messiah to be redeemed."
The Rabbi mentioned above cited, of course, Nostra Aetete to the fact that Jews need not accept Jesus and called on Benedict to make this declaration more specific (source).

This, of course, would be nothing other than a denial of Jesus Christ, pure and simple. Am I being too extreme here? I think not. It was Christ Himself who said (listen carefully, Dr. Weissman) that "nobody comes to the Father except through Me" and "anyone who comes in any other way is a robber and a thief."

This is what interreligious dialogue comes to: it is nothing other than a collective attempt by the other religions of the world to force the Catholic Church to institutionally apostasize by declaring error to be truth and truth to be error and is demonic in origin. Look at the tremendous pressue the Holy Father is under to deny that all persons are in need of Christ! I wish he'd stand up in front of them all and say, "Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" Would that damage relations with Muslims and Jews? Well, they're not that great right now, despite all the egg-shell walking and pussyfooting around the issues. Why not just say what the Church has always said and let the Jews and Muslims deal with it? As I've mentioned before, we don't need any "alliance" with the other monotheistic religions against secularism. As far as I'm concerned (and I think Scripture and Tradition bears this out), when it comes to the Church against the world it is sola ecclesia; we don't ally with Pagan X so we can better defend against Athiest Y. That was the mistake of Israel: thinking they had to ally with Egypt and Syria against Babylon and Persia.

As was the case then, so it is now: the Church's monotheistic "allies" don't care about preserving the Church - they care about weakening it and compelling it to deny its perennial teaching. One rabbi recently called for the establishment of a "UN of religions"; wouldn't that be great! (source) All the ineptitude of the United Nations mixed with the theological muddiness and stupidity of the worst of the interreligious dialogue movement.

Pray for the Holy Father, for he is under pressure by enemies within and without to publicly deny Christ, which any assertion that Jews don't need Jesus would indeed be. I wish the Pope would come to the Holy Land someday and just totally ignore all the other religions there - I wish he'd just visit Bethlehem, the Cenacle, the different Christian sites, give addresses to only Christians and then just blow off the rest of them. Meeting with these other leaders of different religions has become too compromising, and they are only out for blood - chomping at the bit just waiting for the Pope to "apologize" for something and then raging when he doesn't.

Please Holy Father, stop going on these trips. It is too difficult to watch.

Critique of Obsession

Like many other Catholics I have talked to, I recently received a complimentary copy of the DVD Obsession: Islam's Radica; War Against the West in the mail from the Clarion Fund. For the most part this DVD was very good - it had some great eye-opening scenes of radical Muslim clerics inticing their followers to become suicide bombers and of children in Muslim schools being taught hatred for Jews and Christians. It also showed the duplicity of certain Muslim spokemen is claiming to be moderate and pluralistic in public while privately holding violent anti-Western views. This is an example of the practice of al-Taqiyya, or lying to the infidel, and the video catches some Muslim cleric right in the act. Most of those who read this blog already know this stuff, but it was refreshing (and chilling) to see it again in this video.

However, I have to take this DVD to task for an assumption that lays beneath much of what it exposes about Islam. It presents the radical jihadists in their native element and shows how dangerous they are, and then gives the viewer several warnings about radical Islam's desire for world domination. We are rightfully supposed to be concerned about the desire of jihadist Islam to dominate the world, but what is it about their intended domination that we object to and what does it say about our own beliefs when we object to it?

For the conservative, pop-Catholic, neo-conservative mentality, the desire of radical Islam for world conquest is one of the most offensive things about Islam. When they look at radical Islam, they say, "Isn't that terrible! Those people want the whole earth to convert to their religion and they won't stop at anything until they rule the world!" Too often I think we just nod our heads and say, "Yeah, that's awful."

But what are we objecting to? Is it the principle of one religion dominating the world? Or is it a question about the nature of the religion that wants to dominate the world? I would argue that as Catholics, we cannot object to the concept of a religion wanting to dominate the world. This is the objective of the Catholic Church in the end, after all. This very weekend at my parish one of the general intercessions was , "That the entire human race may be converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Gospel spread to the ends of the earth." How can we say "Lord, hear our prayer," to a petition like that and then huff and puff when Islam says it wants to take over the world?

Well of course, the nature of Islam's dominance and the type of dominance that the Church desires are entirely different - one is based on submission and one on charity. But the idea is similar: each religion is evangelistic, believes it is the only true faith, and sees its mission as to convert the entire world. Let's be clear about this: Catholicism is a religion that seeks world domination. But it is a domination based on the proclamation of the Good News, the movement of grace, and the free joining of peoples into the Kingdom of Christ, a kingdom which is built on charity and is not of this world.

When neo-cons object to Islam on the basis that it wants to dominate the world, what they are really saying in effect is that religious pluralism is the ideal state of affairs, something no person who loves the Lord Jesus could say. Christ said to preach the Gospel to all men, to the very ends of the earth, and promised through the Spirit that in the end "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Php. 2:8-10). But the neo-con ideal is a world in which different religions coexist and no one is put forward as being more right than any other, because after all, religion is a private affair.

Catholics need to be aware that this is what we are implying whenever we take issue with Islam's desire to dominate. Instead, we ought to say, "Yes, it is horrible to think about that religion dominating the world, but let us pray instead that Christ's Kingdom is established to the ends of the earth." Our issue should be not with Islam's will to dominate, but with the type of domination Islam proposes and the nature of the religion of Islam.

It is tempting to simply accept religious pluralism as the ideal just because that is what we have in America - this is an ideal that was condemned as "Americanism" by Leo XIII in the bull Longinqua, where he stated:

"[I]t would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced." (Longinqua, 6)

So, when we approach the question of Islam, do we take it for granted that our own state of affairs here in the normative one? If so, we are in for failure. A pluralistic society has never managed to stand up to the assault of a culture that demands total religious conformity. In opposing Islam, we have to take as our fixed point not the religious status quo of America, as Sean Hannity would have us believe, but the perennial vision of the Church: a vision that culminates in the establishment of the kingdom to the uttermost ends of the earth.

So, Obsession is a pretty good video. But don't be lulled into taking the default position that it seems to adopt. It also tries to show how only some Muslims are violent and that the peaceful Muslims are the "real" Muslims. Well, whatever. It certainly makes it more easy to convert them if they are peaceful, but conversion is the end goal. Let's not forget that!

Here's an earlier article I wrote on this same topic and an explanation of the Muslim "duty" to lie in the cause of religion.

"Thank you" to Muslims?

Cardinal Tauran has "thanked" Islam for bringing God back into the mind of European culture. Most of what he says in this particular article (which you can read HERE) is more of the same interreligious dialogue stuff we've heard before, but he uses some interesting words. For example, when talking about the need to open communication with other faiths, he says that all relgions are "condemned to dialogue." Condemned? I'm not sure what he was getting at here, but the Reuters article connects the statement with a recent statement by the Pope in which the Holy Father said that interreligious dialogue had to presuppose the possibility that one side is ultimately convinced by the other, which for me personally has been the elephant in the living room in the whole interreligious dialogue issue. But I don't understand the Cardinal's point about religions being condemned to religious dialogue, unless he is addressing the anguish that orthodox Catholics endure when "condemned" to hearing about such nonsense as the Assisi Prayer Meetings, etc.

But what about this idea of Muslims bringing God back to Europe? Doesn't it presuppose that Allah is the same God as the Triune God of Scripture? It must, otherwise the Muslims wouldn't be bringing God to Europe, but would be bringing in only a false-god, which of course I contend they do. They're not bringing "God" back to Europe, at least not the God we want to associate with. Thanking Muslims for introducing God to Europe is like thanking Wiccans for bringing back spirituality or thanking Jehovah's Witnesses for their evangelism efforts. The Muslim god Allah is not the same as the Trinity, nor does he even share similar characteristics. It is foolishness to thank them for bringing Allah into Europe, as if Allah is what Europe needs. Ask Charlemagne, Don Juan, the Franciscan martyrs, Jan Sobieski, St. John Capsitrano or Constantine XI if Allah is what Europe needs!

But also, the manner in which Allah is introduced into European discussion is a negative one: religion is not being discussed because European Muslims are such outstanding citizens and such wonderful witnesses to sanctity that Europeans are wanting to talk about religion. No: they are promoting religious discussion because of things like the riots over the Mohammed cartoon, the murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the French riots of 2005, the insane outrage over Benedict's Regensburg speech, the continued headscarf controversies in Europe and the many other ways in which Islam is bullying its way ever so slowly into a dominant position in European life and brutally attempting to silence those who oppose it. Even if we grant that discussing religion is a good thing (which it is), this is not the manner that people should want it brought to light.

Thanking Islam? Only in the upside-dwon, anti-Christian nuthouse we call modernity could members of the Vatican be persuaded to happily thank the people who are cutting their throats.

Disappointment from Madonna University

A disappointing report came out from my school, Madonna University, last week regarding the ousting of their long-standing mascot, the fighting Crusader. The decision was spearheaded by the university's "Diversity Discussion Group" who said that the Crusader was "offensive and a poor representative of Madonna's mission to be a diverse and inclusive school" (quotes from Madonna Herald, Oct. 2008). The vice-president of Madonna refered to the Crusades as "such a sad time in the Church's history" and stated that they represented "crimes against women and certain groups of people."

The interesting thing is that most kids did not see what was so offensive about the knight. Nursing major Claire Michalik said that though the Crusades were brutal, "the Crusades were also seen as a noble thing to do in that time. I link the nobility to the Crusader, too." Many other kids surveyed said they loved the fighing knight. There was also your typical tripe: like this statement by Chris Benson, associate Dean of Advising: "In a society where we are trying to be comprehensive and understanding of all the different cultures we have, I think that we have to be very sensitive and would not want to offend anybody."

This is very eye-twitching to me, because as the Crusader is being removed from the school, I also see that the university is also promoting the celebration of Ramandan and offering prayer and fasting rooms for the Muslim students. An interfaith prayer chapel upstairs greets students as you walk in the main entryway, and pro-homosexual stickers can be seen on many of the professor's office doors. Clearly, Madonna has ceased to believe in any sort of mission tied with Catholic identity and instead sees its goal as be a "diverse and inclusive school."

Though, on the flip side, Madonna Campus Ministry does have the excellent Miles Christi order as their chaplains, so it is not all bad.

It has not been announced what the new mascot will be. In true democratic fashion, they are putting it to a vote before the student body. It wil probably be some stupid animal or something.

Two questions for the vice-president of Madonna: first, has it never occured to you that perhaps there are elements of the Crusades that we can be proud of, and that it isn't all just about rapine and slaughter? And second, could it be that the reason the Crusaders undertook the Crusades was precisely because they knew exactly what type of religion Islam is? We always suppose that religious division is due to lack of understanding. The medieval Christians knew exactly what Islam was all about (unlike us) and that is why they fought it so vehemenetly, in Jerusalem, Lepanto, Belgrade, Vienna and anywhere else they were encountered.

Great moments in interreligious dialogue: St. Marcellus destroys the temple of Zeus

.

From Butler's Lives of the Saints, for August 14th, a very intersting episode:

St. Marcellus, Bishop of Apamaea, Martyr (c. AD 389)

In 380 Theodosius the Great and the co-emperor, Gratian, issued a decree that all their subjects were to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Eight years later he sent an officer into Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor, whose duty it was to enforce an edict that all pagan temples were to be destroyed; this violent policy was carried out very roughly and not unnaturally aroused the anger and resentment of the pagans. When the imperial prefect arrived at Apamaea in Syria he set his soldiers to work to pull down the temple of Zeus there, but it was a large building and well built and the soldiers, being inexpert at systematic demolition, made little progress. The bishop of the place was one Marcellus; he told the prefect to take off his men to their next job and in his absence means would be sought to destroy the temple. The very next day an engineer came to the bishop and said that, if he would pay him double wages, he could do the work himself. St. Marcellus agreed, and the man proceeded to demolish the temple by the simple device of undermining some of the supporting columns, holding up the foundations with timber, and then burning it away.

Marcellus proceeded to have other temples dealt with in this manner, until he went to one in a certain unidentified place; this building was stoutly defended by those who worshipped in it, and the bishop had "to take up a position some way from the scene of the conflict, out of the reach of the arrows, for he suffered from gout and so was not able either to fight or to run away." But while he was watching from this point of vantage, some of the pagans seized him, and put him to death by throwing him into the flames.

Apparently bishosp used to be experts in the demolition of pagan temples! This is not the case today. Now, of course, we have the rector have the Fatima shrine allowing pagan worship and receiving blessings from Hindus: here is Rector Guerra receiving a Hindu shawl covered in the "sacred text" of the Hindu scriptures.

St. Marcellus, ora pro nobis!

Carmelite martyred in India

Missionaries of Charity nuns are keeping prayer vigil for peace in violence-torn Orissa state. A convent of their congregation was destroyed in the arson.

As many of you know, there has been an intensification of persecution in India. My mother, who is a Third Order Carmelite, sent me this article on the murder of a Carmelite priest two weeks ago in Hyderabad:

A Carmelite priest is massacred in Andhra Pradeshby Nirmala Carvalho. 38 year old Fr. Thomas Pandippallyil, was assassinate don the night of August 16th on his way to a village to celebrate Sunday mass. His body showed signs of torture, with wounds to his face, his hands and legs broken and his eyes pulled from their sockets. The bishop of Hyderabad denounces the growing climate of "violence against Catholics" in the country.

New Delhi (AsiaNews) – "Father Thomas is a martyr: he sacrificed his life for the poor and marginalised. But he did not die in vain, because his body and his blood enrich the Church in India, particularly the Church in Andhra Pradesh". Those are the words of Msgr. Marampudi Joji, archbishop of Hyderabad and secretary of the bishops' conference of Andhra Pradesh (a state in South East India), commenting the barbarous killing of the Carmelite priest Thomas Pandippallyil, 38, assassinated on the night of August 16th in Mosalikunta, on the road between Lingampet and Yellareddy, 90 km from the regional capital.

On the night of August 16th his body was found on the roadside by a group of people, not far from the village of Balampilly; the body of the Carmelite of Mary Immaculate carried wounds to the face while the hands and legs had been crushed and the eyes gouged out. His motorbike was found one kilometre on from the body. According to witnesses, Saturday afternoon Fr. Thomas celebrated mass in Burgida, before setting out for another village in the district where he was to have celebrated Sunday mass. The last people to have seen him alive were religious sisters from Lingapetta convent, where the priest had stopped for supper before continuing his journey.

"P. Thomas is a martyr – said Msgr. Marampudi, archbishop of Hyderabad, on hearing of the brutal murder. The Indian Church is shocked and deeply saddened by this barbarous killing, the result of a growing climate of intolerance and violence against Christians in this country". The prelate immediately made his way to the area where the massacre took place and speaks of a "traumatized" Christian community. He forcefully denies accusations of "proselytism and forced conversions". Given that there are "five families of Catholic faith" in the parish where Fr. Thomas was murdered.

Msgr. Marampudi Joji maintains the crime is the result of a climate of "jealousy of the Catholic Church", whose only fault is that of trying to help develop the abandoned rural areas of the country and support and aid those who are "victims of violence and oppression". "Priests and nuns – continues the archbishop of Hyderabad – have for decades been at the service of the least fortunate in India, and this makes them targets of forces of evil who do not want the marginalized and impoverished to become empowered".

The remains of Fr. Thomas Pandippallyil will be laid to rest on Wednesday in the Carmelite provincial house in Balampilly: the priest was actively involved in educational field. He joined the Chanda mission of the CMI on 24th June 1987. He was ordained a priest in 2002. He was the rector for the Chanda mission province of the CMI, and also worked as hospital administrator, school manager and mission centre director.

Eternal Rest grant unto Fr. Thomas Pandippallyil dear Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all the souls of the faithful departed through the Mercy of God rest in peace. Amen And may those responsible for his brutal death repent of their sin and be converted in Jesus Name. Amen

Fr. Pandippallyil is only one of several Catholics who have suffered persecution in India in the past month. As far as I can tell, it seems like this violence is being done by the Hindus. Listen to the story of Fr. Edward Sequeira, who was treated for severe burns all over his body:

It all began around 13.00 hrs" he recalled. "I was having lunch at my single room presbytery that doubles as office, bedroom and store room. The doors were closed. I heard some one calling out, 'Father, Father.' Thinking that some one was there with some patients needing to be taken to hospital I opened the door and came out.

There was a crowd of about 20 people crowding before my room. They suddenly pulled out from behind their backs, iron rods, lathies, and wooden pieces. They started thrashing me. They wanted to me to shout 'Yesu Christu Murdabad' (Death to Jesus Christ) 'Bajrang Bali Ki Jai' (Long Live Bajrang Bali).

They continued thrashing me and then pushed me back into the room, poured diesel on the floor, some fell on by clothes and set the place on fire and bolted the room from outside. I slipped on the diesel soaked floor, some how managed to reach the bath room where providentially there were two buckets of water - we do not have running water - and poured it all across the room. Without making much noise I bolted from inside all the doors and windows under cover of billowing smoke."

The Vatican issued this statement regarding the violence:

In reference to the tragic news coming from India concerning violence against the faithful and the institutions of the Catholic church, the Holy See, while expressing solidarity with the local churches and religious congregations involved, condemns these acts that injure the dignity and liberty of persons and compromise peaceful civil co-existence. At the same time, it appeals to all parties so that, with a sense of responsibility, all oppression may be ended and a climate of dialogue and mutual respect may be restored.

Please keep the Catholics of India in your prayers. You can check this blog, Orissa Burning, which has a thorough list of the atrocities being committed.

Catholicism in the Yucatan

A few months back I read a great book entitled Caste War of the Yucatan by an author named Nelson Reed. It was about the history of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula from the 1830's right up into the 1950's, centered on a bizarre Indian cult called the Cruzob who mingled their Christianity with Maya paganism and took power in southeast Yucatan from around 1850-1900, killing whites and taking them as slaves. He has an interesting chapter about religion in the Yucatan. The book was written back in the 1950's, but I imagine that a lot of the practices he describes remain, since modern ideas tend to penetrate these remote areas very slowly.

In the following excerpts on religion in the Yucatan, the words Mazehual and Mazehualob refer to the Maya peoples of the region.

For the Mazehual of the Yucatan, the silent forest was not empty; it was alive with spirits, the owners and protectors of the wild places. Before clearing his cornfield, the Mazehual would call out to them, asking permission to use their property; after stating how much land he would need and offering payment in the form of specially prepared corn gruel, he would seal the bargain by erecting a small cross-because, after all, he was a Christian.

...In a cyclical view of life, the seasons and years progress in an orderly pattern., and the past is the key to the future. Most of the Mazehualob had neither the time nor the intelligence to acquire the learning necessary for prediction, and so they consulted an H-men (literally, "he who knows"). The H-Men could find lost articles, cure sickness with herbs and prayers, and read the future by looking into his sacred stones or by counting grains of corn, but his first responsibility and preoccupation was to assist in assuring a successful harvest.

...If August passed and the rains remained poor, worry changed to fear and the farmer faced his most serious crisis. Again, the H-men was ready with an answer, a last resort when other means had failed, a rain-bringing ceremony. All the men of the village would spend several days hunting the wild game necessary for the meat offerings while the H-men went through the prelimenary rites. On the third day after the rites had begun, a presentation was made at an altar built under a ceiba tree. The rain gods were summoned, with great care that none should be omitted, in a ritual invitation to the god of every cistern in the area. As they gathered from their watery homes, called by prayer and lured by offerings of food and incense, boys crouched under the altar croaking as frogs do before rain, branches of the tree were pulled back and forth as if lashed by a windstorm, and a dancer impersonated Kunu-chaak, the chief rain god, with his lightning want and sacred calabash...

The Mazehual of Yucatan prayed much as all Catholics pray; he counted the beads of his rosary, said the Hail Mary and the Our Father, knew the Apostles' Creed and the hymns. He was led in worship by the Maestro Cantor, a native layman who had memorized by rote a stock of necessary prayers in Spanish and Latin and was able to chant them for over an hour without repetition-and often without understanding...The Mazehual was like all other Christians except that when his prayers failed, when in spite of the promised novena crops continued poor or sickness persisted, he could seek help from his H-men and the gods and spirits of the forest. He would pray first to his saint, then to the Balamob [guardian spirit of the village]. He knew that the priests disapproved of these other rites, and that the white men sneered at them, and so he celebrated them secretly, out of sight somewhere in the woods. Naturally enough, he despised the white man as an incomplete Christian.

This book was written in the 1950's and it described a perennial practice of the Indians of the region, so we can't really blame this one on intrreligious dialogue and Vatican II (if these people ever heard of Vatican II). It underscores a fundamental reality that the Church as a whole needs to deal with: for a variety of reasons historical and cultural, the evangelization of Latin America is very shallow and incomplete in a great majority of the rural areas (and I would argue, in many of the cities as well). We need to keep this in mind when people flippantly disregard the de-Christianization of Europe and say, "Well, Latin America is the future of the Church." If it is, then it is grim.

Not to say that if we would have surveyed the Christians of northern Denmark around the year 1100 we would not have foundf a great many remnants of Viking paganism. That is to be sure. The difference is that in the old days, we understood that such things were remnants of paganism and tried to educate the people and get them to stop doing them, and eventually those things died out in most places. Do the current generation of missionaries working among such people actually tell them to stop consulting their H-men and praying to rain gods? I seriously doubt it. In fact, knowing how missions work now, the missionaries probably join the Mazehualob in their rain-ceremony and tell them that it is a valid path to heaven.

"I don't care who started it..."

As a parent of several children, I have to do a lot of disciplining (though not as much as my wife, who stays home with them all day long). If it has been a rough day or the kids are extraordinarily naughty, sometimes I get lazy with my discipline. It often happens that I hear the kids screaming and fighting in the back room, and I run in to take care of the problem. I am confornted with a cacaphony of blame. "I had it first...she started it...no, she started it...I was doing this, then she took it from me...no, you took it from me..." After a few moments, I will get exasperated listening to this din and just yell out something akin to, "I don't care who started it, I'm going to finish it!" Then I just ground them both or get them both equally in trouble.

I think many parents take this approach to ending disputes. I know my parents did with me, particularly my dad. The thing I noticed upon reflecting on this "I don't care who started it" approach is that it totally misses the point of discipline and actually undermines the virtue of justice. A just motive for punishment is to redress the wrong. This implies that the wrong party has to be identified. When I get angry and need to discipline, it ought to be the wrong done that provokes me to anger and merits the discipline.

Now, when I say "I don't care who started it, I'm going to finish it," I say that I no longer care about the wrong committed. I am more concerned with being annoyed by the inconvenience or distraction subsequent to the wrong. In the above example, it was not the wrong done, but the noise of my kids fighting that irritated me and caused me to discipline them. My children sense this injustice when they try to plead their case, the "she did this/I had it first" routine. They are appealing to justice. What I ought to have done is listen and to the best of my ability determine who was actually in the wrong in this case and punish only the offender. And they ought to be punished because they truly did wrong, not because their whining annoyed me. If I do otherwise, I am kind of saying, "Look kids, I don't care about your petty squabbles. I'm just sick of your whining, so shut up, or I'm going to punish you all." This is neither just, nor charitable, nor true discipline.

Yet is this not the mentality behind the modern interreligious dialogue movement? This is the "Can't we all just get along" approach. We are just all so sick of religious quarreling over all these centuries that we need to come together. It doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter who has legitimate grievances. It doesn't matter who is in the right and who is in the wrong. It doesn't matter if Turks, within the living memory of some, massacred one million Armenians. It doesn't matter that Constantinople belongs to the Greeks. It doesn't matter that almost all terrorist attacks carried out in the world today are done by Muslim extremists. All that matters is that the fighting stop and that we come together. If we don't, "religion" will be discredited in the eyes of the world.

Do you see the connection here? If we can see it is so dumb in the case of parental discipline, why not apply the same reasoning to this problem, when instead of two siblings we have two religions? First of all, it always matters who did what. We could rightly say that Jews and Nazis had "grievances" against each other. But is manifestly obvious that one sides grievances were monumentally more important than those of the other side, and that the Germans were clearly in the wrong. Can you imagine, after the Holocaust, telling Jews to sit down with members of the NSDAP and telling them, "Look, I don't care who started this argument. Just come to an agreement so we can have peace."

Temporal peace is not an ultimate good (which is the error upheld by those who still defend the Assisi prayer gatherings). Furthermore, I really do not care if "religion" as such is discredited. I don't. In fact, I hope other religions are discredited by their violence or vileness. I only care about the Catholic Church. This idea of "religious" people having to come together to make an alliance against secularism is silly. The Church stands completely and utterly alone against all enemies and does not need to make allies against lesser foes to beat greater ones. This is actually explicitly condemned in the Scriptures (see here).

People who see all religions as having a mandate to put differences aside and just get along are really saying they are offended by the search for truth. When a Muslim and a Christian get in an argument, even if it is an argument that leads to the sword, they are in a sense arguing about the truth. It is a pity that there is violence, and we know that most violence is suffered by us (not perpetrated by us), but at least the point in dispute is worth fighting about. This is the message in GK Chesterton's book The Ball and the Cross: people say it is not worth it to argue over religion; on the contrary, religion is the only thing really worth arguing about. Persons who say otherwise are not so much upset by the positions of either side, or the deeds done in what god's name, but by the simple fact of the disputation, like me getting more upset by my kids' noise than by their naughtiness.

Justice and charity and Catholic discipline demand that in our contacts with other religions, we actually place our value in the right place: on the truth of the Person we are preaching about, and not just in the fact that we are talking. There is a time for talk, but there is a time to keep silent. Let's make sure our innate human desire for peaceful lives does not trump our spiritual duty to preach the truth fearlessly to all men, even if it means they will hate and kill us.

Yes, but what do they think it says

When looking at the documents of Vatican II, it is my assertion that though they represent a radical break from the way the Faith has always been understood in the past, they nevertheless can be interpreted in an orthodox manner (despite their ambiguities) and therefore do not constitute any formal heresy or anything like that, as some Sedevecantists would argue. For many conservative pop-Catholics, the buck stops there. Vatican II can be interpreted legitimately, so that's all there is to it, and any attempt to dig deeper into the shortcomings of certain documents, point out the ambiguities in the texts, or behave in any way that suggests that you do not believe Gaudium et Spes to be the most profound statement ever made by Magisterium gets labeled as fault-finding or potentially schismatic behavior.

However, I have always taken the position that it is not good enough to say, "Well, the document can be interpreted in an orthodox manner." I recall many years back after Walter Kasper's Covenant and Mission came out, Dr. Scott Hahn was on EWTN explaining away the statements of the Cardinal in terms of, "Don't worry - there's statements in here that if we interpret in such-and-such a way will make this document conform with orthodoxy." What a pitiful commentIn the past, positions of theologians were condemned because there was the possibility that they could be interpreted in a heretical manner. Now we have theologians telling us that documents can be interpretd soundly. How pathetic! My position has always been this: It doesn't only matter what the document says, but how will others interpret it? Based on the language and tone of the document, what do other people take it to mean?

This question only arises with the issue of ambiguity. An unambiguous document needs no such explication. Nobody draws multiple meanings out of the Syllabus of Errors. There are no theologians standing around arguing about the right interpretation of it. For crying out loud, a Magisterial document is itself supposed to be an explication of the Faith. Why should they be so complex that we need explications of the explications? It often happens that within the Catholic Church, we can look at these documents in light of tradition and say, "Okay, I guess I see how one could square that away with Tradition" (no matter how tenuous). But then you get somebody outside the Church who looks at the document and is taken in the totally wrong direction due to the document's ambiguities (whether intentional or unintentional).

I had a great example of this on my blog the other day. I was doing a post on Islam, and had made the point there and in previous posts that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians. This drew a comment from a Muslim named Khany, who left the following (pay attention to what this Muslim cites in support):

Boniface, I am disturbed by the readiness with which you devour islamophobic messages..this is specially puzzling in light of the official position of the Catholic Church with respect to Islam and Muslims. In a document entitled "Nostra Aetate" dealing with the church's relationship with non-christian religions. The section on Islam begins thus: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men." Moreover, the Catholic Catechism states: "The Church’s relationship with Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964).

Isn't this interesting? I say something critical of Islam, and a Muslim comes back and throws Nostra Aetate and the CCC in my face! Now, I know that if you are a theologian, you will understand that neither of these documents explicitly affirm that Allah is the same God as the Blessed Trinity - but it does tell me that a cursory reading of them by any other person, even a Muslim, gives them the opposite impression! So, if we have an obligation to preach the truth, we must ask ourselves as a Church - perhaps our documents do technically speak the truth, but even so, what do others think they say when they are reading them?

I obviously don't think my Muslim commentator to be correct in their overall point, but I do have to agree with them on something: if you were to pick up Nostra Aetate or read the CCC passage quoted, I think one would get the impression that this is the message of the Church. No wonder the Muslims keep making overtures to Benedict - they think the Church teaches that we all worship the same God! This Muslim made a very forgivable and simple mistake - they picked up the Church documents, read them, and took them at face value! That's the way documents should be read in a perfect world - without blogs like this one having to expose ambguities, without theologians on EWTN explaining the right "ecclesiological standpoint" for interpreting a document, without Muslims and non-Christians reading the same documents and coming up with interpretations completely 180 degrees from the correct standpoint. And you know what? It is not this Muslim's fault for getting this interpretation. Not at all. It is our fault - the Magisterium's fault for wanting to please everybody and offend nobody except faithful Catholics.

This is another example of what I have always said about ambiguity: it serves nobody. It neither reinforces the faithful in their belief, nor does it clearly explain it to unbelievers. It gives non-Christians the wrong ideas and just confuses Catholics. So, when the Magisterium is getting together these documents, I think they have a real responsibility to say, "What unwritten message are we conveying with this? Even if our words say one thing, what impression will this document leave on others?" Obviously the Church does not write its documents with the sensitivities of non-Christians in mind (or perhaps it does, and that is the problem), but they should at least make sure the message is clear. There is a big difference between people not liking the truth when it is preached and simply not understanding the message, and what we have here is a case when neither the truth nor the message is clear.

Will Obama deny Christ?

In another month we will see exactly what type of "Christian" Barack Obama is, and I predict it won't be pretty. Check out this article from The Hindu:

NEW DELHI: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama can now expect help from an unexpected quarter — Lord Hanuman.

All-India Congress Committee member Brij Mohan Bhama has organised a 11-day religious ceremony at Karol Bagh here for his success in the U.S. elections.

The idea of sending an idol of Hanuman dawned on him after friends in the United States mentioned a “prominent American politician who carried a miniature Hanuman idol in his pocket for luck,” Mr. Bhama said speaking on the first day of the ceremony on Tuesday.

“After hearing that, I decided to gift Mr. Obama a larger, gold-plated version along with the wishes of thousands of his supporters in this country,” said the leader struggling to lift the 15 kg, 21-inch brass idol.

The first-day ceremony, pranapratishta, or infusion of divine life into an idol, was performed by a dozen priests reciting mantras in tandem. It was attended by Democrats Abroad India chairperson Carolyn Sauvage, who spent over an hour at the venue.

The idol was later kept in the sanctum sanctorum of the Sankat Mochan Dham, where it will be kept for 10 more days. Mr. Bhama said several temples in New Delhi had already expressed an interest in keeping the idol for worship on their premises before it begins its journey across the Atlantic.

Along with the idol, a copy of Hanuman Chalisa, a compilation of hymns in praise of the Lord, would be sent.

“We will ensure that Mr. Obama receives the idol by August 24, a day before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado,” said Mr. Bhama.

Who exactly is Hanuman, you may ask? Well, in case you didn't know, Lord Hanuman is but one of Hinduism's 300 million gods. According to their sagas, he once impregnanted a fish by sweating in its mouth. It is this idol whom the Indians hope will grant Obama victory.

How will Mr. Obama respond to this "gift?" Perhaps some will take issue with me, but I do not see how any Christian can receive an idol of a false god with thanksgiving and gratitude. "But Boniface," some of you will object, "the Pope once received a gift of the Koran with gratitude, even though he didn't believe it was true." Well, that of course assumes that the Pope was justified in kissing the Koran, which I strenuously object to. I think it is somewhat circular reasoning anyway ("It's okay to do it because the Pope did it." Why was it okay for the Pope to do it? "Because there's nothing wrong with it!")

Have we forgotten the destruction of the prophets of Baal by Elijah, the demolition of Baal's temple by Gideon, the way God Himself threw down the idol of Dagon in his own temple! If God Himself broke the idol of Dagon, what ought Obama to do with the idol of Hanuman? I suggest to you that unless Obama sends this idol back, destroys it, or otherwise makes some comment about being unable to accept it because he is a Christian, then this is tantamount to publicly denying Christ (he ought to smash the thing and defile it with cow's blood: remember, in the Bible the Israelites not only destroyed pagan shrines, but defiled them after their destruction.).

This is not the same as the Pope receiving a book. Obama will be receiving an idol of a false god that is "worshipped" (the word the article uses), and who's believers assert has been infused with divine life and that Obama should receive it because it will bring him luck and victory in the campaign.

What do you think? Would St. Paul gratefully receive an idol of Diana as a gift? Though Obama certainly may not be the Antichrist to come, if he receives this gift I will not hesitate to call him antichrist with a small "a," as he will have publicly denied Jesus in my opinion.

Another memorable moment of interreligious dialogue

Taken from the Book of 2 Kings 10:18-28:

Then Jehu [King of Israel] brought all the people together and said to them, "Ahab served Baal a little; Jehu will serve him much. Now summon all the prophets of Baal, all his ministers and all his priests. See that no one is missing, because I am going to hold a great sacrifice for Baal. Anyone who fails to come will no longer live." But Jehu was acting deceptively in order to destroy the ministers of Baal.

Jehu said, "Call an assembly in honor of Baal." So they proclaimed it. Then he sent word throughout Israel, and all the ministers of Baal came; not one stayed away. They crowded into the temple of Baal until it was full from one end to the other. And Jehu said to the keeper of the wardrobe, "Bring robes for all the ministers of Baal." So he brought out robes for them. Then Jehu and Jehonadab son of Recab went into the temple of Baal. Jehu said to the ministers of Baal, "Look around and see that no servants of the LORD are here with you—only ministers of Baal." So they went in to make sacrifices and burnt offerings.

Now Jehu had posted eighty men outside with this warning: "If one of you lets any of the men I am placing in your hands escape, it will be your life for his life." As soon as Jehu had finished making the burnt offering, he ordered the guards and officers: "Go in and kill them; let no one escape." So they cut them down with the sword. The guards and officers threw the bodies out and then entered the inner shrine of the temple of Baal. They brought the sacred stone out of the temple of Baal and burned it. They demolished the sacred stone of Baal and tore down the temple of Baal, and people have used it for a latrine to this day.

So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel.

Cardinal Tauron says "all religions are equal."

In a June 10th interview with Terrsanta.net, available in its entirety here, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauron, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, made the following statements regarding some new guidelines coming out from the Vatican on how interreligious dialogue is to be conducted [my comments and emphases]:

Q: Will there be a special emphasis on Islam in these guidelines?

No, it has to have regard for all religions. What was interesting about our discussions was that we did not concentrate on Islam because in a way we are being held hostage by Islam a little bit [Very interesting point. For too many, interreligious dialogue simply means watching what we say so the Muslims don't get offended]. Islam is very important but there are also other great Asiatic religious traditions. Islam is one religion.

Q. There was a sense that Islam mustn't monopolize the proceedings?

Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam. For example I'm going to India next month and I want to give this message that all religions are equal [That's funny, because St. Paul used to visit places with the intention of converting people to the true faith, not telling them that all religions are equal. Remember, this guy is the head of the Interreligious Dialogue movement in the hierarchy]. Sometimes there are priorities because of particular situations, but we mustn't get the impression there are first class religions and second class religions [So Christianity is not a first class religion compared with totemism? They are equal? Perhaps, giving the benefit of the doubt, he only means to say that in interreligious dialogue, all religions must take equal precedence, but even then it would be untrue. Our dialogue with Islam is certainly more important than our dialogue with Jainism or the Moonies].

Q. What were the main achievements from the meeting, in your view?

First of all, we stated the point that there are so many things we have in common with other believers [Is that really an "achievement?"], for example that we all believe in one God, that we profess the same sacredness of life [uhh..better define what we and the Muslims mean by that phrase], the necessity of fraternity, the experience of prayer [regardless of who the prayer is directed towards!?]. Because it's very important to stress that interreligious dialogue is not a sociological analysis or a political strategy; it's a religious activity and the language of the religion is prayer so we have always to stress this point. Also we stressed the formation of youth because we realize that in the society in which we live, in multi-ethnical, multicultural societies, the young generation are perhaps lost. So we have to give them points of reference and religions are obviously very important in that [just "religions are very important" with no reference to which one? If this does not give the idea that one religion is just as good as another, I don't know what does]. So as the Pope said in his speech, there is this necessity of formation for priests, seminarians and also ordinary people... This is something new, and it is a consequence of the world in which we live [i.e., we are conforming to the times].

Q. Issues such as identity, proselytism, and reciprocity were also raised. Is this the first time reciprocity was given such prominence?

Not really. What is good for me is good for the other, so if it's possible for Muslims to have a mosque in the West, we should have the same in Muslim countries. This is not the case in many countries. There are countries - for example, I was in Doha a week ago, and I celebrated Mass in this new church there that was consecrated a month ago. It is a very impressive building [look at the pictures of this "impressive" Church below. I won't say it's ugly, but it is kind of weird] . Now we're going to have a school there run by nuns. So this is an example of very good interreligious dialogue with very concrete effects. In Saudi Arabia, it is not the case yet.

Q. Some say that Muslim leaders want a different kind of dialogue to the one the Pope wants. They say Muslims want a dialogue where each tradition respects the other in its own sphere, whereas the Holy Father wants to go further, to reflect more deeply on freedom to seek God, and to allow conversions to Christianity if it comes to that. What do you say to this perspective?

The purpose of interreligious dialogue is to know the other better in order to understand the content of his faith, and of course the Holy Father is insisting on freedom of religion, freedom to have a religion and not to have one, and the freedom to change religion. This is something also stated in international law, and of course for the Muslims, it's not the same [This is why Traditional Catholics despise this form of interreligious dialogue: it does not even state that trying to bring people to Christ is even an implicit goal. They kind of say, "Well hey, if people want to convert, that's their business and we'll take em, but we're not looking for converts"].

Interreligious Dialogue: A Case Study of the Columban Missions

I have been meaning to post on this for a long while, but have been putting it off because I was waiting until I had enough time to donate to making this post as coherent and academic as possible (unlike many of my posts tend to be!). As always, I remember that I am nobody, and that I do not claim my opinion has any authority that anyone is bound to agree with. And I don't want to fool myself into thinking my blog is so serious and vital to the life of the Church that I can't possibly take any criticism about it or myself; but nevertheless, I try to do as good a job as I can here with my limited time and I thank you all for your patronage. One day, when I am no longer under the employment of the Church, I will "come out" and reveal my full identity.

There is a very important point regarding the Catholic interreligious dialogue movement that I think needs to be stressed, because it is too often neglected in mainstream Catholicism and sometimes even denied. It is this:

When persons in the hierarchy make statements or actions touching upon interreligious dialogue, regardless of their intentions or the goodness of their own deeds, they have a responsibility to be cognizant of how their deeds will be perceived by Catholics at large, who may not have the same degree of precision in theological understanding that they do.

Back in November, 2007 I received an issue of the Columban Mission magazine (the publication of the Missionary Society of St. Columban) titled "Interfaith Dialogue: Tolerance, Understanding & Learning Through Words & Actions." The cover was decorated with symbols of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. I knew right away from the cover what it would be like, and I was not mistaken. I am not going to bother delving into all the horror stories about priests praying from the Koran, Catholics attending Hindu worship meetings, participating in Ramandan etc (though we'll get into some of them). We all know that these things are the reality of the farce that is called Catholic "missionary" activity. But my point is to show, through some citations fromt his magazine, how despite the fact that John Paul II may have had great intentions at Assisi and how he did not explicitly embrace pagan religions, that is how it is widely being perceived, especially in the mission field.

In the introduction to this issue, Fr. T.P. Reynolds, president of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, writes on the contrast between Catholic views of non-Christians in the early 20th century and today. He says of his own order, the Columban Missionaries, that "like most Christian missionaries, we still viewed Asian non-Christians as "pagans" who had to be Christianized" (pg 3). This view is cast aside as being old-fashioned, and in its place Fr. Reynolds trumpets the declaration of Vatican II: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions."

We know, however, that there is no essential contradiction between the "old" view of converting pagans, and the Vatican II declaration that the Church denies nothing true in other religions. But Fr. Reynolds asserts that there is a discontinuity and says quite plainly that "things have changed" (ibid). In the old days,we thought X, now we think Y. This is the theology of rupture at work, and clearly Vatican II is not being interpreted properly if it is being interpreted in this manner. But where did Fr. Reynolds learn to interpret interreligious dialogue in this way? He specifically cites John Paul II: "Pope John Paul II taught us, at Assisi, how to pray together" (ibid). He then goes on to state how the articles in this issue of the magazinbe are examples of the Columban Missionaries "complying with Rome's demands." So, let's see what he thinks it means to "comply" with Rome's idea of interreligious dialogue.

Following Fr. Reynold's article, we have an article entitled "A Concurrence of Civilizations." In this article, Fr. Paul Glynn, the author, explains how modern missionary work is not about converting anybody to the Faith, but about training "young Christians and Muslims to become peacemakers in their local communities" (pg. 6). And how is this done?

"This normally consists of eight-day, live-in workshops where we explore issues of prejudice and discrimination through games, drama, role play and small-group discussions. We lead the young people in a process of self-discovery and rediscovery of the richness of their own religious traditions: Christianity and Islam" (ibid)."

Much has been made by Traditionalists about the distinction between praying together and coming together to pray, which has been raised because of Assisi. Defenders of Assisi assert that in calling leaders of other religions together to pray, John Paul II was not meaning to insinuate that all religions prayed to the same God, nor was he trying to give the impression that all religions were equally valid. I don't deny that he did not intend to do this. But how do the missionaries take it? Do these missionaries believe and teach that all religions pray to the same God? Fr. Glynn continues:

We firmly believe that a true and lasting peace must begin from the individual young people who have allowed their hearts to be touched and their minds to be inspired by the love and mercy of God/Allah (ibid).

That is exactly how God is referred to in the text. "God/Allah." Remember now, in the introduction, Fr. Reynolds said that these stories were examples of the Columbans "complying with Rome's demands," which can only mean one thing: he, and the Columbans, are under the impression that this kind of syncretism is what Rome and the Pope are commanding! As he said, "John Paul II taught us, at Assisi."

I don't think even the most ardent defenders of John Paul and Assisi would go so far as to say that it is acceptable that a priest refer to the Trinity as "God/Allah." They are not the same God: God is a Trinity of Persons Who is all good and all perfect, while Allah is at best a remnant of pre-Islamic moon-worship, at worst a demon of hell. But, perhaps Fr. Glynn, who made the above statement, was just an isolated case. Perhaps the rest of the Columbans are not on the same page?

The next article is by the Superior General of the Columbans, Fr. Tommy Murphy (pictured in the magazine wearing a blue, button-up shirt with no sign that he is a religious order priest whatsoever, let alone a Superior General). It is entitled "An Urgent Need: Engaging Other Faiths." The subtitle is "The Columban Superior General says understanding other religions helps us better understand God." He goes on to laud the beliefs of other religions, saying, "They are very religious: they are very clear about the bigger issues" (pg. 7), as if to be "religious" was in and of itself salvific. There is an interesting point in the article when he is asked, "How do you understand Catholic missionary work today?" He thinks about it for a moment and responds, "I see mission as primarily trying to engage people and trying to understand what God is doing in the world."

Fr. Murphy then goes on to deny de fide dogma and he cites Vatican II as his justification:

"In the old days, there seemed to be no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, we realize that such great religions are valid paths to salvation for their adherents, as Vatican II taught us. So, that means that God is doing something very good in these religious traditions" (ibid).

This is not some priest, or some uneducated layman: this is the Superior General of the entire Order of Columban Missionary Priests, and he is under the misguided notion that Vatican II teaches that all religions are paths to salvation! Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Salus is indeeed Church dogma. It has always been believed, but was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in these words:"The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved." This can be found in denzinger 430, linked on the sidebar. A more famous statement of this doctrine is in Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam (1302), which says: "It is absolutely necessary for every living creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation." This teaching was restated by Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Though one may not find the principle in such clear cut terms in the Vatican II documents (although Lumen Gentium does teach this as well), it is certaibly a de fide dogma of the Church, though of course we do not interpret it in the Feenyite sense.

Fr. Tommy Murphy, Superior General of the Columbans

Further on in this issue of the Columban Mission, we see some articles about different concrete ways that Muslims and Christians are being encouraged to come together to be "peacemakers." One story discusses a missionary priest visiting a Muslim family during Ramadan. Did he make any attempt to lead them to Christ? Let's read:

"On the last day of Ramandan, called the Eid al-Fitr, Columban Father Pat McCaffrey and I joined the family for its wonderful celebration. Fr. Pat, who spent 20 years in Pakistan, greeted them in the Urdu language...They offered us Indian miT-Thai (sweets) and the traditional samay (a noodle dish). Fr. Pat read aloud a souvenir program about Ramandan written in Urdu and said the opening verse of the Quran. They were awed, and to a certain extent, shocked" (pg. 10).

As we should be! Clearly, there is a misunderstanding about what interreligious dialogue is: but my very point with this post is that these misunderstandings were made worse by the actions of John Paul II and the statements of persons in the post-V2 Church (Cardinal Kasper). Fr. Pat McCaffrey seems to understand that here may be a bit of confusion on this issue, and tries to clear it up in another article called "Together to Pray, But Not Praying Together" (whatever that means). In this piece, he writes about interfaith meetins in Fiji:

"Since Pope John Paul II's charismatic invitation in 1987 to all faith leaders in Assisi to pray for peace, the Catholic Church has made special efforts to promote interfath prayer for peace...The distinction is made that we come together to pray, but we do not pray together. At first blush, this may seem to be nothing more than wordplay [I'll say!]. But it does express a truth: it is important to come together to pray, but it is equally important that we do not reduce our beliefs to a common denominator in prayer, thereby concealing elements of our faith [despite the fact that this is exactly what happens] ...at each meeting, a theme is chosen for next month's prayer gathering. Each faith community is requested to choose a reading from their respective scriptures and forward this to the coordinator who distributes copies of the readings to everyone who attends...The meeting begins with a common interfaith prayer [praying in common?]. Each faith community shares a reading from their sacred scriptures. This may be a reading, hymn or bhajan (a Hindu devotional song) [devotional song to whom? to which of their 330 million gods?]. The prayer time ends with a common prayer. Then we can reflect on what we have accomplished" (pg. 11).

When we entertain the farce of praying with pagans (and I include Assisi in this), there are only a two possibilities of what is going on: either we are praying to the same god, or we are encouraging them to pray to their own false gods. Either:

(1) We are asserting that our gods are actually one and the same (syncretism). If this were the case, it would be a travesty. However, most people acknowledge that this was not what was going on explicitly (but obviously, as the Columban Missionaries exemplify, people think this was what happened).

(2) If we are not asserting that our gods are the same, then by praying in common we must be encouraging them to pray to their own false gods. If this is the case, it is a mortal sin. Remember a little something from Tradition called "Nine Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin?"

It is always a mortal sin to pray to a false god (against the First Commandment). Granted, there may be varying levels of culpability, but it is always sinful in and of itself. If this is always a sin, what do we do if we encourage them to pray to these false gods? Now, what happens when someone gets together with pagans and encourages them to pray to their false gods for something like world peace? Let's look at the nine ways:

By counsel (yep, guilty of that, because we invite them together and counsel them to pray to their false gods)
By command (I guess we wouldn't be guilty of that, since no one commanded them to pray to their demons)
By consent (definitely we'd be guilty of consent, because it seems to be the idea of the Catholic party in mosty of these situations)
By provocation (again, guilty, because by providing the means, the location and the events, Catholics who participate in these interfaith travesties provoke pagans to further their idolatry)
By praise or flattery (definitely, because by consistently praising "what is true" in non-Christian religions, we praise and flatter them into remaining mired in false worship)
By concealment (yes, because these events conceal the anti-Christian dogmas and practices of these pagans and focus only on the elusive similarities, like a desire for "peace")
By partaking (guilty, because you partake by being there and encouraging it)
By silence (guilty again, because nobody participating says one word to these pagans about their need to convert and come to Christ)
By defense of the ill done (absolutely guilty, because despite all of the outrages like the ones committed by the Columbans, people still persist in defending this defunct and false vision of interreligious dialogue)

And in the end, do the Columban Missions have any success in making any converts? And if so, what types of converts are they making? When asked about the fruits of his 28 years in the mission field, Fr. Robert McCulloch says, "Year by year, I have come to understand that the real issue is to serve the love of God, not to look at what I have in my hand or what I can count" (pg. 14). This is a polite way of saying, "I haven't made any converts at all in my 28 years." Is this really surprising given the type of "missionary activity" they are engaging in?

Sr. Elizabeth Moran, in an article entitled "An Open Window For All Faiths," explains the difference between pre and post Vatican II missionary work with regards to the ecumenical movement:

"Forty years ago, the leaders of the Catholic Church, gathered at the Second Vatican Council, authorized a document called Unitatis Redintegratio, which clearly welcomed the ecumenical movement as integral to the Church's being and pastoral activity. This overturned much of the narrow Counter-Reformation outlook of the Church" (pg. 18-19).

And what are the issues that various Christians, and non-Christians, are called to come together on? "Creation issues that concern us all: world debt, trade legislation, migration, climate change, human rights, and peace issues," says Amy Woolam-Echeverria, whose article "Forward Toward Justice & Peace" winds up this issue of the Columban Mission(pg. 20). These interfaith gatherings inevitably end up focusing on worldly, temporal issues and wind up treating them as if they supercede the theological truths of the Faith. "Sure, we disagree on the nature of God, how one attains salvation, what happens after death, etc. But we all believe there should be world peace, and so we have much more in common!" This makes the supernatural truths of revelation subordinate to merely worldly goods and tends toward the heresy of activism.

It is clear from all of these highlights that these people involved in the interreligious dialogue movement have a gross misunderstanding of what the Church's call to meet people where they are really means. "But," you will object, "people are always misunderstanding Catholicism! Protestants accuse us of worshipping Mary and call the Mass worship of Isis, Horus and Set. We are going to be misunderstood!"

Well, of course we are going to be misunderstood, but here is the essential difference with the above examples and the examples afforded us by the Columban Mission: if we are misunderstood for doing things right, shame on those who misunderstand! But, if we are misunderstood because we are doing things wrong, shame on us! The reason this is being misunderstood and confused by people is because Vatican II and John Paul II have provided ample grounds for confusion to reign. As Fr. Reynolds said, "Pope John Paul II taught us."

Everybody has a responsibility to concern themself not only with their actions, but how their actions might be perceived by others. Can John Paul's interfaith prayer at Assisi be good and prudent if it is yielding these kinds of fruits? And would anyone be so bold as to say that the type of missionary work described above is the type that the Holy Spirit desires? People who engage in interfaith meetings and prayers are even more responsible for their actions if they are in positions of authority, and ought to take extra special care that no one could possibly level the charge of syncretism against them with any type of seriousness. As St. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Avoid every appearance of evil."

Affirming Hindus and Muslims where they are is not good missionary work. It is in fact from the pits of hell. Sure, they may love you now, but how will they feel about you when they are cast out because you spent all your time with them talking about migration issues, trade legislation and climate change and spent absolutely no effort (and don't delude yourself: they are making no effort) at converting these people? That is not true charity, but love of the world and the world's ways. And, "He who loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:14).

Two New Vatican Documents

In the past week and a half two new documents have come out of the Vatican. The news today is the release of a new CDF document on women's ordination that was printed in L'Osservatore Romano just today. The General Decree is very brief and concise and reiterates the Church's disciplinary directives on the attempted ordination of women to the priesthood. Here is the Decree in its entirety:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

General Decree

Regarding the offense of attempted holy ordination of a woman

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to safeguard the nature and validity of the sacrament of holy orders, and in virtue of the special faculty conferred upon the congregation by the supreme authority of the church (see canon 30, Code of Canon Law), in the Ordinary Session of December 19, 2007, has decreed:In keeping with the disposition of canon 1378 of the Code of Canon Law, both the person who attempts to confer holy orders upon a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive holy orders, incur the excommunication latae sententiae, reserved to the Apostolic See.


If the one who attempts to confer holy orders upon a woman or the woman who attempts to receive holy orders is subject to the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches, in keeping with canon 1443 of that code, that person will be punished with major excommunication, the remission of which is reserved to the Apostolic See (see canon 1423, Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches).The present decree takes effect immediately from the moment of its publication in L’Osservatore Romano.

William Cardinal Levada, Prefect
Angelo Amato, s.d.b.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

As far as I'm concerned, this issue was settled forever with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, where in one of the few clear and unambiguous declarations of his pontificate, John Paul II declared infallibly, "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Nevertheless, this new decree is a good compliment to JPII's condemnation because it outlines the canonical penalties for such attempted ordinations and if very refreshing in its brevity.

Unfortunately, the second document to come out of the Vatican in the past two weeks was a bit more of a let down. On may 20th, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued a message to Buddhists honoring the Buddhist Feast of Vesak. Have you never heard of Vesak? Well, Vesak is the celebration of several events in the life of Buddha: first and foremost, his birthday, but also his "enlightenment" and death. In both Chinese and Japanese traditions, a statue of the baby Buddha is bathed with sweet tea by all those present, and there are street processions made up of elaborate floats that commemorate events from the Buddha’s life.

Why on earth would the Catholic Church want to wish Buddhists a happy Vesak? Isn't this like saying, "Hey, you're celebrating the "enlightenment" of your false-guru with anti-Christian philosophical mysticism. Good for you. You keep on doing that." What kind of a message is this? As is typical with most messages in interreligious dialogue these days, this document (which you can read here) never once mentions the name of Jesus Christ or insinuates that Buddhists ought to become Catholics. The crux of the brief document is "evironmental protection" and it goes on the talk about how Catholics and Buddhists need to work together on projects such as "recycling, energy conservation, the prevention of indiscriminate destruction of plant and animal life, and the protection of waterways."

A document issued from the hierarchy of Korea to the Korean Buddhists is also questionable. This document, signed by Archbishop Nicholas Cheong Archbishop of Seoul and Bishop Boniface Choi Ki-san of Incheon, praises Buddha and refers to both Buddhists and Christians as "believers:"

Buddha presented the world with a life of interior peace and liberation for all who suffer and are fatigued. Believers of all religions in Korea must faithfully practice their religion. If we believers respect and love one another the world will be a better place and we can offer to all hope and consolation. It is natural for us to live together in this land, to work for development and prosperity of the nation in mutual respect and understanding to lead people towards eternal values and in this way open the door for a bright future for the people of Korea.


Who does the document refer to when it says "if we believers respect and love one another"? It is obvious that it is referring to the "believers of all religions" mentioned above, whom the Archbishop encourages to "faithfully practice their religion." So Buddhists are encouraged to go on worshiping Buddha, animists to their totems and fetishes, and Muslims to their false god. No mention is made of Jesus or the one sheepfold (John 10), but Buddha is praised as a teacher who "presented the world with a life of interior peace and liberation."

Much has been said about this type of thing over the years by many Traditionalists and concerned Catholics the world over, but I will make but two observations here. First, in attempts to stave off any notion of evangelization (or "proselytism" as it is commonly called), such statements on interreligious dialogue inevitably wind up focusing on merely temporal, worldly affairs. A prime example is the Assisi prayer gatherings for "world peace." Like those gatherings, this document from the Vatican and the Korean statement focus on purely transitory and worldly goals: environmental protection and "development and prosperity" in Korea. While these goals are good, there is the danger that as they are continually brought up time and time again, and as the name of Jesus of the need for His grace is continually neglected, it comes to pass over the years that people believe the whole reason for interreligious dialogue is nothing other than the attainment of worldly goals, or worse, that people think that religion itself if about establishing world peace or environmental responsibility.

Second, interreligious dialogue, if we want to be anal about the Latin meaning, would be translated as dialogue among religions (inter = among, between). But nothing is more one-sided than Catholic interreligious dialogue. Where are the yearly documents from the Buddhists at Christmas, celebrating Jesus' birth and praising His teaching? Where are the statements from all the imams congratulating us at Easter time on the Resurrection of our Lord? Where are the statements of the rabbis and Jews of the world saying that the New Testament is truly an inspired book and that the New Covenant is a valid covenant? How about Hindu statements on the sublimity and majesty of the Holy Trinity? They simply don't exist. These other religions expect Christians to pander to them and give credence to every false god and superstition in their pantheons but stubbornly deny to give the same to Christ.

Not that Christ needs the same from them to be validated! For unlike these hyper-sensitive apostles of tolerance, we understand that Christ does not stand or fall depending on what the Jews or Hindus say about Him. Let them scorn Him! Let them revile! I'd rather they bend the knee, but I understand that Christ and Christianity are opposed to the world system and not part of it, which is a truth we need to reclaim. Unfortunately, modern interreligious dialogue in the Catholic Church seems to be more about convincing ourselves that we are not intolerant than about converting the nations or even about understanding their religions.

That is the true paradoxical failure of interreligious dialogue. Not only do we fail to win souls for Christ, but by glossing over differences and focusing on merely temporal goals, we fail to even understand the other religion that we profess to be wanting to learn about. Anybody who studied Islam objectively is capable of understanding its historical roots, its propensity to violence, and the vision of a world caliphate with all peoples subject to it. It is only when we become blinded by false unity in the name of tolerance that we are forced to set aside such obvious observations and create for ourselves not only a false Catholicism but a false Islam as well, one that is solely a "religion of peace." Thus, while giving our own patrimony and religious traditions away, we fail to understand those we are engaged with.What a tragedy.