Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

I sure do miss having classes with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

From Fr. Pacwa's monthly e-letter column, "Words of Wisdom", these thoughts on the liturgy and various conflicts within the Church over the past forty years:

Some people think that since the Novus Ordo was created, it has been the cause of confusion for Catholics. I do not think that the Novus Ordo is itself the cause of the problem but rather the occasion for the abuses that have occurred. I believe, rather, that the problem began with the priests and religious, plus many lay people, who so accepted the post-war philosophies, especially existentialism and, for some, Marxism, that the Catholic Faith and their commitment to Jesus Christ the Son of God and Redeemer were replaced with a humanistic set of assumptions. The faith needed to be judged by the standards of philosophy rather than judge philosophy by the standards of the Faith. Add to this the social turmoil of the 1960's, when all institutions were treated as suspect, at best. The liturgy became an occasion to express ideology and politics. Furthermore, the teaching of catechism was seriously compromised after 1968, so people were not being taught the Faith. In such a context, everything new seemed to be acceptable, even though the instinct of faith went contrary to the nonsense. The heterodox Catholic progressives had the dynamic force from the 1960's into the 1980's.

   That situation is changing, in some ways for the better. The left is aging and has no young followers to push its agenda. The young either become apathetic about a faith emptied of its truth and power through the progressive agenda, or they become orthodox. I describe the heterodox liberals as spiritual geldings and spays; they have removed the essentials of their faith and cannot reproduce, bringing in neither converts nor vocations. The best they can do is make geldings and spays of those who do possess the faith: this is not an appealing prospect for most people.

   I am in favor of the restoration of the 1962 liturgy, though I do not intend to celebrate it. I use my talents in the Maronite Mass, where the default language is Aramaic, which I studied in grad school. My Arabic studies are also useful there. However, I promote the Latin Mass because it is an extremely important corrective to the abuses that have been - and still are - foisted upon the people of God in the Novus Ordo. This is not merely a tip of the hat to its inherent beauty, but also to the truths it proclaims in its very nature. I also promote the improvement of the translation of the Novus Ordo. The present translation altered so much - apparently with an ideological purpose - that it becomes easy to miss the proclamations of the Catholic Faith which the liturgy actually proclaims.

    Finally, I hope for a full reconciliation among all Catholics who believe the truths of our Faith. The divisions need to end, with a true reconciliation and not with mere capitulation. We need to focus on converting our modern world to Christ, especially the Muslims. God's grace is already operative within Islam, as over ten million Muslims a year become Christian - a first in history. May the dignity and truth of the liturgy be one more of God's tools for this service.

In Christ Jesus,

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.

This particular edition of "Words of Wisdom" is not yet archived, but you can read older editions here. And, of course, you can catch Fr. Pacwa on "EWTN Live" on Wednesday evenings.

Weigel and Allen on Pope Benedict, the Trip, Islam, Catholic Education

Amy Welborn has linked to an informative, serious discussion involving George Weigel, John Allen, Jr., and various media folks that was sponsored by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and was held on April 1st. There is plenty to highlight, but I'll just select one brief section:

SALLY QUINN, ON FAITH: I want to go back to Regensburg because you all have talked about how that was really an opening for dialogue. But a lot of Muslims don’t see it that way, and there is a lot of contention about Regensburg. I was at a conference at Georgetown recently between Catholics and Muslims, and the Muslims were universally upset by this and essentially saying that Regensburg set dialogue back years. How do you all feel about that?

WEIGEL: Well, it set the dialogue in which those people have been engaged back. But that dialogue was going nowhere and the pope knew it. An inter-religious dialogue that is an exchange of pleasantries – aren’t we all wonderful; wouldn’t it be nice if everyone else was as wonderful as we are – there are no real issues here. That’s not dialogue and that’s not tolerance.

Tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring difference as if difference didn’t make a difference. Tolerance comes from the Latin, tolerare, to bear with. Tolerance means to engage differences with civility and respect. So I’m not surprised that those people who have in a sense owned the inter-religious dialogue franchise for the past 30 years are a little bit bent out of shape that somebody came along and rearranged the pieces on the chessboard.

If you’re looking at this in 100-, 200-, 300-year terms, as John correctly suggests this pope thinks, what’s really of interest is not what those people think, but what King Abdullah has done. What is of interest is not that certain people complained about the Magdi Allam baptism, but that the guy who raised the loudest complaints is still coming to the Catholic-Muslim Forum meeting in Rome because he knows that’s where the action is.

So I think that’s what has to be said, Sally, on that front, that this conversation had gotten into a set of grooves that were leading really nowhere. And a new set of grooves had to be created in which these two questions – come back to this again – religious freedom as a human right that can be known by moral reason, whether you’re religious or not, and the separation of religious and political authority in the state. Two issues that have tended to be back-burnered, pushed to the side of the plate in inter-religious dialogue precisely because they’re neuralgic, have now been put in play and in a way that serious people have responded to in a serious way. And I suspect those who are of the old school, if you will, will catch up with the program eventually when they see that’s where the bus is moving over time.

A recommended read. Weigel, of course, has written a number of notable books on John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Catholicism in general, Europe and secularism, and, most recently, on terrorism: Faith, Reason And The War Against Jihadism.

The Idiotic Column of the Week brought to you by...

...a certain Randall H. Miller, described as "an American educator and blogger currently living in the Dominican Republic." In an article titled, "How to Incite Muslims", posted on OpEdNews.com, Miller attempts to engage with reality, but reveals that he is not quite up to the daunting task:

Just in case you don’t recognize the charming man in this photo, it’s Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) the head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. When he’s not busy sending thousands of Catholic operatives to Africa to teach against condom use (even between married couples where only one partner is infected) or condemning anybody whose not Catholic to eternal hellfire, he can be found inciting Muslims with his arrogance and poor judgement.

And how has the condom-hating, hellfire-spewing Pope incited Muslims? Perhaps by yelling, "Death to the Jihadists!" from his window at the Vatican? By sponsoring terrorism against innocent men, women, and children around the world? By calling Muslims names such as "pigs" and "swine" and "vermin"? No, no, no—something far worse:

Religious tension around the world is so thick you could cut it with a crucifix. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists (yes, even them!), and the super-delusional Scientologists are all embattled in their own struggles brought about by their religious convictions. This tension can manifest itself violently in the blink of an eye. So, what does the Pope do? He personally baptizes Magdi Allam on Easter Sunday in Saint Peter’s Basilica to much fanfare. Why the show? I’m all for civil rights and free speech, but did he not consider that doing so could put a target on the back of every Catholic around the world? Couldn’t Allam have been baptized in his local parish like everyone else?

Because, don't you see, dear reader, that a quiet act of religious expression is a most despicable and confrontational thing? Don't you see that any Muslim who heard of this unspeakably offensive action cannot help but be outraged, angered, and even incensed? You see, it is our fault. No theirs. We have free will. They don't. We must take responsibility for our actions. They don't.

The Muslim world needs to be engaged by the West. Not all nice and snuggly, but seriously engaged. They need to be educated them that our values like free speech, gender equality, and democracy are things we will never, ever give up. The message needs to be sent clearly that they don’t have to like our ways, but they’d better get used to them. Unfortunately, we won’t get to that kind of direct dialogue as long as high-profile religious zealots like the Pope continue to sabotage the way with unnecessary incitement. Baptizing a Muslim on Easter Sunday in Saint Peter’s Basilica?

And who, in fact, is engaging the Muslim world in serious, non-snuggly dialogue? One guess.

Father Samir Khalil Samir, S.J., provides some excellent analysis...

...of the reaction to the baptism, by Pope Benedict XVI, of Magdi Allam. Fr. Samir is a Jesuit and a scholar of Islam who teaches at Université Saint-Joseph in Beirut. His comments are published in Asia News, in an article titled "Magdi Christian Allam, a contested conversion" (March 27th). He writes:

The fact that Benedict XVI accepted to personally celebrate the baptism of Magdi Allam is surprising. It must also be said that he did so without ostentation, giving the same importance to all 7 baptised, and not giving precedence to the Muslim convert. This emphasis on the Islamic convert is the work of the press, overly used to attributing political meanings.

But Benedict XVI wanted to underline that everyone, Muslim, Atheist, Christians who have abandoned the faith, are all called to the faith.  He wanted to affirm the universality of the Christian calling, not because we Christians are the largest group, but to underline that every human being is called by Jesus. Everyone has the right to know Christ. No-one is excluded.

Of course, the presence of a Muslim among the catechumens is a sign for the Islamic world.  It is the most recalcitrant group to recognise this step. The pope, without violence or acridity seems to be saying: You too are called to discover Christ and to enter into the Church, if you so desire.

<snip>

The final aspect is that of reciprocity in the duty to evangelise. The pope and many Vatican documents underline that we Christians have the duty to announce the Gospel to everyone, and that everyone is free to accept it or refuse it.

How can we maintain the personal obligation to announce the Gospel while respecting the freedom of the other? The Church resolves this apparent contradiction by clearly stating that no one can be forced to convert. As early as the 8th century Arab Christian intellectuals wrote treatise underlining that not only is violence forbidden in calling someone to the faith, but that moral and spiritual pressure is also forbidden. And they were only too familiar with the financial, moral and physical pressures that they were subjected too in order to keep their faith!

Freedom to evangelise (tabshîr), and freedom to islamify (da’wa) must be guaranteed. Christianity, for me, is the most beautiful and perfect religion, and Islam, despite its many beautiful traits, is not the fulfilment of the divine project for man, it is not the appeal to humanism. At the same time I admit that the Muslim is convinced of the contrary and it is his right, rather his duty to be so! This is true reciprocal respect: each person follows his conscience and increasingly tries to enlighten the other.

The pope does not hide his certainty that Muslims still need one more step to reach the perfection of truth. But despite this he neither attacks nor slanders Muslims. And when a Muslim says to me “it is a shame you are not Muslim!” I understand that he holds me in deep respect. And my feelings towards him are the same.

This reciprocal respect is fundamental in order to build a peaceful coexistence between religions, but also with the atheist and secularist: a society in which each person is convinced of the truth of his position, but in which he is also convinced of the others right to live this certainty and live it with me.

Definitely worth the read.

L'Osservatore Romano: Muslims now outnumber Catholics

From The Washington Post:

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population _ a stable percentage _ while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.

Formenti said that the data refer to 2006. The figures on Muslims were put together by Muslim countries and then provided to the United Nations, he said, adding that the Vatican could only vouch for its own data.

When considering all Christians and not just Catholics, Christians make up 33 percent of the world population, Formenti said.

And, from The Guardian:

Formenti said the information on Muslim numbers had been released by the United Nations, while the Vatican's data on Catholics was based on questionnaires sent out to dioceses worldwide.

"Latin America remains the stronghold for Catholicism, while the American continent as a whole has 49.8% of the world's total," he said.

Formenti said that the number of Catholic priests was on the rebound, particularly in Asia, "where there are few Catholics, but they are driven by great spirit". He described Africa as a "grand resource" for the church, while Europe and North America were struggling. The number of nuns was undergoing a "drastic reduction".

As for the enrolment of seminarians, Guadalajara in Mexico had the largest number, with two seminaries "packed full".

France, the Netherlands and Belgium were bottom of the league, while Italy was seeing a "small, very small reprise".

• Priestly Vocations in America: Recent Trends | Jeff Ziegler | A detailed examination of vocations in the U.S.

TIME to consider some differences between Catholicism and Islam

Jeff Israely of TIME magazine reports/editorializes about the conversion of Magdi Allam:

Like Hirsan Ali, the Egyptian-born Allam was raised in a Muslim family, before emigrating as a teenager to Europe, where he eventually became famous for railing against what he sees as fundamental flaws in his native religion. The Rome-based journalist has faced repeated death threats from Islamic radicals, and travels to speaking engagements in Italy and abroad with an armed security detail. Needless to say, neither Allam nor Hirsan Ali show signs of toning down their criticism.

<snip>

Church officials may be pleased that Allam has so publicly joined the Catholic flock, but he is unlikely to become any kind of mediator in the Vatican's attempts to start a dialogue with Islam. That is because Allam is seen as almost belligerently anti-Islamic.

<snip>

This and other writings have led to widespread criticism among Muslims in Italy, who say he depicts only the worst of Islamic faith and culture. Not surprisingly, Allam has won the admiration of some of Europe's prominent conservatives and critics of Muslim immigration. He has been compared to Hirsan Ali, herself an avowed atheist who long ago renounced her faith, and now divides her time between Europe and the United States. Allam also struck up a friendship with Oriana Fallaci, the late Italian journalist and writer, who in recent years wrote anti-Muslim screeds and warned against Europe becoming "Eurabia." Fallaci, a Catholic by birth, was a non-believer through her adult life, though reportedly was exploring questions of faith as she battled terminal cancer. [emphasis added]

Let's say, just for kicks, that a journalist/writer who was raised as a Catholic or was raised in a Christian culture, began writing books saying how bad, violent, and utterly irrational is Catholicism specifically and Christianity in general. Would said writer (i.e., Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.) require 24/7 security details? Would he receive constant death threats? And, if he did receive a death threat, would it be treated as a "ho hum, oh, well, that's the way things are" sort of issue by Christians? By the media? Let's say that Sam Harris became a Muslim. Do you think he would face death threats from Christians for doing so?

Some or all of the atheists mentioned above likely hear, on occasion, nasty comments and have had a confrontation here and there with a peeved Christian. It happens, and everyone knows that every group, church, or movement has its jerks and idiots. But some of these new atheists have also engaged in well-attended, well-publicized debates with Christians such as Dinesh D'Souza. How many debates do you hear about taking place between critics of Islam and Muslim scholars/apologists? In addition, Hitchens and Co. have largely received the red carpet treatment in the media. They work in freedom and enjoy financial success and publicity because of their books criticizing religion, especially Christianity.

Frankly, if being sympathetic toward the nation of Israel (that is, thinking it has a right to exist) and being critical of certain aspects of Islam are all it takes to targeted for assassination, I think I'd also tend toward being "belligerently anti-Islamic." Really now, is this so hard to comprehend?

A Catholic News Service story reports:

When Pope Benedict XVI welcomed into the Catholic Church a Muslim-born journalist often critical of Islam, it was not a sign that the pope accepts everything the journalist believes, said the Vatican spokesman.

The Italian journalist, Magdi Allam, "has the right to express his own ideas. They remain his personal opinions without in any way becoming the official expression of the positions of the pope or the Holy See," said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi.

Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, made his comments March 27 in response to a statement from Aref Ali Nayed, a spokesman for the 138 Muslim scholars who initiated the Common Word dialogue project in October and who established the Catholic-Muslim Forum for dialogue with the Vatican in early March.

Father Lombardi said baptism is a recognition that the person entering the church "has freely and sincerely accepted the Christian faith in its fundamental articles" as expressed in the creed.

"Of course, believers are free to maintain their own ideas on a vast range of questions and problems on which legitimate pluralism exists among Christians," he said. "Welcoming a new believer into the church clearly does not mean espousing all that person's ideas and opinions, especially on political and social matters."

This is especially revealing:

Nayed questioned the pope's decision to baptize Allam March 22 during the globally televised Easter Vigil from St. Peter's Basilica.

"It is sad that the intimate and personal act of a religious conversion is made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points," Nayed said.

"It is sad that the particular person chosen for such a highly public gesture has a history of generating, and continues to generate, hateful discourse," he added.

He refers, of course, to Allam's criticisms of Islam. But what does he have to say about the numerous death threats against Allam? Are those "hateful"? Is there any interest on his part in condemning those threatening, hateful remarks?

Again, let's say that some wing nut, in the course of being interviewed about March Madness, suddenly started yelling, "Death to Hitchens! Death to Harris! Death in the name of Jesus!" Would Christian leaders be silent? Would they shrug? If they said or did nothing, would they get a free pass from the media? From the public? Would Hitchens and Harris be taken to task by TIME magazine for being "almost belligerently anti-Christian"? Just wondering.

Finally, Sherry Weddell has a post that asks, "Why do Muslims convert to Christianity?":

In many places, apostasy [from Islam] is tantamount to rejecting family, religion, culture, ethnicity, and nationality. Thus, many Muslim converts face persecution from family, police, or militants. Two friends were unable to fill out the questionnaire—one because he was apparently poisoned by his own family, the other because the government imprisoned him and later his tongue was cut out by a warlord so that he could no longer say the name of Jesus.

Well, who knows—those converts may have been "anti-Islamic", so who's to say they were treated unfairly? (And, yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

UPDATE: George Weigel, author of Faith, Reason And The War Against Jihadism (as well as many other books), talks about Allam's baptism over at NRO:

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What’s the most important message about the war we’re in coming out of Magdi Allam’s conversion from Islam to Catholicism?

GEORGE WEIGEL: The war against jihadism is, among many other things, a war in defense of religious freedom, the first of human rights. That war is, at bottom, a war of ideas — of different ideas about the human person and different ideas of human obligation. Magdi Allam has courageously defended the religious freedom of all while sharply criticizing those currents of thought in Islam which would deny the right of religious conversion to Muslims. Now he fights the war of ideas from a different foxhole, so to speak.

Read the entire interview.

The testimony of Magdi Allam

The Muslim journalist who was baptized by Benedict XVI at Saturday's Easter Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica has written a short account of why and how he decided to become Catholic. From ZENIT:

Yesterday evening I converted to the Christian Catholic religion, renouncing my previous Islamic faith. Thus, I finally saw the light, by divine grace -- the healthy fruit of a long, matured gestation, lived in suffering and joy, together with intimate reflection and conscious and manifest expression. I am especially grateful to his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who imparted the sacraments of Christian initiation to me, baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, in the Basilica of St. Peter’s during the course of the solemn celebration of the Easter Vigil. And I took the simplest and most explicit Christian name: “Cristiano.” Since yesterday evening therefore my name is Magdi Crisitano Allam.

For me it is the most beautiful day of [my] life. To acquire the gift of the Christian faith during the commemoration of Christ’s resurrection by the hand of the Holy Father is, for a believer, an incomparable and inestimable privilege. At almost 56 […], it is a historical, exceptional and unforgettable event, which marks a radical and definitive turn with respect to the past. The miracle of Christ’s resurrection reverberated through my soul, liberating it from the darkness in which the preaching of hatred and intolerance in the face of the “different,” uncritically condemned as “enemy,” were privileged over love and respect of “neighbor,” who is always, an in every case, “person”; thus, as my mind was freed from the obscurantism of an ideology that legitimates lies and deception, violent death that leads to murder and suicide, the blind submission to tyranny, I was able to adhere to the authentic religion of truth, of life and of freedom.

On my first Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the first time the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason.

And, a bit later, this striking paragraph:

Dear Director, you asked me whether I fear for my life, in the awareness that conversion to Christianity will certainly procure for me yet another, and much more grave, death sentence for apostasy. You are perfectly right. I know what I am headed for but I face my destiny with my head held high, standing upright and with the interior solidity of one who has the certainty of his faith. And I will be more so after the courageous and historical gesture of the Pope, who, as soon has he knew of my desire, immediately agreed to personally impart the Christian sacraments of initiation to me. His Holiness has sent an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church that until now has been too prudent in the conversion of Muslims, abstaining from proselytizing in majority Muslim countries and keeping quiet about the reality of converts in Christian countries. Out of fear. The fear of not being able to protect converts in the face of their being condemned to death for apostasy and fear of reprisals against Christians living in Islamic countries. Well, today Benedict XVI, with his witness, tells us that we must overcome fear and not be afraid to affirm the truth of Jesus even with Muslims.

Read the entire piece.

Benedict, Easter, and Islam

From Pope Benedict XVI's "Urbi et Orbi" Easter Day address:

"Resurrexi, et adhuc tecum sum. Alleluia! I have risen, I am still with you. Alleluia! Dear brothers and sisters, Jesus, crucified and risen, repeats this joyful proclamation to us today: the Easter proclamation. Let us welcome it with deep wonder and gratitude!

Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum. I have risen, I am still with you, for ever. These words, taken from an ancient version of Psalm 138 (v. 18b), were sung at the beginning of today's Mass. In them, at the rising of the Easter sun, the Church recognizes the voice of Jesus himself who, on rising from death, turns to the Father filled with gladness and love, and exclaims: My Father, here I am! I have risen, I am still with you, and so I shall be forever; your Spirit never abandoned me. In this way we can also come to a new understanding of other passages from the psalm: "If I climb the heavens, you are there; if I descend into the underworld, you are there. Even darkness is not dark for you, and the night is as clear as day; for you, darkness is like light" (Ps 138:8,12). It is true: in the solemn Easter vigil, darkness becomes light, night gives way to the day that knows no sunset. The death and resurrection of the Word of God incarnate is an event of invincible love, it is the victory of that Love which has delivered us from the slavery of sin and death. It has changed the course of history, giving to human life an indestructible and renewed meaning and value.

"I have risen and I am still with you, forever." These words invite us to contemplate the risen Christ, letting his voice resound in our heart. With his redeeming sacrifice, Jesus of Nazareth has made us adopted children of God, so that we too can now take our place in the mysterious dialogue between him and the Father. We are reminded of what he once said to those who were listening: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). In this perspective, we note that the words addressed by the risen Jesus to the Father on this day "I am still with you, for ever" apply indirectly to us as well, "children of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" (cf. Rom 8:17). Through the death and resurrection of Christ, we too rise to new life today, and uniting our voice with his, we proclaim that we wish to remain for ever with God, our infinitely good and merciful Father.

Read the entire address.

In related news, a moderate Muslim author was baptized by the Pope on Easter (from Reuters):

A Muslim author and critic of Islamic fundamentalism who was baptised a Catholic by Pope Benedict said on Sunday Islam is "physiologically violent" and he is now in great danger because of his conversion.

"I realise what I am going up against but I will confront my fate with my head high, with my back straight and the interior strength of one who is certain about his faith," said Magdi Allam.

In a surprise move on Saturday night, the pope baptised the 55-year-old, Egyptian-born Allam at an Easter eve service in St Peter's Basilica that was broadcast around the world.

The conversion of Allam to Christianity -- he took the name "Christian" for his baptism -- was kept secret until the Vatican disclosed it in a statement less than an hour before it began.

Writing in Sunday's edition of the leading Corriere della Sera, the newspaper of which he is a deputy director, Allam said: "... the root of evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual".

Allam, who is a strong supporter of Israel and who an Israeli newspaper once called a "Muslim Zionist," has lived under police protection following threats against him, particularly after he criticised Iran's position on Israel.

He said before converting he had continually asked himself why someone who had struggled for what he called "moderate Islam" was then "condemned to death in the name of Islam and on the basis of a Koranic legitimisation".

From The Jerusalem Post:

Yahya Pallavicini, vice president of Coreis, a group of observant Muslims in Italy, said he respected Allam's choice but was "perplexed" by the symbolic and high-profile way in which he chose to convert.

"If Allam truly was compelled by a strong spiritual inspiration, perhaps it would have been better to do it delicately," Pallavicini said, according to the ANSA news agency.

By "delicately" it seems Pallavicini means "non-publicly." Yes, the "respect" is palpable. It's the sort of "respect" that says, "As long as you don't let people know what you really think and believe, you'll be fine." That is simply intimidation posing as respect, the sort of double-talk used by those who have little or no respect for the beliefs of others. Addressing this sort of mentality in a recent column, Fr. Jonathon Morris wrote the following for FOX.com:

Bin Laden even knows the crusade is not against Islam. 

Benedict’s crusade can be likened to a quiet pilgrimage in the pursuit of rescuing human reason from the clutches of fundamentalism. It aims to restore reason as the great cultural meeting point for people of every race and creed.

While Benedict sees rationality as the only suitable launching pad of all true faith, bin Laden sees it as the great obstacle to his manipulation of the masses. While Benedict sees faith and reason as mutually enriching sources of truth, bin Laden sees the former as incompatible with the later. And while Benedict claims God can never command us to do evil because the first universal moral dictate of reason —“do good and avoid evil”— reflects his loving voice, bin Laden on the other hand claims Allah can do whatever he pleases, evil included.

The good news Benedict is preaching is that truth and goodness are of universal attraction. The more Pope Benedict whispers about universals, the more Muslims will listen. And they already are. Earlier this month the Vatican announced 225 Muslim leaders have asked to enter into official dialogue with Christians to proclaim the need for peace and mutual respect. Last week the Muslim country of Qatar inaugurated its first official Christian church. After the historic and first ever visit of a Saudi King to the Vatican last year, the two states are now in negotiations to allow the construction of Christian churches in the Kingdom, the holy ground of Mecca and Medina.

These are small, but incredibly significant signs that Muslims too are signing up to fight the crusade.    

Let's hope and pray it is so.

Shari'a law and the "elephant in the room"

David Yerushalmi, senior attorney at the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies and legal adviser to the Center for Security Policy, writes at First Things about the recent comments of Rowan Williams and the possible place of Islamic law, or Shari’a, in Western nations:

This is already taking place in the United States. So what’s the fuss all about?

The fuss is about the elephant in the room, or, better yet, the wolf in sheep’s clothing that some Americans fail to acknowledge. Put simply, not all foreign or religious laws are equal. Most foreign laws, be they sourced in secular legal codes or religious ones, are not predicated on a doctrine of world domination and holy war. But what if a legal system is founded upon the goal of conquering the world through holy war when persuasion and subjugation are not immediately successful?

In other words, should a society lend legitimacy to a legal system whose raison d’être is the destruction of that society? Moreover, how should a society treat a legal system that obligates its faithful to use violent jihad to accomplish its goals?

Good questions. Read the entire piece.

The Judgment of God

The Judgment of God | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | February 18, 2008   

"When one is not aware of the judgment of God, when one does not recognize the possibility of hell, of the radical and definitive failure of life; then one does not recognize the possibility and necessity for purification. Then man does not work well on behalf of the world, because in the end he loses his bearings; he no longer knows himself, not knowing God, and destroying the world. All of the great ideologies have promised: We will take things in hand; we will no longer overlook the world; we will create the new, just, correct fraternal world. Instead, they destroyed the world." — Benedict XVI, To Roman Clergy, February 7, 2008.

"The greatest moral challenges headed our way do not, in fact, come from hate-filled fanatics threatening death and destruction. They come rather from well-meaning scientists and technologists offering life, pleasure and enhancement.... Human nature itself lies on the operating table, ready for alteration, for eugenic and psychic 'enhancement,' for wholesale redesign. In leading laboratories, new creators are confidently amassing their powers and quietly honing their skills, while on the street, their evangelists are zealously prophesying a post-human future. For anyone who cares about preserving our humanity, the time has come to pay attention." — Leon Kass, Commencement Address, St. John's College, Annapolis, 2007

I.

An underlying theme of Benedict's "Regensburg Lecture" was that we are confronted with at least two immediate threats of a worldwide scope.

The first is radical Islam, which will not go away, all our naïve pretending that it will voluntarily disappear notwithstanding. We simply refuse to grasp how a religion can, after centuries of relative inactivity, suddenly rearm itself to pursue the same goal it had from its beginnings. This goal is the conquest of the rest of the world for Allah by whatever means seem feasible at the time. Very intelligent and aggressive men do conceive that, at no time in the modern era, has this goal seemed more feasible and attainable by disciplined Islamic movements.

Read the entire essay...