Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

It’s Time for The Vatican to be Realistic About Islam

The cover of the October, 2014 issue of Dabiq, official publication of ISIS, shows their flag flying over St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

In what is an ongoing frustration for many Catholics, the Vatican continues to insist on friendly relations with Islam. It started with Nostra Aetate #3 and Lumen Gentium #16, neither of which are particularly compatible with what the saints previously said about Islam. Since the Second Vatican Council, this innovative understanding of a religion Catholic thinkers like Belloc have characterized as a “great heresy” continues to spiral. In Evangelii Gaudium #253, Pope Francis asserts that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” More recently, there has been common prayer in the Vatican gardens (where the imam went off-script and used subversive, anti-Trinitarian language in Arabic).

Meanwhile various Islamic groups have been talking about conquering Rome.

Even now, the Vatican is insisting that dialogue with Islam is possible:

Amid continued violence by ISIS and other militant Islamist groups, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued a declaration stressing that dialogue with Islam must be sought “now more than ever.”

The council emphasized that “killing in the name of a religion offends God, but it is also a defeat for humanity.”

The declaration was released April 22, and is the second of its kind issued by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

On Aug. 12, 2014, as the violence of ISIS was spreading through Iraq, the Pontifical Council delivered a strongly worded communique to condemn the self-proclaimed caliphate’s actions and to call all religious leaders, especially Muslims, to take a strong stance against violence.

Eight months later, the Pontifical Council is once again underscoring that “believers are a formidable potential of peace,” and so continuing dialogue, “even when we experience persecution, may become a sign of hope.”

In the current scenario, “we are called to strengthen fraternity and dialogue,” the council said.

The declaration comes shortly after the latest killings of Ethiopian Christians in Libya by militants of the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

“After the recent events, many people ask us whether ‘there is still space to dialogue with Muslims?’ The answer is: yes, more than ever,” the declaration begins.

Dialogue may be first of all fostered, it says, because “the great majority of Muslims themselves” do not identify with “the barbarity put into action.”

“Unfortunately, the word ‘religion’ is nowadays often associated with the word ‘violence’, while believers must prove that religions are called to be bearers of peace and not of violence.”

But as Islamic scholar and 1P5 Contributor Andrew Bieszad has been trying to warn us, dialogue with Islam is a “delusion”:

I have a lot to say about Islam because there’s a lot that needs to be said that is NOT being said, and the Catholic faithful are suffering because of it. But I’ll begin with a simple proposition … The current, post-Vatican II view on Islam and Catholic-Muslim relations is in direct opposition to all related Catholic teaching that came before it.

“Dialogue” is not a solution to the problems of sin and salvation. That’s why Christ lived and died, established the Church on Peter, instituted the sacraments, and so on. This is understood intellectually by many Catholics involved in “dialogue,”  but it is almost never realized in practice. The fact is, most “interreligious dialogue,” especially with Muslims, is a poor excuse for the inability or failure of those Catholics to evangelize. They choose to seek acknowledgement, approval, and even friendship from others instead of addressing the important issues of death, judgment, Hell, and Heaven with them.

There is no easy way to address any of these issues because Catholicism and Islam are dogmatically irreconcilable. One must accept one and reject the other or vice versa. There is no “common ground” with Islam except in mere superficialities, and even those “similarities” are often rooted in directly opposing dogmas. It’s like two people agreeing that doughnuts are bad because one doesn’t like the way doughnuts taste, while the other thinks doughnuts are an unhealthy, nutrient-void substitute for real food.

But the greater issue, I believe, is the unspoken statement by the two Muslim women who called me an infidel: Dialogue cannot exist with non-Muslims because they are infidels.


[T]he central problem with Catholic-Muslim dialogue, however … is this: Any “interfaith dialogue” is absolutely pre-conditioned upon one person wanting to seek an accurate understanding of the other.  Islamic theology dogmatically defines as divinely revealed truth Christian dogma according to its — Islam’s — own understanding. Catholic-Muslim dialogue consistently fails not because of a lack of willingness on the part of the participants — especially in our own Church — but because for any Muslim faithful to orthodox Islamic theological teaching, to dialogue with Christians would be an act of heresy.

As far as Islam is concerned, there is no such thing as “dialogue.” There are only three things: (1) Islam or falsehood; (2) belief in or rejection of Islam; and (3) the subsequent consequences for acceptance or rejection.

Dr. Joseph McCabe, another student of Islam, has also argued that the most strongly associated form of Islamic violence — the practice of beheading — is actually grounded directly in Islamic sacred texts:

[L]et us turn to the Qur’an.  Islam’s defenders frequently refer to Qur’an 8:12 and say that this verse has somehow been “misinterpreted” by Islamic jihadists today (e.g. Islamic State) and that in fact this verse does not command beheading. The verse reads [Sahih International translation]:

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them]upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.

First, despite its obvious connotation, it should be noted that this particular verse (8:12) is not the verse typically cited within Islamic jurisprudence to justify beheading.  The verse which overwhelmingly is used by Islamic scholars to do so is not verse 8:12, but rather verse 47:4 [Sahih International]:

“So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their]necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom [them]until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]…” [emphasis added].

The significance of verse 8:12 should not be discounted. But for the record, 47:4 is the verse that deserves particular attention, because it is the verse that respected Islamic scholars themselves cite to justify beheading [see Bulandshahri, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Ibn Kathir, Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, among many others].

Second, it is universally acknowledged by the most respected Islamic scholars and Qur’an commentators, both classical and modern, that the interpretation of Qur’an 47:4 is precisely that beheading is justified by this verse.  All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Shafi, Maliki, Hanafi, and Hanbali) interpret 47:4 as an unambiguous justification — within the Sharia — of the practice of beheading.  Also, Zamakhshari takes “strike at the necks” to mean that Muslims should strike non-Muslims specifically on the neck rather than elsewhere, so as to make sure they are dead, and not just wounded.

So what is happening in Rome? It’s almost as if the Vatican is willfully refusing to see the truth of this threat. To what purpose? I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. But things will not end well if this approach continues. Proof of the continued delusion that the Church and Islam can get along comes in a story that broke just this morning. An Al Qaeda network set up to attack the Vatican was just taken down by Italian police:

Italian police raided several locations today throughout the country, arresting eighteen people in an effort to shut down a “very well-structured” al-Qaeda finance and operations network. The ring had targeted the Vatican in 2010 and again just recently, and had also worked to raise money through human-trafficking operations. Even with that, though, the ring predates the post-Qaddafi surge in refugees, and was comprised mainly of Pakistanis, not North Africans.


Prosecutor Mauro Mura told a press conference in Cagliari, Sardinia, on Friday that wiretaps indicated the suspected terrorists were planning a bomb attack at the Vatican and that a suicide bomber had arrived in Rome.

Mura said the attack plans never went further and that the suicide bomber left Italy, though it wasn’t clear why. He said the wiretaps gave “signals of some preparation for a possible attack.”

It’s time for Catholics — and especially our leaders in Rome — to wake up. These militants intended to target Pope Benedict in 2010; some believe that Pope Francis may be an even bigger target today.

We are called to love our enemies. This is why the message in the video we posted earlier this week is so powerful. But we must also be honest enough to call our enemies enemies.

Catholics have sought the conversion of Muslims for fourteen centuries. But they have also fought them with arms. The reason Europe is not under Sharia law (yet) today is because of the valiant armies that marched under the banner of the Cross, who won critical battles against Islamic armies at Lepanto, at Malta, at Zenta, at Vienna, and more. The Spanish fought Islamic invasion in their own country for eight hundred years. Islam is a religion that spreads, assimilates, and consumes. If it is not resisted, it conquers. The very word “Islam” itself means “submission.”

When your house is broken into in the middle of the night by a man who has been publicly proclaiming that he’s going to come in and kill you and your family, it might not be in your best interest to attempt “dialogue” with him once he’s already inside. Still, if you feel that it’s important to talk him out of doing something stupid, your side of the conversation is going to be a lot more persuasive if you’re pointing a loaded gun.

We have a right to defend ourselves, our nations, and our society. We also have an obligation to evangelize and save souls. When it comes to Islam, we must begin with an understanding that for truly orthodox Muslims, anyone outside their worldview is seen as either a conquest or a threat to be eliminated. Any strategy for dealing with them must start there.

41 thoughts on “It’s Time for The Vatican to be Realistic About Islam”

  1. “Religion(S) are called to be bearers of peace, and not violence.”

    Did Christ say other religions could bring peace?

  2. Great piece. Those words on Islam in Evangelii Gaudium is proof enough that that effort is not part of the authentic Magisterium.

    • They are false and therefore not authentic Magisterium. In fact, it is not within the mission of the Magisterium to declare what Islam is. That is the result of the study of the Islamic canoncial texts. There has been a lack of due diligence in this due to an excessive zeal for dialgoue.

  3. As the former spokesman of the future Holy Father stated: “If the Pope does not recognize the values of Islam and it is left like that, in twenty seconds we will have destroyed everything that has been built over the last twenty years.”

    Let there not be left a stone upon a stone, that is not thrown down.

    So much of what Islam is often denigrated for, has its parallels in the true faith. In this way, compared to the modern Western man, Muslims are saner, more human, and perhaps even less subject to God’s condemnation. (“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”) The insistence that God’s empire must encompass the whole Earth. The patriarchal structure, with harsh judgment of sexual immorality (not to say that it is not taken to abusive extremes). The willingness to defend all this with one’s life. Refusal to compromise with decadent values and systems, or with contrary religions. Resolve to undermine those systems. In a word, they are illiberal, or some of them are.

    In them all this good is deeply perverted by their false religion. But far too often, when the West criticizes Islam, they are really criticizing the forgotten specter of true, illiberal Catholicism, to which they equate it. We should always be very precise about why Islam is evil, to avoid encouraging that narrative.

    • If it’s a reflection of Catholicism, it’s an entirely perverse one. It apes the goodness of the Church in a way that distorts the true, the good, and the beautiful.

      It reminds me of the way in Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ the Devil mocks the Blessed Virgin by caressing the imp baby.

      • I think I.B.’s comments are well thought out. Incomplete. Yes. But there is an element of appreciation for the devotion and obedience islamists hold. The problem is their obedience is to Satan’s distortions of God’s will (i.e. islam is Satan’s response to the Resurrection, as mohommed is his response to Christ – remember, ‘I want to be like thee’). So I get what IB is saying, although incomplete. I also, see what you are saying (which validates my comments) in that, what has been lost in the obedience being angry and violent with no mercy or compassion. The love is the reason for the obedience. Not obedience for its own sake, then reinforced by terror and violence. Islam will always be wrong. It can never be right, no matter how its practiced. But when it is peaceful, we simply need to think about it less.

      • Satan wants to be god. He will imitate the One True Faith in everything. That’s where Ioannes got it right about Islam: imitating what would love to be.

  4. The current wave of immigration into Europe is part of a pre-planned, organised, well financed strategy to Islamise Europe. Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable.

    While it is understandable that Secular Europe can pretend that they can live with Islam, Islam has other ideas and the Secularists are in for a rude shock.

    There is however no excuse at all for the Catholic Church and our current Pope to be under this delusion. It is wrong of the present Pope to have pretended that Catholicism and the pagan/Judeo/Christian heresy, we know as Islam, are in any way compatible.

    It may be that the Pope’s denunciation of the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide is the start of a more honest and realistic attitude by him towards Islam.

    • Until he *does* something beyond empty words, this Pope should be seen as just another “useful idiot”, helping the rot along and doing absolutely nothing to resist it. His garden meeting is down there with the Assisi Abominations. It wasn’t wrong – it was a huge scandal. And it tests to breaking-point any idea that Popes are reliable guides as to what is compatible w/ Catholicism. There is absolutely nothing to hope for from the Papacy – all it’s good for is to echo “the false maxims of the world”. If it were Catholic, it would not for one moment cosy up to Islam as it does. One example: it cannot complain of gay marriage, when it has not a word of criticism for Mahometan polygamy. It must condemn both, or neither, on pain of making Catholicism totally incoherent.

      I very much hope you are right about the Pope, but I doubt it very much. Benedict XVI swallowed his words in 2006 after the Mahometans complained, and I doubt this one will be any better 🙁

      • I think one could say it was wrong in that it violated the norms set out by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos as regards interfaith prayer.

        It’s also wrong in that it gives Muslims the sense that the Vatican, once prayed in, is subject to jihad.

      • James,
        In the history of the Church we have had good, indifferent and bad Popes. That’s life, or rather the Church.
        I have my reservations about the present Pope. They started when he came out onto the balcony and said “good afternoon”. I knew then we were in for trouble.
        However, I wish him a long papacy, well, I have to. I mean he is the same age as I am, if you see what I mean!

  5. You cannot Dialog with someone who want to kill you because of your religious beliefs. The American president hids himself behind this false belief that Islam is a Peaceful Religion, while it continues to kill people around the world for their religious faith. Obama is an evil man pure and simply because he will not speak the Truth, and the Vatican better get real, or face the consequences.

  6. The comments from the Vatican stressed dialogue “with Muslims”, not with Islam per se. Violence in the name of Islam of course must be condemned and counteracted. His Holiness Pope Francis recognizes that. At the same time, as followers of Christ, we must bear him faithful witness to all whom we encounter, Muslims included.

    • That’s hair splitting. While you’re “dialoguing” with “muslims,” (a pointless exercise as this article demonstrates), “islam per se” runs roughshod over your country.

      Modernists by definition are convinced they are smarter, more developed, more ‘evolved’ then all who came before them. “Modern man” and all that.

      That staggering arrogance leads them to believe they can accomplish with words what has only been possible through arms; containment of a heathen, barbaric false religion; islam.

      They will fail.

      The only question is whether we will reject the approach of the idiot modernists in time to pick up our arms and save what’s left of civilization.

      • Can you imagine the Crusaders riding into the Islamic provinces and asking them to lay down their swords and talk?

        “Let’s just have some dialogue here, eh? We respect your religion. We don’t want to convert you to Catholicism. We worship the same God! Let’s just say we are all “the people of God” and although you don’t believe that Jesus Christ was God, or that He arose from the dead, that isn’t a problem. You have a right to believe what you want. All we ask is that you stop killing us. Is that too much to ask?”

    • I understand you point. But we must also recognize throughout the process, that we CAN NOT accept islam as a faith from God. It is not of Abraham. It is a false teaching from a man who is so very obviously NOT a prophet, but a dangerous sociopath. As long as we clearly and unmistakably know this fact, we can proceed and evangelize as we ought.

    • This is like having dialogue with Protestants. There are so many groups in Islam that theologically and practically contradict each other, that agreeing on something with all of them make it utopia.

      • Not true. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, all of the Sacraments, the church buildings, the music, and the doctrines of Vatican II are more Protestant than most Protestant sects.

    • What faithful witness are we to bear? Vatican II taught that every RELIGION is to be respected (read your Catechism Chris), not simply all people. Along with this teaching, you are required to talk to, pray with, and worship with everyone who believes and practices false religions (read the Vatican II document on Ecumensim and ask your priest and archbishop how much money is spent on spreading Catholicism versus co-mingling with the heretics.)

      • My post addressed the specifics of the article AND the link to the CNA article, incorrectly titled ” Is dialogue with Islam possible? Yes…”, which in the body of said article quoted the Vatican statement only as to the importance of dialogue “with Muslims” as well as a clear condemnation of all violence in the name of religion, hence my post; intended to point out accurately what the Pontifical Council actually said on this particular occasion. So although inapt to my posting, thanks for the reminder to “know thy catechism.”

        • I should be clear that the Catechism you should read is the Baltimore Catechism which reflects the true teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Conciliar church teaches heresy, (every religion should be respected) and idolatry (you must pray with and worship with those who believe and practice false religions.)

          • What I read and encourage others to read is the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated under the pontificate of St. John Paul 2d. I also encourage others to disregard false and schismatic assertions such as those made by you above. Don’t bother to respond.

          • My Catechism is Scripture and the constant teachings of the Catholic Church which cannot change. If that makes me a schismatic, I wholeheartedly agree.

          • What gives you the appearance of a de facto schismatic is your claim that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated under the pontificate of St. John Paul 2d, with the assistance of then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict 16th, is heretical.

          • Yes Chris that is exactly what I am saying. They teach heresy. They directly contradict some of the teachings of Christ and contradict the infallible teachings of valid popes of the past and past Councils (Trent for example.) They have encouraged the heretical teachings of those who are the enemies of Christ a respectable place at the table so that doctrines that have been infallibly taught are still questioned.

            But I’ve found that most people absolutely refuse to believe the popes and/or the Magisterium could teach heresy although it has occurred in the past. I certainly did not want to believe it.

            All I can say is research what the Church taught before Vatican II and what it teaches now. The easiest place to start is with the Baltimore Catechism which is a clear, question and answer format which makes the faith easy to understand. Compare it with JPII’s Catechism. It is available online.

            There are numerous websites and books and articles written by learned and more intelligent people than I am-priests and theologians- who write extensively about all of the errors of Vatican II. Simply take a look. If you disagree with them, that is, of course, your prerogative.

          • Hence, my suspicion, now strengthened, that you are indeed a de facto schismatic. I am fine with the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, both of which I have copies of, and have read. There were those in the aftermath of Trent, that disparaged that council and its teachings. You are following in the tradition of such critics.

          • Enough. Please. There are absolutely difficulties reconciling what was taught and what *is* taught. But you go too far when you make positive statements on matters over which you have no authority and which are still in dispute.

            There are no doubt those among us who would not be surprised to be told, at some point in the future, that some of what you assert is so – if we are told by a competent ecclesiastical authority; namely, the pope.

            Until then, it is the job of the faithful Catholic to bend the knee and say “credo” to all that is professed, to give assent to all that demands assent, and to obey all legitimately exercised authority in the Church. And yes, as far as we know at the present moment with any degree of certitude, these things which you declare to be heretical are in some way consonant with perennial teaching through the correct interpretive lens.

            We are not a democratic faith. We believe that authority comes down from God through Peter and the apostles. When we begin to usurp that paradigm, we run into trouble.

            There is room here for honest critique. For pointing out statements which seem to contain error (note the word “seem,” since none of us here has the juridical authority to say so definitively) even from the popes, to compare what was taught and what *is* taught. These things are encouraged. Our heads are not in the sand. But neither are we our own popes.

            It’s a razor’s edge. Too far in either direction and you’ll be in a world of hurt.

          • Criticizing the pope and magisterium is acceptable as is evident in what other posters have written as long as the truth is avoided.
            I’m sorry but when the Catholic faith is attacked, I must stand up for it.
            I’m getting used to being told I have no authority to present the truth because somehow, it is still in dispute.
            I won’t post another comment on your site. But I will continue to pray for all of those who have been deceived.

  7. The Vatican does not want to see the facts. It is wilfully blind. So although it desperately needs to face facts, it will not be realistic about Islam, barring a miracle (which there is no reason to expect), or the conquest of Rome by ISIS. If ISIS were to invade Rome, raze St Peter’s to the ground, slaughter the Cardinals & Pope, rape then enslave the women religious, & massacre the clergy – maybe that would be enough to disabuse the blind fools in Rome. But by then it would be too late. ISIS does not want dialogue or co-existence – it wants total dominion. The Papacy is so high on its drug of ecumenism, it can’t even see what a foul & depraved death-cult Mohammedanism is 🙁

    “Our vocation, that of us Christians of the East, is to live with Muslims, whether we like it or not. It is a mission! It is difficult, but we must live together. Because of this, I would say that it falls to Muslims to defend the Christian presence, and to Christians to defend the Muslim presence. It is not up to each one of us, in fact, to defend ourselves, as this would lead to confrontation.”

    – ZENIT (July 09, 2010)

    ## Well now, that worked out nicely, didn’t it ? One would imagine that being exterminated, shot, crucified, burned, buried alive or drowned makes it slightly difficult to have a “vocation”. But not to worry – the religion of Hell is doing famously just now, thanks in no small measure to the post-V2 Popes.

    The quotation is from an interview, “Is Islam Part of God’s Plan ?”, with Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir. I hope Father Samir is suitably gratified by the way that ISIS has “defended” Christians in the Middle East, Libya, Egypt, etc.

    • And there is that little thorn which is blindly ignored:

      Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

    • We need to take a lesson in history and realize that Western Civilization was created by the Catholic Church and if the Church doesn’t get its act together and defend it, then it will disappear. Islam has many weak points in the present world. The vast majority of the youth of Iran have zero interest in Islam and don’t go to any mosques. Surely many of them are ripe for evangelization. Mark Durie, an Australian Anglican Clergyman, and expert in Islam and ancient languages, has 50-100 Itanian converts every year. Many others are becoming Evangelicals. If we truly believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and that the mission of evangelization is prmordrial, how can we do that when we have a Pope who thinks that muslims will be saved by the Quran? We ought to be beaming Cable TV programs into Iran to explain to these young people who Jesus Christ is and teaching them the Gospel as they have no interest in Mahommad and his Satanical Quran.

  8. Excellent, Steve. You are exactly correct: the Church needs to wake up and deal with Islam realistically, instead of with all this delusional “inter-religious dialogue” nonsense. Islam has been at war with the Church since the 7th century and anyone who does not see that is either dreadfully ignorant of history or in complete denial. Today, we have many people in the Church, including Pope Francis himself and many bishops and priests, who claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” and who will brook no criticism of Islam or of Muslims. To criticize Islam or Muslims, in the eyes of these ill-informed individuals, is to be “bigoted” and “racist” (despite the obvious fact that Islam is not a race). I have experienced this soft-headed ignorance firsthand in my own diocese.

    So this is the first obstacle we are up against: educating our priests and bishops about Islam and its true nature. The problem, of course, is that the “educational flowchart” within the Church, even today, is not exactly amenable to lay persons instructing clerics. That is, usually it is the other way around: the priests do the teaching and we lay persons do the learning. So the first obstacle is to get the members of the hierarchy to admit that they simply do not know very much about “the real Islam” and that they need instruction. I generally refer people as a first step to the best Islam-info websites, such as TheReligionOfPeace dot com, JihadWatch dot org, and Shoebat dot com. There is not a person of goodwill on this planet who could spend even a half hour a day perusing the articles on these websites and not be convinced that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant.

    And this brings me to the most important point you make in your article. Quote: “It’s almost as if the Vatican is willfully refusing to see the truth of this threat.”

    Perfect. You hit the nail right on the head.

    These priests and bishops and, yes, even Pope Francis himself, are simply IN DENIAL about the true nature of Islam. It’s bizarre. It’s right out of the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Out of comfort seeking, cowardice, or heaven knows what else, they simply “willfully refuse” to see the truth staring them right in the face. Any person of goodwill who takes the time to inform himself about the history and teachings of Islam WILL come away convinced that Islam is an anti-Trinitarian, anti-Incarnation, anti-Jew, and anti-Christian totalitarian ideology whose goal is the domination of the world under Sharia law. This conclusion is inevitable once all the information has been presented truthfully. I say “inevitable”, but, of course, this is true only for persons who do not DENY what is evident. It is evident that Islam is violent and intolerant and at war with the non-Muslim world. But if someone simply REFUSES to acknowledge what is evident, they can, at least verbally, deny that this is so. And that’s why your point is so well-taken: the truth of the matter here is not really all that difficult to see. Islam is evidently as we have described it. The problem is that individuals simply refuse to see the truth about Islam; they are in denial, pure and simple.

    And the problem with denial is that it involves the will, not just the intellect. Years ago, the philosopher, Gilbert Meilander, made the observation that to see the truth requires not just intelligence, but also goodwill. And of course he’s right. You can take a person to the zoo and physically show him a giraffe, but if he is convinced or wants to believe that “giraffes don’t exist”, no amount of “proof” on your part will lead necessarily to his changing his mind. Because the will is involved, he could literally stand there looking at the giraffe and continue to maintain that “giraffes do not exist.” It is like what Aristotle said about persons who deny the Principle of Non-Contradiction (“A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect”). He said essentially that they have lost “the good of intellect” and there is nothing further that can be said to them. This is along the lines of the dictum “You cannot prove first principles”; the person either assents to them or refuses assent. You cannot “prove” them.

    And this is somewhat analogous to the situation we find in the Church today vis-a-vis Islam. The truth about the violent, intolerant, and anti-Christian nature of Islam is not hard to see. It is not hidden, but evident. But many in the Church, as you put it, simply “willfully refuse to see the truth”. And this problem is further compounded by the fact that these individuals hold positions of teaching authority within the Church. And that is a dangerous combination (and why we see so much ignorance about Islam among the lay faithful): when many of the leaders of the Church, from the pope down to parish priests, are themselves ignorant of and in denial about the threat that Islam poses. That is indeed a genuine problem. What did Our Lord say happens when a blind man leads another blind man? Well, that’s the situation the Church is in today vis-a-vis Islam: the priests and bishops and even the pope are ignorant of the true nature of Islam and IN DENIAL about the threat that it poses. And the lay faithful are therefore left even more in the dark, because their leaders refuse to acknowledge publicly the true nature of Islam.

    And, what is even worse, when courageous lay faithful stand up to declare that “the Emperor has no clothes” and that Islam is NOT “a religion of peace”, the Church actively SILENCES these individuals. That is the real disgrace going on today. There are [many] very well-informed Catholic lay faithful who are willing to speak the unvarnished truth about Islam. But out of a misplaced sense of mercy and a desire to be politically correct at all costs and not offend anyone, the Church actively silences many lay persons who try to get the truth about Islam out there. I could easily cite a half-dozen such cases within my own personal experience and within my second-person experiences within the so-called “counter-jihad” movement here in the U.S. and abroad. It is bad enough that the priests, our leaders, are ignorant about Islam. But at least let us informed lay persons speak the truth about Islam. But the Church will not allow it. To do so would, in their eyes, be “racist” or “bigoted”, or “divisive”. And we can’t have that. So the Muslim slaughter and persecution of Christians goes on unabated and no one says a word. And if they do say a word [even if it is demonstrably true] they are dismissed as a “racist” and shunned. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs right now in the Church with regard to the problem of Islam. I’m at mass every single day and Islam is never mentioned; that is a fact. The closest any priest ever comes is to add into the Prayers of the Faithful a vague reference to “those experiencing war in their country” or some other such drivel. Never a homily about our persecuted brethren in the Middle East, about how they are being persecuted and brutally slaughtered, about how we ought to be praying for them and aiding them financially and otherwise. Not a word. A Christian holocaust is taking place [and will get much worse as time goes on] and our priests not only have NOTHING to say about it, but they actively SILENCE any lay faithful who would say something about it and dismiss them as “racist” or “divisive”.

  9. In my opinion both Vatican II and the Catechism, which is based on it, have a fundamentally flawed notion of who Allah is and what Islam is. It is based on the work of a French scholar Louis Massignon, who wrote a four volume doctoral thesis on the matter in 1922 ( It appears that much of his analysis of Islam is based on the Sufi sect, which is considered heretical by mainstream Islam. The Sufis tended to take on elements of Christianity in order to develop a mystical traditon within Islam, which in reality is very much contrary to the very nature of Islam. There is no such thing as love and a personal relationship with Allah in the Quran, and therefore little basis for mysticism. Nobody in the Vatican is going to come out and say that Vatican II and the Catechism have a misguided understanding of Islam. However, the nature of Islam does not fall within the divine an apostolic missiion of the Church’s Magisterium. It is not definitive Magisterium, so I see no reason why it could not be corrected. The notion that Allah is the God of the Bible is not sustainable based on Islamic texts. In fact, Islam contains several aspects of paganism, such as the kissing of the black stone at the Kabba. Allah seems to be the alter ego of Mahommad, who is the consummate gangster. Allah HATES the rest of humanity which doesn’t sumbit to Islam. Yes he is merciful, but only to Muslims, and harsh to hypocrites (Muslims who don’t take Islam seriously) and kaffir (non muslims). He is totally arbitrary and makes killing the restof humanity a religious duty. The Islamic Isa /Jesus), has almost nothing to do with the ral Jesus. His mother Mary is confused with Myiam the sister of Moses, and the Qurán thinks that Mary is considered the third person of the Trinity by Chistians. Yes, Allah is much more like any old pagan god than the God of the Bible. Pagan gods were to be feared and placated in case they got mad at people and did them some harm. Allah gloats in sending most of humanity, all Jews and Christians, of course, and a majority of women to the Islamic hell. He continually contradicts himself in the Quran, several times in every chapter of it.

    Is Pope Francis going to eat humble pie and recognize that he has been mistaken from the beginning about Islam. I doubt it. He seems to even think the Quran is somehow a kind of valid revelation for Muslims. This is preposterous and an authentic heresy, as there is no more public revelation after the death of the apostles. All we can do is pray that his successor will correct the errors he, cardinals and bishops have propagated and pray that he will acquire some prudence so as to carry out the mission for which he doesn’t seem fit in many ways.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...