Kaas-etende katholieke capitulatie-aap

I think this is the absolute stupidest thing ever said in the history of time itself.

God (oops, sorry anyone offended by that!) bless.

That's an interesting point, M_David. Let's chew on that for a second. Can you really say "they is us" when it comes to Catholic bishops, given that the Catholic laity has no say in who becomes a bishop? Granted, it's true that they don't grow bishops on trees, and like my friend Father P. says, "Where do people think priests come from? The people!" I get that. But as people intimately familiar with the priest sex abuse scandals here found out, brave priests who have taken stands against the clerical establishment, and in favor of what the Church actually teaches -- have found themselves marginalized, and not promoted into positions of power.

Look, as far as Holland goes, this bishop is probably not far removed from where most people are. When John Paul made his visit to the Netherlands, there were protests, even, as I recall, near-riots against hiim. Still, the Dutch didn't elect Muskens as their bishop; he was made bishop by the pope, who, if custom maintained in this case, approved him from a short list submitted by the Dutch bishops themselves (who are notorious dissenters from Church teaching).

Another story I read, this one from the Dutch media, says that Muskens is going to retire soon because of ill health. I suspect that Benedict will take great care in choosing his replacement not to pick a bishop in the Muskens tradition.

But he predicted that within a century or two, Dutch Catholics would be addressing prayers to "Allah."

In a century or two, there won't be any Dutch. But he's right that people living in the Netherlands will be addressing prayers to Allah.

While I agree that it's silly for Dutch Catholics to be praying to God as Allah, it's worth remembering that Arabic-speaking Christians have been praying that way for centuries. For example, when you visit an Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Arabic, the Trisagion Hymn begins, "Quddusun Allah!" ("Holy God!").

Rod, first of all, the Bishop did not instruct his flock to call God "Allah" (which, after all, is sort of like suggesting we call John, Juan, or call Robert Roberto, or Mary, Maria), he suggested using the word as a way of promoting better relations. There's a world of difference between "instruct" and "suggest" that you're leaving out. When a Bishop "instructs", there's a lot more weight behind it than when he "suggests" something in a TV interview. It's not like this was an encyclical.

And sure, what he's suggesting is ultimately a pretty meaningless gesture, of the type that many folks of the Bishop's generation are prone to making (you know, the Hands Across America types), but unless you're the type to get het up over making ANY conciliatory gestures towards Muslims at all I can't see that it's worth equating it with some of the stuff Gaillot was demoted to Partenia for.

The CWN blurb on this is, of course, quite short and doesn't set much context. There's a bit more at MSNBC under Europe news section. It mentions this suggestion came after recent tensions between Muslims and the larger community, and also mentions that the Bishop served in Indonesia, where (among other places) Catholics actually do refer to God as Allah in the Mass (gasp!).

I really can't see that this means the Bishop, or the Church, or anyone else is "surrendering" to anyone. It sounds like more hanky-wringing on your part.

"Catholicism is moribund in Holland, a country that was once so fervent in its faith that it exported more missionary priests even than Ireland."

Clearly, the JPII purge of the early 80's had no effect, and neither did the appointment of another JPII bishop. This is the first place I saw them characterized as "Hands Across America" types. I wonder what the bishops of the 70's would be considered.

Once again, this author is conflating a suggestion with an instruction.

It's very Coulter-esque.

Todd, I was referring not just to Bishops but the types of folks, usually older Boomers, who still think sit-ins, hand-holding, and folk song singing is "relevant". They're into these kinds of gestures that are ultimately pretty meaningless.

Personally, I'm in agreement with the Bishop. What we call God, no matter what language, is irrelevant. If I'm with some Muslims, it does me no harm to say Allah for God, and maybe it makes some other folks happy. God knows who I'm addressing, and well, duh, Allah means God anyway. Calling him such is neither disrespectful nor blasphemous. I suspect it's an okay enough way to acknowledge that we worship the same God (yes, I know there are some tiresome folks who say we don't). But ultimately, it's kind of an empty gesture. But harmful, or indicative of some wider surrender to imaginary Muslim hordes, as Rod seems to think? Hardly.

As for the Bishops of the 70s, I suspect I'd consider them theologically a bit more my speed than the current crop, but clearly the poor guys were liturgically and aesthetically challenged!

I thought the comment by Bishop Muskens that "God doesn't care how you address Him" was pretty shocking. Could we call Him Marduk or Satan? Is that o.k.? The Lord's Prayer starts with "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name." This rather basic teaching would tend to indicate that God cares about how we address Him.

Rob, Hunk, I've deleted the Dianic post. As usual.

As to Anne's point, remember, I worshiped with the Maronites for three happy years, and of course they call God "Allah" when praying in Arabic. It's only the Arabic word for "God." But context is everything here. If this bishop is suggesting calling God "Allah" to appease Muslims, instead of using the word that the Dutch people have used for God since they first were Christianized, then it's pretty obvious to me that he is capitulating in a culture war of immense importance.

To the anonymous 2:55 post. It's not just Allah that gets people upset. It's the ridiculous idea that Dutch (or English speakers, or...)should all start doing things in one specific way out of the mistaken idea that it would ease tensions with a violent sub-set of that group. Of course Arab Christians use "Allah" - it's the Arabic word for God! It's like saying if some radical monotheistic Finnish religious sect started blowing people up, we should all start calling God "Jumala" because it would somehow make them happy. Because, after all, Finnish Christians also use "Jumala." It's suggesting that everyone else start using the language of a radical group of religious terrorists - because that's even in their top 1,000 reasons to kill.

To the list poster (anom. 2:55) who listed the "other" names of God - it's worth pointing out that the more fanatical followers who address God as Allah would be thrilled to pieces that most of the other name users were dead, preferably at their hands.

In the name of tolerance I have a better idea. I'll trade God for Allah if the followers of Allah keep their crackpot to sane ratios the same as ours, and the Imams disarm their armies. Last time I checked my pastor was not arming his flock. Seems fair to me.

Cheers....Phil

If Allah is just another name for God - you are a follower of Allah, so the crackpot to sane ratio isn't an us vs. them equation so much as a "you're all one big theistic group" thing.

Come on, use common sense. What devout Muslims mean by the word "Allah" and what devout Christians mean by the word "Allah" are two different things. And in context of Europe's current struggle, the distinction is important.

Simply, what a disgraceful embrace of dhimmitude.

Well, I think it's straining at gnats and swallowing camels to hold me to a theological interpretation of the word "instruction," but for the sake of creating better relations with you, Anne, let me amend my statement to say that Bp Muskens suggested that Catholics start saying "Allah" instead of God to suck up to Holland's Muslims -- presumably in hopes that when the day comes that all Dutch are praying to Allah -- which the bishop predicted would someday come -- such Christians as remain will find een beetje of mercy.

There, I hope that clears matters up.

Well, you know how legalistic we western Christians are, Rod. Did you think you'd be let you off the hook on "instructed" vs. "suggested"?

More seriously, "suck up"? Are you seriously imagining that the Bishop is cowering from the Muslim horde, throwing this gesture out in hopes that his life will be spared when the Islamic Revolution finally begins in Holland? What is it that you imagine he's doing this for? Not public support - he said as much in the interview, not many will agree with him. So you think he's doing it to suck up to Muslims - for what gain?

Many would say that's a goal toward which we should strive. The Bishop is one of them, and he is taking steps toward that goal.

It's also okay that many disagree, as no one is required to take his suggestion.

Cleveland: As for those who are defending Muskens, you should consider the fact that whatever deity Muslims call "Allah" is NOT the deity Christians pray to.

Cleveland, how do you square that opinion with the Catechism? Here's Paragraph 841 (scroll down at link):

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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."

Tolerance over all....sucking up??. I have this vision of Chamberlin stepping off the plane in the late 30's proclaiming "peace in our time". The word is for the Bishops "suggestion" ot "instruction" or whatever you want to call it is appeasement, and if it were not for the fact that you can see displays of Islamic rage all over the news for the slightest of slights the comment might be relageted to the ash heap of history...instead, everyone who seems committed to defending this suggestion also seems determined to relive history, as they learned nothing from it.
Phil

Everyone, the troubled reader Diane, who has been asked repeatedly to leave this blog over her obsessive behavior, continues to post here -- and I continue to delete her remarks as soon as I see them. I would ask you once again not to respond to her -- and regular readers can detect the two-tics-shy-of-a-gran-mal-seizure style in her rhetoric, even though she never posts her name. Thank you.

Magistarium

Magisterium. It's MagisTERium.

Rdr Joseph, I am a Roman Catholic and I agree with you. There's too much "theocentricity" floating around in Christian circles these days.

The fullness of God's revelation is Trinitarian in essence and Christocentric in its Gospel call.

I also have deep admiration for Orthodox Christianity and long to see our churches in full communion again.

Cleveland: As for those who are defending Muskens, you should consider the fact that whatever deity Muslims call "Allah" is NOT the deity Christians pray to.

Rod: Cleveland, how do you square that opinion with the Catechism? Here's Paragraph 841... "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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."

Rod, my statement and the Catechism are not mutually exclusive. Was B XVI wrong during his lecture at Regensburg? He recalled at that lecture that centuries ago it already had been pointed out that reason was not compatible with the belief of [some/many/most?] Muslims that the God of Abraham commands the murder of all men, women and children who have not converted to Islam. My point is that the Catholic Catechism's "God of Abraham"--the God you and I pray to--is different IN PRACTICE, if you will, than the violent "Allah" to which Islamists pray to. The Catechism simply is referring to the fact that, IN REALITY, there is only one God of Abraham and that Islam professes to have the same faith as that held by Abraham and us. Nothing in 841 refers to what the Islamists teach about the commands of the one God, which in practice CAN NOT BE the commands of our God of Abraham. I mean only that the same God can't command at the same time two wholly opposed things. Ergo, two different concepts of "Allah". Viz: "In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie...." 844.

Perhaps it is the "in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims" wording that is the trouble. Certainly you are aware that we Catholics consider the Jew's concept of the God of Abraham to be not only closer to our faith than the Muslim's concept of Allah (even though they are the same God), but our God as well. See 839.

Rod, I would be the first to say that you and I would have either used different wording in 841, or more wording to explain what is meant by "in the first place". I believe it means in the first place among believers who profess the faith of Abraham but are neither Christian or Jew.
----------------------------------------------------

"And yes, the pope is "the main man" ...but... The bishops as a whole are the Magisterium and they run things."

M_David, there is no Magisterium of the bishops unless it is exercised under the authority of and with the approval the Pope. All the bishops of the world could say, all at once and in the most authoritative way they have to say it, that XYZ is true or that all Catholics must do XYZ on Fridays. If the Pope did not agree and commanded otherwise, what the bishops said or did would be a nullity.

If B XVI said Bishop Muskens is relieved of his position immediately, then there is nothing all the bishops of the world could do about. Rod is correct and you are wrong.

I think, my friend, that you are confusing normal, every day practice in the Church with the seldom used authority of the Pope, or that you are listening to some Catholic heretics and apostates such as Call to Action or Voice of the People types. They would have orgasms of joy if you were correct. But in reality all they can do is gather together in shameful displays of non serviam, such as Cardinal Roger the Dodger's "Religious Education" conferences. Cleveland: As for those who are defending Muskens, you should consider the fact that whatever deity Muslims call "Allah" is NOT the deity Christians pray to.

Rod: Cleveland, how do you square that opinion with the Catechism? Here's Paragraph 841... "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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."

Rod, my statement and the Catechism are not mutually exclusive. Was B XVI wrong during his lecture at Regensburg? He recalled at that lecture that centuries ago it already had been pointed out that reason was not compatible with the belief of [many/most?] Muslims that the God of Abraham commands the murder of all men, women and children who have not converted to Islam. My point is that the Catholic Catechism's "God of Abraham"--the God you and I pray to--is different IN PRACTICE, if you will, than the violent "Allah" to which Islamists pray to. The Catechism simply is referring to the fact that, IN REALITY, there is only one God of Abraham and that Islam professes to have the same faith as that held by Abraham. Nothing in 841 refers to what the Islamists teach about the commands of the one God, which in practice CAN NOT BE the commands of our God of Abraham. I mean only that the same God can't command at the same time two wholly opposed things. Ergo, two different concepts of "Allah". Viz: "In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie...." 844.

Perhaps it is the "in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims" wording that is the trouble. Certainly you are aware that we Catholics consider the Jew's concept of the God of Abraham to be not only closer to our faith than the Muslim's concept of Allah (even though they are the same God), but our God as well. See 839.

Rod, I would be the first to say that you and I would have either used different wording in 841, or more wording to explain what is meant by "in the first place". I believe it means in the first place among believers who profess the faith of Abraham but are neither Christian or Jew.
----------------------------------------------------

"And yes, the pope is "the main man" ...but... The bishops as a whole are the Magisterium and they run things."

M_David, there is no Magisterium of the bishops unless it is exercised under the authority of and with the approval the Pope. All the bishops of the world could say, all at once and in the most authoritative way they have to say it, that XYZ is true or that all Catholics must do XYZ on Fridays. If the Pope did not agree and commanded otherwise, what the bishops said or did would be a nullity.

If B XVI said Bishop Muskens is relieved of his position immediately, then there is nothing all the bishops of the world could do about. Rod is correct and you are wrong.

I think, my friend, that you are confusing normal, every day practice in the Church with the seldom used authority of the Pope, or that you are listening to some Catholic heretics and apostates such as Call to Action or Voice of the People types. They would have orgasms of joy if you were correct. But in reality all they can do is gather together in shameful displays of non serviam, such as Cardinal Roger the Dodger's "Religious Education" conferences. Cleveland: As for those who are defending Muskens, you should consider the fact that whatever deity Muslims call "Allah" is NOT the deity Christians pray to.

Rod: Cleveland, how do you square that opinion with the Catechism? Here's Paragraph 841... "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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."

Rod, my statement and the Catechism are not mutually exclusive. Was B XVI wrong during his lecture at Regensburg? He recalled at that lecture that centuries ago it already had been pointed out that reason was not compatible with the belief of [many/most?] Muslims that the God of Abraham commands the murder of all men, women and children who have not converted to Islam. My point is that the Catholic Catechism's "God of Abraham"--the God you and I pray to--is different IN PRACTICE, if you will, than the violent "Allah" to which Islamists pray to. The Catechism simply is referring to the fact that, IN REALITY, there is only one God of Abraham and that Islam professes to have the same faith as that held by Abraham. Nothing in 841 refers to what the Islamists teach about the commands of the one God, which in practice CAN NOT BE the commands of our God of Abraham. I mean only that the same God can't command at the same time two wholly opposed things. Ergo, two different concepts of "Allah". Viz: "In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie...." 844.

Perhaps it is the "in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims" wording that is the trouble. Certainly you are aware that we Catholics consider the Jew's concept of the God of Abraham to be not only closer to our faith than the Muslim's concept of Allah (even though they are the same God), but our God as well. See 839.

Rod, I would be the first to say that you and I would have either used different wording in 841, or more wording to explain what is meant by "in the first place". I believe it means in the first place among believers who profess the faith of Abraham but are neither Christian or Jew.
----------------------------------------------------

"And yes, the pope is "the main man" ...but... The bishops as a whole are the Magisterium and they run things."

M_David, there is no Magisterium of the bishops unless it is exercised under the authority of and with the approval the Pope. All the bishops of the world could say, all at once and in the most authoritative way they have to say it, that XYZ is true or that all Catholics must do XYZ on Fridays. If the Pope did not agree and commanded otherwise, what the bishops said or did would be a nullity.

If B XVI said Bishop Muskens is relieved of his position immediately, then there is nothing all the bishops of the world could do about. Rod is correct and you are wrong.

I think, my friend, that you are confusing normal, every day practice in the Church with the seldom used authority of the Pope, or that you are listening to some Catholic heretics and apostates such as Call to Action or Voice of the People types. They would have orgasms of joy if you were correct. But in reality all they can do is gather together in shameful displays of non serviam, such as Cardinal Roger the Dodger's "Religious Education" conferences.

For the record, I just discovered and deleted four, count them, FOUR eccentric and worryingly anxious posts by Diane, in which she protested that she's not a troll, and she's not troubled. Ahem. Onward.