Thursday, February 14, 2013

What is the real reason for Bishop Robert McManus' decision to rescind Mr. Robert Spencer's invitation to speak?

In a statement which was published in The Catholic Free Press this week, Bishop Robert McManus explained his decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Diocese of Worcester's Catholic Men's Conference which is to be held next month.

Bishop McManus writes, "In light of my recent decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference next month on the topic of Islam in its relation to Christianity, I should like to reflect briefly on the conciliar document entitled, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), specifically on paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 which speaks about the special relationship that Christianity has to Islam.  The paragraph states, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.  In the first place among these are the Muslims who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

As a result of such a theologically salient statement, the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims.  This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

At first, Bishop McManus cites a document of the Second Vatican Council - Lumen Gentium - to make it appear as if there is a theological basis for rescinding Mr. Spencer's invitation to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference.  Then he later acknowledges that his decision was really entirely subjective, admitting that his decision was based "solely" on his concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would have negative consequences with regard to Catholic-Muslim inter-religious dialogue.

While it's certainly true that Vatican II insists, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems" and that Christians and Moslems should "forget the past sincerely for mutual understanding.." (Nostra Aetate, No. 3), dialogue, if it is to be authentic, always means taking the other seriously and approaching him with reverence and love.  And this can only be accomplished by communicating with the other in truth.

In his book entitled Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Pope Benedict XVI makes a few observations which Bishop McManus would apparently find problematic.  The Holy Father writes, "To what extent the new surge forward of the Islamic world is fuelled by truly religious forces to question.  In many places, as we can see, there is the danger of a pathological development of the autonomy of feeling.." (p. 104).

Which is why Mr. Spencer's talk would have been most beneficial.

On page 204 of the same book, Pope Benedict XVI writes, "...even with Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism."

Wasn't this to be the point of Mr. Spencer's talk?  Would Bishop McManus accuse the Holy Father of undercutting the positive achievements which Catholics have attained with regard to inter-religious dialogue with Moslems?  Why is it acceptable for Pope Benedict XVI to speak of the danger of Islam "letting violence have a place" but unacceptable for Mr. Spencer to talk about "extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally"?

Bishop McManus insists that Mr. Spencer's presentation would not be "suitable" for the Men's Conference because its focus 'would be on the danger of militant Islamist jihad."  But jihad is not just an aspect of "militant Islam."  Jihad is the duty to engage in holy war against unbelievers or enemies of Islam if called upon to do so.  It is one of the basic tenets and requirements of Muslim faith.  Which is why Pope Benedict XVI has warned that Islam "is always in danger of losing balance" and succumbing to violence.

There are forces in this country and around the world which want to combine Christianity and Islam into a global religion which would be called "Chrislam."  Still others seek to blend many different religions into a syncretistic one-world religion with truth being sacrificed in the name of a false irenicism.

Those who have the courage to warn others about the dangers inherent within Islam can expect to be ostracized and increasingly relegated to the margins of society.

The Antichrist will head a one-world religion.  This has been prophesied.  And it will take place.

For more on "Chrislam" go here.


anne said...

It should be noted that the bishop did not "ask" Mr. Spencer not to speak, he cancelled it and to date has not contacted Robert personally. One wonders if, due to complaints from Catholics he ight cancel the Muslim speaking engagements at Anna Maria and Assumption without the courtesy of notifying the speakers.ncentiB

Michael F Poulin said...

I am disappointed with a leadership that caves to pagans and heretics. My understanding is that Muslims in general permit anything that promotes the spread of Islam as OK, including killing,blowing up airplanes, rape, lying, stealing as long as this is directed towards unbelievers. For an Islamic person to lie to an unbeleiver is not a sin, in other words. Whereas for a Catholic, a lie is always a sin. So it is fitting for an Islamic person in his own mind to lie to your face,and he will not feel the slightest guilt as he is following the strictures of his faith. It is moral relativism, and therfore it is a belief system fundamentally opposed to our own. Anything that the prophet did in his life is seen as acceptable behavior, so since Muhammed married a nine year old girl it becomes acceptable in Islam. Since Muhammed led the slaughter of all Jews in a village early on, it becomes acceptable to kill Jews. Granted not all Muslims may believe this its true, but the fact is the general principles of their faith permit this, and a lack of central or authoratative leadership promotes many differing interpretations. Islam has many factions and division..prone to follow popular leaders ..and so popular factions like the gaining radicalism called Wahabism feed on peoples discontent. Our Old Testament does contain violence, but it does not advocate arbitrary violence against anyone at anytime, it is directed against enemies of God, including pagans practicing human sacrifice, who are trying to exterminate Israel. And in light of the New Testament, Jesus would tend to lead us to love and forgive our enemies, and try to turn them against sin. When Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword, he meant it in that the truth would bring divisions and strife even within one's own family. He did not mean a sword to go out and slaughter innocents like the islamic terrorists readily do. We see the violence in the Old Testament as a battle now aginst the sin within ourselves, .., sin is what we try to slay..They also do not have the same concept of God as a loving Father as we do, or any type of Incarnational principle. They cannot grasp the Trinitarian principle (one nature three persons) of an eternal Son like we do. They think Jesus was a prophet, but not God (an old heresy). They have Jesus appearing as a final judge, but he's not God in their book. Hillare Belloc wrote about this. These are all ancient Christian heresies attenuated and rolled up with pagan Arab beliefs, distortions of Jewish writings and Muhammed's "visions." Their concept of God is more like a distant slave owner.. so to think of God acting any way like a loving 'father" to them is attributing human attributes to God and so is a blasphemy. This is upside down from our belief in that we are made in God's image and likeness and so are like Him in some small way, but enough such that our human dignity derives from it. Nothing like that in Islam, hence no individual dignity.

Anonymous said...

Anne, the Bishop doesn't mind offending orthodox Catholics. Hence the CFP and its frequent hogwash.

Unknown said...

The years that I lived and worked as a nurse in Jerusalem ( Jerushala'im in Hebrew which literally means : Jerusha Lahem = their (the Yehudim) HERITAGE )
I came to know Muslims all too well. The Mosque with the Golden Dome has an inscription : God has NO Son.
One of the times while walking and praying with my Rosary in my hand on the Via Dolorosa, Arab Muslims stopped me and started saying : Jesus NEVER died on the Cross. The apostles managed to put an imposter in His place. Sorry to say but : Typical reaction for muslims.

Site Meter