Dhimmis on the Thames
Some columns offer to write themselves. It’s hard to imagine a juicier piece of news than a call by the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury for the British legal system to incorporate Sharia—the Islamic legal code.
Let’s start off with what’s startling: According to The Evening Standard, Archbishop Rowan Williams “said it could help build a better and more cohesive society if Muslims were able to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters, for example, dealt with in a sharia court. The adoption of some elements of sharia law ‘seems unavoidable,’” the archbishop said last week to a group of British lawyers. Indeed, the same paper reported, it has not been avoided. According to the Standard:
[A] teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich [has] been dealt with by a sharia “trial”.
Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.
The victim’s family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.
“All their uncles and their fathers were there,” said Mr Yusuf. “So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing.”
An Islamic Council in Leyton also revealed that it had dealt with more than 7,000 divorces while sharia courts in the capital have settled hundreds of financial disputes.
Indeed, the authority of the Umma is spreading throughout England, the paper reported:
Along with the Islamic Council in Leyton, there are reports of at least two other sharia courts sitting in London. There are also courts in a number of other areas of the country with high Muslim populations, including Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, Birmingham and Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
Most are understood to concentrate on divorce cases - although such judgments are not recognised in British law - as well as financial disputes.
Suhaib Hasan, a spokesman for the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, which was set up in 1982, said that he and his colleagues dealt with more than 200 cases a year, ranging from inheritance to marriage and divorce.
“From the beginning, people have wanted our services. More and more come back to us. Each month we deal with 20 cases,” he said.
On its website, the Islamic Sharia Council warns those who use its services that the divorces it grants cannot invalidate a union under British civil law and advises that a separate civil divorce should be obtained.
As well as giving advice on legal matters, such as inheritance, the website also gives general guidance on Muslim practices including the need for beards and the need for women to cover themselves in public.
It also covers issues such as whether women should train as doctors. It supports this as a “lesser evil”, but suggests that training should take place at an all female college and that future treatment should be given to “women only”.
At this point, my Irish half is tempted to chuckle with grim delight at the spectacle of a church founded on the principle of obeying the men with the muskets now preparing to crawl before its next set of masters. As my inner bog-stomper would say: “Yer jumping the gun, Yer Lordship. T’won’t be for two generations, maybe, till Anglicans have to beg for a comfy dhimittude. I hope the imams grant ya somet’in better than the old Catholic Penal Laws.” (A query to linguists out there: Is there an Gaelic equivalent for Schadenfreude? Or does the Irish word for “happiness” already have that connotation?)
Of course, there’s nothing to celebrate here. It’s long past time for the shrinking minority of Christians in Britain to make common cause, and agree to let Tyburns be bygones.
It’s enough to note in passing that if the mass of church-going R.C.s in Britain now outnumber the C. of E.’s, that this is thanks not to a surge of interest among English Catholics but rather to an influx of Polish plumbers. Likewise, the Church of England’s Evangelical wing—the only one that in the Anglican world is still flapping—is kept aloft by migrants from former African colonies like Nigeria. Indeed, here in the U.S., conservative Anglicans have turned to orthodox African bishops as alternative authorities to pro-gay Episcopal clerics. Perhaps the funniest moment in the history of National Public Radio came last year in its coverage of a worldwide Anglican gathering, as a U.S. bishop spoke in defense of homosexual unions—and an African bishop recited the rite of exorcism over his head. No report on whether it worked.
It appears that the Anglican church now faces one of the late-stage symptoms of that incurable retrovirus called multiculturalism, which overwhelms one’s immune system, but first attacks the brain. Poor Archbishop Williams deserves a little sympathy—as the entire British establishment rallies to demand his resignation, simply for spilling the beans. (Reliable Islamo-lefty commentator Professor Tariq Ramadan complained about Williams’ candor: “These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens.” Ya think?)
Still, it won’t do to paint all British Moslems with the same camel’s hair brush. As the Standard reports, Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, responded to Williams this way: “I haven’t experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country. If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live.” And I’m one of the people who’d be happy to ferry them to the airport.
In a sense, Williams is proving a scapegoat on the model (or as the mirror image) of Enoch Powell, who decades ago warned that the results of massive demographic change would prove impossible to predict—or reverse. From this fact, as a good Burkean, Powell suggested that conservatives ought to oppose such a radical experiment. For telling this home truth, Powell was driven from public life. Now that Powell has been proven tragically right in every particular, Williams is simply one of the first to draw the practical conclusion. Now Williams too will be hustled off the stage, for daring to note what happens to a nation-state that is turned willy-nilly into a “propositional country” at the behest of its elites. (For a brilliant novelistic depiction of Britain’s coming dystopia, read Anthony Burgess’ under-appreciated novel 1985, which shows Britain lurching from bankrupt socialism into a Saudi-funded Islamic state.)
Nor should we simply snicker across the ocean at the sight of pale, Spam-eating Albion preparing to muffle its churchbells, trade its pubs for shisha bars, and switch to turkey bacon. Because the same phenomenon threatens Texas. That’s right, Texas. Courtesy of Jihad Watch, I came across this report from MyPetJawa:
“Assalam aleikum, y’all!
“The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari’a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it’s all good.
“You’ve heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for the Texas Islamic Courts!!!”
The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within “Seven Days” from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.
This development points up one of the fault lines that divide conservatives from libertarians; to good Rothbardians, the rise of private arbitration and voluntary enforcement as a rival to State-imposed justice could only be a good thing. Paleolibertarians will even argue that the resolution of all conflict by a neutral, secular state tends to break down and dissolve the stronger bonds of community which would otherwise bind religious groups, For instance, liberalizing American divorce laws came to infuse with their own spirit the once stern Catholic annulment tribunals. (Indeed, one of the clerics I’m meeting here in Rome is a Lebanese canon lawyer who serves on the Roman Rota—the “supreme court” that serves as final authority in such matters. For years, Rome has been fighting to resist the spread of “American norms” for annulment, which have opened the floodgates and rendered nearly every sacramental union suspect.) The weaker the state, the stronger the communities within it.
But then, the Rothbardians are honest enough to call themselves anarchists. And anarchy is precisely what Enoch Powell warned was coming with the tidal wave backwash from the Empire. What worries me less than anarchy is the tyranny that usually follows in its wake. The Swiss aside, multicultural nations rarely retain a small, liberal government. The fewer common bonds of customs and morals that unite the residents of a community, the more the State must step in to resolve disputes among them, and the larger the bureaucracy required to keep the peace. Were the contrary true, we should expect newly colonized California to be turning into a land of decentralized, autonomous communities. Compared, you know, to the grim, homogeneous tyranny that is New Hampshire.
Islam
Comments
Re Perfidious Albion in Ireland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVUSa9u3g3o
As far as worries about Tyranny in America It is already here.
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Engalnd is marching down the road to Hell and we are following her - 20 years behind her.
Other than Holy Mother Church, there ain’t ONE fecking institution worth a damn on this planet.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As one leader put it, Dr Williams lacks the courage of his lack of convictions. Thank God for Pope Benedict.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“the rise of private arbitration and voluntary enforcement as a rival to State-imposed justice could only be a good thing.”
I have to admit i pretty much agree. who cares how muslims solve their disputes? doesn’t concern me
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So, England is going to be flushed down the toilet of history.
Is that surprising?
The English acquiesced and let their kings and queens destroy the Divine Church in their own country...Would you expect them to act any different regarding their country itself?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
so now they are being invaded by refugees from, and brainwashed victims of, a culture than venerates relgion and race above all else.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John, you make some excellent points in your article. But, it’s a pity that you can’t refrain from childish attacks on non-catholic christians.
Australia seems to be following a similar course of encouraging parallel justice systems. Our Aboriginal people have some sort of community justice system which appears rather lenient and presumably has the desired political end of keeping large numbers of Aborigines out of jail. This recently resulted in national uproar when a group of youths were convicted of the gang rape of a 12 year old girl but were given light, non-custodial sentences on the grounds that they were merely engaging in sexual experimentation. No doubt Sharia courts will make their way downunder in due course.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yeah, Ratzinger’s a real trooper when it comes to standing athwart the blasphemous muslim threat.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m012rpRatzingerInMosque.html
And, in case you haven’t been paying attention, the See of Canterbury has been vacant for over 400 years.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John,
I’m baffled by your failure to put Rowan’s attitude toward Moslems to it’s historical context. After all, the “anarchic” (many of us would call it “tolerant") British attitude to different religions goes back to at least the 17th century and the acceptance of Dissenters. Indeed, Elizabeth’s failure to stomp out the Puritans puts the roots of this attitude to the late 16th century. Furthermore, this same tolerant attitude has been extended to Jews—an extension that also goes back to the 17th century.
The toleration of other religions—later extended even to the Catholics—was a hallmark of English Protestantism already at the time that religion flourished. This behavior has nothing to do with the (very real) decline of Anglicanism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
British activist Ed Husain speaks quite eloquently about the recruitment of educated Moslems to be suicide bombers. They were raised in little Paki enclaves to consider themselves Moslem and had zero British identity. It was easy for terrorists to appeal to subvert well meaning fools to attack the evil outside their community. Williams and other deluded “multi-culturalists” in Europe have created the breeding grounds and his weasel words about being mis-understood and even worse about having a spiritual duty to support these other cultures only supports those with real religious beliefs.
St Thomas Becket died to defend the faith and against the state as did Cardinal Fisher. Williams has no faith to defend and is expected to stem the tide of rebel Anglican communions leaving the fold. This should hasten the demise of this sad charade of a Church.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Anglican Church was created with the express purpose
of granting a divorce to Henry VIII. It knows very well
how to recognize power and bow down to it.
Nothing unusual…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In my own nation (Canada), a few provinces are under pressure to adopt Sharia Law (Ontario, Quebec) in the “limited” cases which Williams recommends. This pressure is occurring at the same time that Human Rights Commissions (unelected PC tribunals with court powers) are punishing individuals for making negative comments about Islam. The new “liberalism” is the ideology of surrender (as Burnham predicted in the 60s).
Wouldn’t it be nice if for once a ruling class had the rationality not to commit cultural suicide?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
teachem2think...You sure know how to pick ‘em :)
Even the SSPX schism realises they are whacked.
Your boy, Williamson of the sspx on TFP nuts…
Now the Society of St. Pius X has serious problems with Dr. Plinio as a Catholic leader, especially towards the end of his days, and with the TFP, mainly because of the insufficient role it seems to attribute to the Catholic priesthood in its planned rescue of Christian civilization.
Also, Plinio’s denial of the future role of priests - and the exclusion in the present of priests from all the more secret aspects of the group - led Monsignor Castro de Mayer, for decades Plinio’s patron among the Brazilian bishops, to state:
“TFP is a heretical sect since, although they do not say so in words or in writing, lives and acts according to a principle which undermines the very basis of all true Christianity, that is the Catholic church”.
Have nothing to do with the Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family, and Property. It’s a RadTrad cult
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Feb 13, 2005 2:54:14 PM
(Sandra Miesel, medievalist and Catholic journalist)
As for Ms Horvat.."The Nice Girl: of Integrism…
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Newsletter/ANF2nd.htm
teachem2think...I know you boys in the schism think your sources are “traditional.” They aren’t. They are radical and what they believe ought embarrass you.
Repent and come home while you still have life
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Those damn atheist pagan muslim loving liberals in red state Texas!!!
/snarkasm on
Click to flag this comment as abusive
RE the learned Mr. Konkola--
Nothing here is meant against English tolerance, which did expand to most Protestants, then Jews, then even Catholics (note that tolerance in France increased under Louis XVI before the Revolution, and had long been established in Catholic Austria and to a large degree in the Papal States). But allowing alien legal systems to be incorporated in the system of justice....
Just for laughs, I’d like to see Catholics request that Canon Law be offered the same treatment as sharia.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
wasalam, a small thread pertaining to this issue
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234940515
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Unlike spartacus, I try not to engage in personal attacks. I do try to engage in truth. I’m fully aware of the TFP history. It had germinated, flourished, and died long before I even knew it existed. What a shame Vatican2 didn’t have the same brief history.
In any event, it was nice of spartacus to avoid dealing with the primary point made re Ratzinger and the muslims. We have noticed in other columns that spartacus never engages with facts, particularly uncomfortable ones. Instead, he hyperlinks us to his sources which resemble the dispassionate discourses of Alan Stang.
It is spartacus and other practitioners of false obedience, standing behind Ratzinger, arms folded, meditating on “Allah,” who will have much more to explain after their demise than those of us who try to remain obedient to God.
True obedience is the servant of faith, not of obedience. spartacus and one or two of the occasional columnists here engage in what St. Thomas Aquainas described as “error by excess.”
God, through His Catholic Church, has absolute authority over my conscience but, in the last resort, God meant us to judge if His Hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits. Galatians 1: 8-9. There are simply too many violations of the traditions of the Faith to be ignored and too many people do not have a problem ignoring either truth or tradition and thus become disobedient to Tradition.
Note how spartacus and his fellow apostates, excuse me, apologists for Vatican2 always refer to those who respect tradition as “TradRad.” As if the Church in 1956 were oh sooo radical. It was Vatican2 which bragged about how the Church ought to “return to its ancient heritage” and then foisted the protestantized novus ordo on us.
spartacus and one or two others have not only succumbed to a false obedience but they have also become adherents to magisterialism, a fixation on the teachings that pertain ONLY to the current magisterium. Since extrinsic tradition has been subverted and since the Vatican tends to promulgate documents exhibitng a lack of concern (if not outright contempt) regarding previous magisterial acts, it becomes quite easy to ignore the past and pay attention only to the current magisterium.
Neoconservatives think in a similar manner: the only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current authority. We traditionalists look at the present through the eyes of the past while the Vatican2 neocons look at the past through the eyes of the present.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
God meant us to judge if His Hierarchy is departing from His teaching..
LOL Oh, so that is what Jesus meant when he said that he who hears the church hears him.
I read the New Testament and I don’t remember where it was that Jesus gave any authority to any lay man.
Please refresh my memory, maybe post something from any Ecumenical Council you do accept - I assume there are one or two.
Go on. Make our day. Post a Magisterial Document teaching you have the authority to judge Pope and the Bishops teaching in Union with him.
You a rad trad?
Please. You are a rank protestant
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I knew that would be the only phrase you
would respond to. You are so predictable,
it’s painful. And again, you betray your
conceit: everything for you depends upon
“a Magisterial Document\” and, no doubt,
the more recent the better.
You belong right next to Ratzinger...in
any mosque of your choice. Just don’t
ever call yourself Catholic; it’s a lie.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John,
“But allowing alien legal systems to be incorporated in the system of justice....”
On the basis of what I have been able to find out about what Rowan actually said, he specifically and explicitly noted that Sharia should not become part of English law, but that some of the milder aspects of Sharia could operate as a meditation system with full rights of appeal to the British legal system. I.e., he suggested treating Islam in the same way as the Jewish communities operate and what can be seen in your description of the conflict between American secular divorce courts and the Catholic annulment process.
If what I found about Rowan’s actual words is correct, then what he recommended was simply giving Moslems the same position other “Dissenting” religions have enjoyed in England for centuries. The Mainstream Media misconstrued his statement and turned it into a part of its anti-Islamofascist advertising campaign. You swallowed this effort bait, hook and sinker.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I knew that would be the only phrase you would respond to
Good. Maybe the next time you post some crap from that nitwit site you won’t be tempted to think it deserves a response anymore than if you posted some crap charging the Pope is a Martian you would think that also deserved a response - other than a jeer.
BTW, Marian the deracinated barbarian thought that Plinio was a God - literally. So, who the hell cares what she scribbles about?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Mr. Konkola,
No, in fact, I didn’t. If you read the post, you’ll see that I explicitly compared the use of sharia courts of arbitration to the voluntary enforcement agencies favored by Rothbardian libertarians. As for whether Abp. Williams hopes that this is where sharia will remain, I’ll invite him to look to Canada, where legal force is increasingly given such courts, and to the history of Islam: Give it an inch, it takes a continent. Comparing Islamists to Methodists is rather like equating the Aryan Nations and the Amish. Yes, they’re both a sort of Protestant, but even the old Holy Office would have treated them very differently....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Here is a link describing the Pope’s visit to the Mosque that sent the sedes and schismatics into apoplexy.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/101621?eng=y
Gee, there DOES appear to be a difference in the reporting of the Mosque visit based upon whether or not the person describing the incident hates the Pope or not.
Marian the Barbarian is Pope-hater. She has been since Pope Benedict’s election.
Here’s another link to a soi disant traditionalist (includes many internal links) which states, accurately, I believe this will be a moment strongly reminiscent of Pope John Paul II’s Infamous Koran Kissing Incident—which is to say, interpreted and exaggerated far beyond the Holy Father’s personal intentions (taking a moment to reflect, in much the same manner as John Paul II was expressing a customary sign of respect towards the giver in that country). It will be, if not already, lambasted by ‘radtrads’ and exploited as a publicity stunt by the Muslim press.
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/11/pope-benedict-xvis-apostolic-journey.html#blue_mosque
Teachem2think. Stop hating on the Pope. Give him some love :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John,
You may be overlooking a lesson repeated time after time in history: religions thrive by mild persecution, while they start decaying as soon as they get into power. Governments’ financial support has been particularly lethal for religions—The Church of England is one example of this phenomenon. Applying this observation in practise: how would effective ability to enforce Sharia influence the number of Moslems in Canada?
Look at my comment on Raimondo’s today’s blog post for what may be the most effective way to deal with religious people. An example of this approach: to my knowledge, Islam does have the concept of humility. This raises intriguing possibilities for an exchange of ideas on what exactly it means to be humble. (The same debate I suggest starting with hard-line Evangelical Protestants.)
There are very positive traits in the morals of many religions—note that I see Protestantism as just the strictest branch of medieval Catholicism. The problem is that religions have time after time lost sight of these ideals. Dispensationalists are are the most recent example of this phenomenon.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Teachem2think. Here is one last post about The Pope visiting the Mosque.
<I>Seems to me this is an event that acquires most of its meaning from the lens through which one views it.
If you view it through a fearful/defensive/paranoid lens (surf the blogosphere, you’ll find plenty of examples), it is capitulation, “political correctness,” fake nicey-nice, syncretism, etc.
If you view it through the lens of confident trust in the Holy Spirit and in the ability of our very able pope, it is considered, deliberate, courteous, astute.
If you view it through the lens of ultimate triumph, it is victorious, prophetic.
If the latter is less clear, consider—wasn’t there a question some time back about an Imam visiting a Christian cathedral, and how awful that was? Well, which is it: is a leader of a religion coming to the turf of another a sign of strength or of weakness?
Seems to me the very fact a priest entered a mosque represents an invasion of Christian sanctity—Christ himself has entered, in persona Christi capitis; in fact, not merely a priest, but a bishop, a successor to the Apostles; and not any successor, but Peter’s successor!
Now, some won’t be happy unless he came tossing holy water around and making the sign of the cross. But I would say the pope’s very person—as bishop and as successor to Peter—is vastly more significant in bringing Christ into that mosque.
Of course the Muslim triumphalists think they’ve won something, but they believe in Islamic eschatology, whereas we know the truth. Why should we see things through their lens?
United States Posted by Fr Martin Fox on 12/2/06 at 10:27 AM
Teachem2think. Give-up radtradism for Lent. Repent and return to Rome. You will only be made crazy if you to continue reading the trash served-up by Marian the Barbarian and the rest of the Neo-Pharisees.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear mufti spartacus:
We don’t “hate on” (sic) the Pope or even Ratzinger for that matter. Unfortunately, you seem to have cornered the market but we’re also sure that, in your conceit, you feel fully justified.
In the oh so radical pre-Vatican2 days, I distinctly remember that we were forbidden from even entering a protestant edifice. But now, thanks to you and your modernist hierarchy, we can take our shoes off at the local mosque and, like Your Vicar, participate without even appearing as a Catholic.
HERE, AGAIN, FROM YOUR OWN HYPERLINK:
“Papal Pause Not Exactly a Prayer, Zenit News Service. 11/30/06:
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, confirmed, after the Holy Father’s historic visit today, that “the Pope paused in a moment of meditation and recollection.
“ ‘It was a moment of personal meditation, of relationship with God, which can also be called of personal, profound prayer,’ Father Lombardi told journalists, ‘but it was not a prayer with external manifestations characteristic of the Christian faith.’ “
Of course not! Heaven forbid that the Vicar of Christ should set such an example before blasphemous muslims; they might get angry and violent and explode one of their children.
And when you’re done explaining that, here are a few more for you [at least, you won’t have to take your shoes off :) ]:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A246rcAuchMass.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And continuing therefore:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A242rcDiscoMassVienna.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A240rcLourdesNewYear.htm
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And finally:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A230rcNiederauerHomo.htm
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A210rcJesuitDragShow.htm
And for Lent, I suggest you give up modernism, false ecumenism, and
magisterialism. And you definitely need more spiritual reading:
virtually everything before Vatican2 except, of course, the evil
produced by the modernists, progressivists, masons, and so on. Both
St. Paul and St. Athanasius set an example of true obedience and we
have a duty to follow it.
Many a protestant has been converted by delving into the true history
of the Faith. There is absolutely nothing radical about Tradition.
Vatican2 is pure radicalism.
And, by the way, as we stated in one of our very first comments many,
many months ago, we never left Rome....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Happy Valentine’s Day one and all…
including all muftis :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In the oh so radical pre-Vatican2 days, I distinctly remember that we were forbidden from even entering a protestant edifice.
Teachem...I think that,like Andy Pettitte, you are misremembering. There was no such prohibition. You really expect folks to think no Catholic ever went into a Protestant Church for, say, a wedding?
I could ask you to post the 1917 Canon Law entry establishing your claim but I know you are unable to source any of your claims.
You just make stuff up as you go and then complain when I ask you to source your claims.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear mufti spartacus:
One would think that one would not make such a foolish response as an attempt at argumentation if one actually knew one’s faith. Unfortunately, your quips indicate that you are indeed a child of Vatican2 and know too little of Our Faith.
Permit me then to instruct you. Of course, I am quoting a source but by not revealing the source, it may compel you to read more about your alleged faith. I will give you a hint: it’s definitely pre-Vatican2. And, dare I say, no Magisterial Documents are involved that you would approve of.
“The law of the Catholic Church forbids participation ina religious service that is not Catholic because it is an implied repudiation of the faith which a Catholic professes to be the only true faith. *** A Catholic may not act as an official witness. A wedding in a church is not [merely a] social event; it is also a religious ceremony. ***
“[Loyalty] to Christ forbids our sanctioning in any way a false form of religion, and protestantism is a corruption of Christ’s religion. If one may attend any religious services, irrespective of creed, then a Christian could assist at pagan rites. There must be a limit somewhere, and the Catholic Church says that those limits exclude any false forms of religion, even though it be an adulterated form of Christianity. The presence of a Catholic at protestant services is a silent approval of the error that one religion is as good as another. St. Paul says, ‘A man that is a heretic avoid.’ Titus III, 10. St. John says, ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him: ‘God speed you.’ ’ 2 Jn. V., 10. The law of the Church, too, protects the faith of Catholics. If they attend protestant services, there is always a danger that they will participate actively in a shamefaced way, and also a danger of their drifting into indifferentism and weakening their own faith. Their presence, also, can be a cause of scandal to other Catholics who may begin to think that it is right for them also to attend at non-Catholic churches. Nor is such attendance a kindness to protestants. The abstention of Catholics from their services is a lesson of the utmost importance to them. Our attendance would sanction to a certain extent their idea that their religion is as good as our own. But our absence from their churches gives them food for thought. An anglican might say, ‘ Well, I have seen methodists, presbyterians, congregationalists, and people of many other religions at our services; but I have never yet seen a Catholic associated with us.’ And the fact that the vast Catholic Church denies their claims has led many a man from the chaos of the different protestant churches to the true religion.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.