Comments for Silenced at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:28 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14153 The distinction the Holy Father makes is VERY traditional, going back to St. Irenaeus and st. Justin Martyr as well as St. Paul. It is a distinction between the belief of a human person and the person her or himself. A belief may be error, and the person who holds it may be mistaken, but to enter into dialogue with such a person is to challenge them to reason about their mistakes (and perhaps to subject my own ideas to the test of reason). Yes, error has no rights, but human persons do. They need to be respected and reasoned with. That is the Roman Catholic Church's position. Now sometimes a person is so wedded to an erroneous belief that no dialogue is possible. And in more difficult situations the error-clad person holds political power. Then Roman Catholics must pray that God's will be done and hold fast to the truth. God will not let evil stand forever. In most Muslim countries the situation is pretty much in this second case. There are some indications that Islam is on the decline (which is why it has become so militantly defensive). In every case, we can have complete confidence that God will not let error stand forever. Roman Catholics need not be afraid of dialogue and the process of reason as long as they remain faithful to the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. - Phenobarb Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:17:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14152 Rights that we possess by our nature are an emanation of natural law – the recognition of which preceded the Enlightenment in the West. Mainstream Sunni Islam does not recognize the existence of natural law. That is the foundation of the problem. - robert reilly Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:20:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14143 Aren't the Muslims merely a few centuries behind West regarding freedom of conscience and expression? Did historic Christendom value the freedom of conscience and expression as much and in the same way as modern West? Or is it more of an Enlightenment innovation that is yet to permeate through the Muslim world? - Gian Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:47:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14142 Yes, the impending dangers you mention are real, but at least we have constitutional principles to which we can appeal against them. Restoring those principles is the task at hand in a culture corroded by moral reltivism. There are no such principles in Islam, which does not recognize freedom of conscience. Arabic did not even have a word for conscience. This is not a polemical point but a factual one. - robert reilly Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:53:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14141 Do I sense a polemic here, Mr. Reilly? When the Vatican goes to the UN to attempt to restrict abortions in the world, only some Muslim coutries ever support it. No Western countries do. Would you say that abortion is a Muslim or Western "thing"? Germany suppresses Scientology. Israelis will admit they have an apartheid state (see mondoweiss.net) vis a vis the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank which are soon to be incorporated into Greater Israel. How much freedom of speech do Palestinians enjoy? The Mormons had to abandon their practice of polygamy in order for Utah to become a state in the 18th century. They were told that this was "a Christian country" and the Mormons wished to join the Union. Proponents of aberrosexual "marriage" will explain that the door for this to be accepted stems from contracepted heterosexual sex in marriage or out. Fecundity is deliberately negated. Even Catholic moral theologians say they have to agree that this argument is "logical" even if we can't accept it. Can you imagine how much free speech we will have in this country if Mr. Obama is re-elected? He and Ms. Sebelius of the HHS rolled over the Catholic Church like a truck. Do you recall Mr. Obama's pledge of a "national police force" numbering more than the military combined? We will see this implemented if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Now, let's review where the threat of curbs on free speech are the most worrisome to Americans. Thank you. - Manfred Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:47:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14138 Barbara, You advise taking the approach to Muslims that most of them take with us -- telling the other that his or her religion is false. That makes for a very short conversation. When Thomas Aquinas was asked by his fellow Dominicans: how are we supposed to deal with these Muslims, he responded, “we can’t deal with them from our revelation because they do not accept it; and we cannot deal with them from their revelation because we do not accept it. Therefore, we must treat them as natural men.” By this he meant—through reason. We must reason with them. That is what the Pope is trying to do – but first by being sure that his Muslim interlocutors accept the status of reason as capable of coming to know the truth. If one can reach an understanding of logos, the door is open to the incarnate Logos. - robert reilly Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:29:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14136 @Barbara Yours is the most insightful, loving comment I have read in years! Thank you. - Ernest Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:19:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14135 "Whenever Benedict XVI speaks on the subject of dialogue with Islam or directly addresses Muslims, he invariably emphasizes the acknowledgment of freedom of conscience and religion as the prerequisite for dialogue, not as an outcome from it." This is an interesting statement. I'm taking a chance and going to state that what the Holy Father "emphasizes" is not the right thing. I believe this is a split from Tradition as expressed by Popes in the not too distant past....that there is no freedom for error. Why is there "dialogue" between Truth and error? What is there to talk about in this way? In my opinion Islam would be better off it we told them the truth - that they believe in a false religion - that the Catholic Church holds Truth and they must convert if they want to save their souls. Yet I can see how crazy this sounds!!!! In this world speaking such truth gets you shouted down as a bigot or worse. But don't we have to preach the Gospel message in season and out? We must help people form their consciences, not reinforce the message that they are "free" to follow a false one. Where is the fruit of this kind of dialogue? - Barbara Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:39:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/silenced.html#comment-14133 This is a very interesting article- Something lurks under the surface. That Islam can be changed or that the West can help the “progressives” of Islam “reform” it to protect us from it is a disturbing thought. We are all mired up in platitudes about Islam because the new virtue of “tolerance” is insidious and has permeated most facets of our psyche. How any of us can think that if we tweek, or reform, or impose the West’s traditional ideas about freedom onto the Frankinstinian Monster of radical Islam and that somehow radical Islam will be no threat to our way of life, is at least somewhat guilty of wishful thinking at the least and outright delusional at the other end of the spectrum. This all puts into my mind the university crowd that would like to progressivize Orthodox Catholicism so that so called “social justice” takes precedence over real justice and true love. - Achilles Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:29:30 +0100