There are enormous differences between Catholicism and Islam, but they have much in common. To list their principal similarities : both are monotheisms; both recognize Jesus as a Prophet; both make daily prayer obligatory, although Islam prescribes multiple daily prayers for all its adherents, while Catholicism imposes the Divine Office only on its religious orders and clergy; both believe their Founder ascended into Heaven (one on a cloud, the other on a horse); both consider what their Founder said (neither wrote anything) to be the Word of God ; and most importantly, both religions believe they have a monopoly on the truth.
It is striking that though Catholicism has been forced in recent centuries to abandon the temporal, political and military power it once had and exercised, literally and figuratively with a vengeance, notably against Muslims, and has now neither armed divisions nor vast territories, its supreme authority and headquarters retains the status of … a State. Islam is, in our own time, trying to recreate the Caliphate through its expanding “Islamic State”. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished that after a much shorter period of terrorism and dictatorship than it took to bring the Catholic Church under control, Islam will be enlightened enough or even forced, to become just a religion again, deprived of power over the lives of its members and, through terror, over the rest of us. The task may be more difficult because of a major difference between Islam and Catholicism : there is no equivalent in Islam of a centralized authority similar to the Vatican. But even if Islamic extremists’ political, totalitarian ambition to rule the world is one day contained, both Islam and Catholicism will continue to exercise considerable influence over the minds of their followers.
One can describe the range of belief both in Catholicism and Islam in terms of a line from one extreme to another. As I believe that the normal, rational, unbiased, objective view of the Universe, of life and of death is to refuse to accept fantasy and myth as truth, I begin with atheism. My own is not your everyday “Believe what you like; I don’t buy any of that religious nonsense”, but an active dedication to inviting others to share the freedom atheism has given me by abandoning all religious belief and practice.
So I begin the gamut with Militant Atheism, way out there on the left. Moving to the right we have , in turn, more or less militant Atheism – Agnosticism – Doubt – Belief on the Brink – Total Indifference – Cool to Warm to Red-Hot Faith – and, finally, Fanaticism and Terrorism. The right-of-center categories include Catholics who range from the indifferent to the lukewarm to the devout to the Pentecostalists to the pre-Vatican 2, Tridentine lovers of the Latin Mass to the fanatics of Catholic fundamentalism. I am not familiar enough with Islam to describe in detail possibly similar degrees and manifestations of their faith. But different from the Catholic Church mercifully deprived of the power it had during the Dark Ages and notably during the Inquisitions and, in some measure, during the era of the Papal States, the extreme right of Islam today is terrorism while the extreme right of current Catholicism is “mere” fanaticism.
The challenge of Islamic terrorism, practised by armies or bands of Jihadists or individuals brainwashed into using their own bodies as IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) or beheading randomly chosen people in Sydney’s Martin Place or the mountains of Algeria, is not going to go away any time soon. It is virtually impossible to win a war against guerrillas, as we discovered at great cost in Vietnam. But if we capitulate to the imposition of Charia “law”, humanity will be condemned to live in slavery. We need a Muslim George Orwell.
“Sapienti sat” – that should be enough for the wise. Another “voeu pieux”, a “pious wish”, wishful thinking ? The guru who can solve all this has no doubt not yet been born. Many will continue to distinguish Islam from Islamism (though it is difficult to believe that the Jihadists’ motivation is not Qu’ran-Hadith driven), to say nice things about devout, God-fearing, law-abiding Muslims, to regret the structure of their decentralized, Pope-less religion and the impotency of their imams to eradicate the fanaticism and terrorism their religion produces in their mosques and madrassas.
In the meantime, the Jihadist expansion goes on. Can it be eliminated militarily ? Like some American generals, I fear not. We are in for a long haul of trying to contain at least the most violent of the manifestations of Islamic terrorism. But, as the Brits would say, the real battle is for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere. We have not been terribly effective in eradicating Catholic credulity (but some of us will keep on blogging …). We can only hope that enlightened Muslims, even if they continue to believe in Allah, will begin to preach an Islam that leaves the Dark Ages behind them, at least to the point of renouncing violence, forced conversions and the imposition of the Charia. After all we did succeed in taking the teeth out of the Inquisition, and in getting the Church to recognize that it had to change its views on geocentrism, evolution and a literal understanding of its sacred texts. The Church has laid down its arms, put away its instruments of torture, no longer punishes people for disagreeing with Church doctrine; it lives and lets live with dissidents, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and even atheists. This is a lot to expect from Islamic State or our own young citizens leaving home to join them. But even if we can’t convince them that Allah does not exist, that like Christianity Islam is blindfaithblindfolly, perhaps we can settle for less and try to lead them at least to accept the non-violent cohabitation of people of different faiths and even people with no faith at all.
P.S. Just a few hours ago before posting this, a fourth hostage was decapitated by Jihadists. After the two American and one British journalist, a French mountain-guide was beheaded in Algeria this evening in response to the French bombing of Jihadist installations and personnel in Iraq. It is hard to predict what will happen in the immediate future. The threat of both further barbarous acts of terrorism and a violent, irrational over-reaction is real. Religion poisons everything. Nothing to laugh at here. “Ridenda Religio” reverts to …
DELENDA RELIGIO
Thom said:
A timely and insightful analysis that is hardly likely to mollify the murderous psychopaths of Islamic State.
The cherished freedoms that we enjoy and largely take for granted have been hard won and can be easily lost through apathy and indifference. Men and women of good will everywhere whatever their beliefs regarding the existence or not of God must be vigilant and assertive in uniting to help contain and hopefully eradicate this latest cancer of murderous fanatical extremism.
LikeLike
jim said:
For once, Thom is criticising(albeit indirectly) the long,rambling, predictable sermon by Frank.
You are right Thom. Well done.
Using the present serious Muslim threat to somehow link it with the past sporadic crimes by some Catholics not living their Faith of love of neighbour, including enemies ( a sometimes difficult command by its founder0, is the butt of Frank’s mission. As Thom observes, it is most unhelpful in the present climate. An innocent French man has been decapitated today. May God have mercy on his soul.
I will just comment on a few of the many contestable claims of Frank’s lengthy message.
To quote Frank :”…. though Catholicism has been forced in recent centuries to abandon the temporal, political and military power it once had and exercised, literally and figuratively with a vengeance, notably against Muslims,……”
Comment: Inaccurate, vastly exaggerated, unhistorical, mischievous and misleading.
At times,Catholics retaliated to Muslim provocation. At Otanto, 800 innocent, unarmed, peaceful towns people were beheaded for not converting. There are numerous incidents, always in one direction, of converting via the sword. Unlike Christ, Even Mahomet wielded a sword, leading his army against infidels.
The one time a personal follower o Jesus drew a sword and cut off an aggressor’s ear, Jesus commanded him to replace the sword and healed the ear. Not a very good comparison of the founders, Frank! You must agree.
Frank continued:
” After all we did succeed……. in getting the Church to recognize that it had to change its views on heliocentrism, evolution and a literal understanding of its sacred texts. The Church has laid down its arms, put away its instuments of torture, no longer punishes people for disagreeing with Church doctrine; it lives and lets live with dissidents, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and even atheists.”
The Church, as everyone else, including science, has changed Galileo’s heliocentric theory. The sun is not the centre of the galaxy.
Theistic evolution is accepted as an unproved possibility by the Church. See the Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC 92] for teaching on evolution.
Micro evolution, adaptation within a species is fine.
Darwinism, or atheistic macro evolution, is not proven and is not accepted by the Church, and increasingly challenged by modern evolution. There are many problems with his theory which is crumbling. DNA evidence traces all women of all races to a single mother, and similarly for all men to a common father.
Modern science is increasingly friendly to theistic belief.
Again, check the CCC for biblical interpretation. Frank tends to follow some heretic for his information. The CCC explains the 4 levels of Catholic understanding of scripture:
The literal and 3 levels of spiritual. The literal level is the meaning of the words. Of course, when Jesus says that He is the vine and we are the branches, we take the obvious meaning of His analogy. There’s an awful lot more to correct but that’s a start.
Frank did a lot of musing and thinking in circles, but Thom gave a short practical comment. Forget all the old back and forth of events, centuries old, Frank. It’s so unproductive and falls on deaf ears. We know you have other issues with your former Faith.
That’s why we should not overlook our greatest modern shame of not protecting the defenceless, innocent unborn. It’s the slavery indifference shame of the last century, on which future generations will judge us. Your weak, ambivalent mention of this issue in your book was noted by others. The comment of a highly educated friend was ” If he can’t make up his mind on this matter, what credibility does he have on others.” We have recently seen the similar dithering on free will. Frank wants to think he has this freedom, but admitting it concedes something to us Christians. A dilemma, Frank. Having cast off the shackles of Faith, it’s not nice to feel a programmed machine. My sympathy!
LikeLike
frankomeara said:
Readers will appreciate that Jim’s comment left me with a choice : to trash or not to trash. A response from me is out of the question. No point in arguing with Jihadists or Catholic fanatics. I decided finally not to trash this pathetic ramble which would make even Rumble rock and roll in his grave. I could hardly have asked for a better example of the Extreme Right and its blindfaithblindfolly.
LikeLike
Thom said:
Correcting the public record appears to be a necessity where Jim is concerned.
Nothing in my comment can be rationally construed as a direct or indirect attack on anything Frank says in his post.
It is perfectly clear that Frank is urging the abandonment of fanaticism and at the very least the tolerant acceptance of differences of opinion.
It should be obvious to readers where Jim sits in the spectrum mentioned by Frank. Some would call it the extreme loony right of fanatical Catholicism. I will refrain from sharing my opinion – readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves.
The focus must return to the present urgent necessity to contain and hopefully eradicate the murderous fanaticism of Islamic State.
LikeLike
Philomena said:
As a “middle-of-the-road” Catholic I agree with Thom’s comment about Frank’s post. I accept that others, like Thom and Frank, hold different views from mine but I trust that the awful intolerance of the fanatics in Iraq will not gain a foothold here in Australia.
It is difficult to see what Jim hopes to achieve by misrepresenting what others are saying.
LikeLike
Georgie said:
Hi Philomena. I have to say that I agree with your comments even though I’m not a Catholic.
LikeLike
frankomeara said:
G’day, Philomena, glad to have you join us.
LikeLike
jim said:
it was necessary for me to challenge just a few of the wild exaggerations of Frank and his attempt to somehow link current Islam barbarism with Christ’s opposing teaching and example.
Thom disappoints me in following dutifully in his blind faith in Frank’s crusade of hatred against his parents’ faith. It is not a rational rejection of his heritage. Lula was quick to detect a deeper motive.
LikeLike
jim said:
Thanks Georgie. I am Catholic, so write as such. However, what I say is almost entirely common to all Christian beliefs.
The conflict is not Islam versus Christian, exclusively. It is Islam versus Western society. We are all infidels. It annoys me how dishonestly Frank and Thom use any excuse to turn to an attack on Christianity. You can see that they merely state opinions and abuse, not rational argument.
LikeLike
jim said:
in case any one is wondering, I did send two reasonable, non hostile responses that have been censored.
The main one was commenting on Frank’s 6 “similarities brtween Islam and Catholicism. I endorsed, where appropriate, further explained where I felt necessary.
There was no impoliteness or sarcasm.
I am sorry that my free thoughts are not acceptable to champions of free thinking.
LikeLike
frankomeara said:
I’m sure, Jim, that no one at all “is wondering”. When your comments are worthless, inaccurate or absurd, I prefer to save you from embarrasment by trashing them. Just two examples from the “two reasonable, non hostile responses that have been censored”:
In “the main one…commenting on Frank’s 6 ‘similarities between Islam and Catholicism”, you wrote : “(Jesus) is not said to have ridden on a cloud”. I have more important things to do with my time rather than correct your ignorance and dogmatic, blatantly false statements. More informed and Bible-literate readers will recall Acts 1:9 : “No sooner had He said this than He was lifted up before their eyes IN A CLOUD which took him from their sight” (from “The New American Bible”, official translation by members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine).
In the other trashed comment you wrote : “I am sure if you describe your freedom, Frank, and the joy it has given you, you would entice others … You must QUANTIFY your achievements, peace of mind and other benefits.” Jim, I’m just a theologian, but I would be surprised if even an engineer could “quantify his peace of mind”.
I have done you the honour of wasting my time revealing how ridiculous and unworthy of posting most of your comments are. The Blog is already overloaded with rubbish from you which I should never have allowed to be posted. You have forced me to reveal just how silly, mistaken and hostile, yes, hostile, you can be.
LikeLike
frankomeara said:
Astute readers will have noticed that I have corrected a typing mistake in the original version of the above reply. Thanks to JIM I discovered that unintentionally, in quoting Acts 1:9, I wrote ” … a cloud which took THEM from their sight”, instead of “which took HIM”, undoubtedly because of the word “their” which follows. Jim, naturally, seized on one of my ultra-rare misprints, accusing me of deforming the sacred text, forgetting of course that he had denied its very existence. I have added the fact that the translation I used is that of the Catholic, official “The New American Bible”. Apparently if you don’t use the Douai version, you’re a heretic.
LikeLike
laroche said:
The main commonality between Christians and Muslims, once again ignored by Franck, is that they start from the same God, the one invented by the Jews.
The day when the Jews will recognize that their story is pure invention, instead of organizing the removal of all the books that explain it, we will smooth faster the differences than with wars.
I dream of a ? philosophy that searches the best in the civil aspects of the 3 monotheist religions
LikeLike
frankomeara said:
Bienvenue, cher ami ! Welcome back, Laroche ! You are one of those “invisible readers”, presumed not to exist by another commentator all too visible but now frequently trashed on this Blog. I prefer to call faithful readers like you “silent”, who for whatever reasons prefer, for the most part, not to post comments or even reveal, even under a pseudonym, that they exist. Your comments are always welcome, though I have in the past suggested that Judaism is just part of the problem of religious credulity. You seem to think that I should concentrate on attacking and demolishing the Jewish religion, rather than direct my broadsides against all religions, with priority given to the one I know best, Christian Catholicism. We all know that Judaism is the founder and forerunner of the other two monotheisms. But what do you suggest I do that I am not doing to get devout Jews to recognize that their religion, like all the others, is blindfaithblindfolly ?. I have no more respect for the Torah than I have for the New Testament or the Qu’ran. Respect for the persons who believe in these religions, yes, but not their silly beliefs, rules and rituals.
You are trying to be broad-minded and ecumenical in suggesting we search for “the best in the civil aspects of the 3 monotheist religions”. Fine, but I would not waste my time filtering out the superstition and nonsense. The great philosophers provide more than enough input and insights to help us discover the wisdom to help us live together in harmony and give meaning to our lives.
LikeLike
jim said:
Frank says:
The great philosophers provide more than enough input and insights to help us discover the wisdom to help us live together in harmony and give meaning to our lives.
I totally agree. The 3 A’s; Aristotle in 2300Bc, followed by Augustine in 4th century and last, but not least, Aquinas in 13th century had it all worked out. They were all on the same page, and gave us the philosophy to be certain of A creator and sustainer of all, being one God with all the attributes that monotheists attribute to this God. From there, They established the non material human mind, immortal human soul and the basis of the moral law.
This scholastic school of philosophy is as relevant today as always.
Other schools have arisen in 18th century, following an erroneous assumption, particularly from David Hume,that an effect can happen without a cause. They have been counter productive.
LikeLike
laroche said:
I do not often comment on this huge wealth of scholarship (erudition) for several reasons
– English
– I find that we move too quickly from one subject to another, it’s almost like watching news at TV
– As I’ve probably said formerly, although I am not a believer, I admire the overall work of all Christians who have lived before us. Of course there were excesses, mistakes, but for example, is it not moving to go into a cathedral, etc …
– For me, the only way to stop with these stories is that Jews admit that it took over 1000 years to organize their holy books. Of course they never met God and consequently all prophets are only enlightened
As long as enough people can hide behind “God’s words,” no rational work can prevail
LikeLike