09.30.06
Heaven and Earth
I found a great program called Journler the other day (for Mac OS X), which I’m now using for organizing everything from book summaries to projects to blog posts (and I’ll be using this software from now to post, but this time I needed to trackback so I haven’t). I browsed around the developer’s site, and I also found his interesting blog, and a post regarding Pascal’s Wager. I couldn’t quite agree with his statement that “suppose for a moment that life and death on earth alone is as sacred as an eternity in heaven, perhaps even more so for its here and now. Pascal’s wager becomes a debt.” So, I posted the following reply:
Hi,I love Journler, it’s so very useful and fun to use, not to mention being very much a Mac ‘app Thank you so much for your generosity  Interesting ‘blog you have here too, some deep stuff. 
Regarding this post from a Catholic perspective (I’m a convert since 2003), I agree, life on earth is as sacred. We believe that this is why “sin” exists; to sin is to “miss the mark” about the ontological sacredness of our lives and that of others, thereby morally betraying our teleological nature.Acknowledging the existence of “sacredness”, and lack thereof, is also to acknowledge a standard from which such a quality is derived, for we cannot be a source of sacredness itself (because evil – which we also have – is a lack of the sacred, and not a thing in itself). That source is God, the all, through whom all good things and truths come, be it through general revelation (self-evident truths, and goodness available to all) or, as we believe, through special revelation (Christ). Now, life in Heaven is in some ways not wholly seperate from “here and now”; because we are finite creatures, we can not exist in eternity (which has no beginning or end), but the space-time is mystically connected with it, in what is theologically termed aeviternity (which includes our beginning in time). This is why Christ declares, “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John 6:54) – it is not a thing far away, but something we possess here on earth by being intimately united with the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ (who through Incarnation bridges time to eternity, and man to God). This is why Scott Hahn (a Presbyterian-minister-turned-Catholic-apologist) could describe the Catholic Mass – where the flesh and blood are consumed – as Heaven on Earth, and why Christ himself could say “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, Heaven is at once the source and summit of all goodness and sacredness on earth which necessarily enriches it, and also without which the “here and now” necessarily suffers: “People think heaven is escapist because they fear that thinking about heaven will distract us from living well here and now. It is exactly the opposite, and the lives of the saints and our Lord himself prove it. Those who truly love heaven will do the most for earth. It’s easy to see why. Those who love the homeland best work the hardest in the colonies to make them resemble the homeland. “Thy kingdom come. .. on earth as it is in heaven. The pregnant woman who plans a live birth cares for her unborn baby; the woman who plans for an abortion does not. Highways that lead somewhere are well maintained; dead ends are not. So if we see life as a road to heaven, some of heaven’s own glory will reflect back onto that road, if only by anticipation: the world is charged with the grandeur of God and every event smells of eternity. But if it all goes down the drain in death, then this life is just swirls of dirty water, and however comfortable we make our wallowing in it, it remains a vanity of vanities.” This is the case because in acknowledging its existence we can no longer be reductionists, but see all things through the eye of love: “Since God is the Creator and since creation reflects and reveals the Creator, and since God is love, all creation somehow reflects and reveals love…. We can see the same principle at work on every level: gravity and electromagnetism on the inorganic level; a plant’s attraction to the sun and to water and nutrients in the soil on the plant level; instinct on the animal level; and love on the human level. And within the human sphere there is also a hierarchy beginning with the sexual desire (eros) and affection (storge) that we share with the animals up to the friendship (philia) and charity (agape) that we share with the angels. The universe is a hierarchy of love. This is not a myth. This is the splendid and glorious truth. Look! How can you miss it? It’s all around us.” This being the case then, the no-longer-so-anonymous-reader Gratuitous Blessings, – |
09.23.06
The Crusades, part II
II. Who’s right?
We’ve seen that the popular opinion of the media and the masses contradict what is written, at least in my World Book entry.
The Wikipedia entry seems to downplay the Islamic conquests, instead focusing on the problems in Christendom – which may well have been true, but it isn’t enough to explain the misconceptions. Moreover, it does also talk about the different attitudes toward the Crusades in the West and the East, albeit with a rather contrived sympathy to the East: “the standard Western legend speaks of heroism and honour, the Eastern (Islamic and Orthodox Christian) chroniclers tell stories of barbarian savagery and brutality” – I guess that’s why most people in West think so badly of the crusades, huh? 
This still doesn’t explain the inconsistency between what’s recorded and the public perception.
So, what’s the story?
In this regard, the article by Thomas F. Madden (professor of medieval history and a crusade historian, as you’ll recall), The Real History of the Crusades is helpful. Madden observes that the public never seems to even question the popular culture’s ideas about the Crusades. Indeed, they never really needed to, until that fated day on September 11th. From that day on, medieval history suddenly became relevant to the general public so that now, Madden writes, objective history has a chance to put the record straight on the public misbelief:
| Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades… They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening…
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining. |
The article goes on to reaffirm what the World Book entry said, and more:
| Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. |
In other words, if the Crusades never happened, the whole of Europe may well have been conquered (they got very close to Italy and Germany), and the multitude and the media now broadcasting their outcry would likely be either living under subjugation (if Christian or Jew), be Muslims (if their ancestors were forced to convert) or not exist at all (if their ancestors did not choose either of the options above, and thus were executed). This is why it was a holy war; it sought to preserve the Christian faith against the invading foreigner, and take back what was conquered.
I recommend reading the article in its entirety. It also debunks a couple of popular myths that contribute to the popular misconceptions:
- that forced conversion was the goal and result of the crusades – there were none, and it was not the purpose of crusading; defense of the Christian states and retaking of the Holy Land was.
- that the Crusaders were out to get rich through looting and plunder – again, “computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance”.
Glad we cleared those up! There is one more question that needs to be answered though: if all these myths are so wrong, why did the late Pope apologise, and how did the Crusades get such a bad name? Glad you asked 
, let’s look into that in the next post.
09.21.06
The Crusades, part I
I. Accusations and History collide
Let us remind ourselves of what we’ve heard so far regarding the history in this area:
| The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the shedding of blood and violence, which is ‘incompatible with the nature of God’ is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history.
After the… crusades in the Muslim world… and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions |
Now, apart from the decontextualization of the quote itself (which is another issue altogether), allegation of “distortion of facts” and “ignorance of… Islamic history” somewhat amuses me, since the facts and history point to Islamic expansion by the sword, which in turn provoked the “crusades in the Muslim world” and the “holy war”. Perhaps history is taught differently in the Middle East, I don’t know, but the evidence seems clear to me. Take the World Book Encyclopedia (a handy reference source on my computer), for example. Under the Subheading, “How the Crusades began”, it details the following:
| During the A.D. 500’s, the Byzantine Empire – a Christian empire centered in southeastern Europe – controlled much of the land bordering the Mediterranean Sea (see BYZANTINE EMPIRE). This area included southeastern Europe, Asia Minor (now part of Turkey), Palestine, Syria, Italy, and parts of Spain and North Africa.In the 600’s, Arab Muslims conquered Palestine, including Jerusalem… During the 1000’s, Seljuk Turks from central Asia conquered Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria. The Seljuks, who were Muslims, crushed the Byzantines in the Battle of Manzikert in Asia Minor in 1071.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus asked Pope Urban II for assistance in fighting the Seljuk Turks. Urban agreed to help. He wanted to defend Christianity against the Muslims and to recover the holy places. In the autumn of 1095, Urban held a meeting of church leaders in Clermont, France. At this Council of Clermont, Urban called for a crusade. |
So, clearly, the popular prejudice and history as we know it contradict each other. Could the West have recorded the history wrong, perhaps? How do we know which is true? Let’s examine this in the next post.
09.20.06
Papal Quote: Reactions and Responses, part II
The reactions and responses to the Papal quote around the world is quite amazing, and amusing. The professor of medieval history and crusade historian Thomas F. Madden (and I shall point to his articles in the upcoming posts) has written an article in response to the outcry of the media, Muslim and multitude, explaining the context in which the controversial quotes was cited, saying that there is really no basis for all the reactions. The article is entitled “Unreasonable Response”. An interesting read, and pretty contentious to be sure.
Interestingly, all this talk about the Pope’s quotation of the Byzantine Empire seem to bring to the surface the popular prejudices and misconceptions people have of the Catholic Church. Some would eagerly declare that Benedict XVI’s remarks have “backfired” on the Church herself but, on the contrary, I rather think this is a providential opportunity to clear up a few popular misconceptions that such people, including Muslims, would have.
According to this CNN article, The Organization of the Islamic Conference said: “The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the shedding of blood and violence, which is ‘incompatible with the nature of God’ is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history.” The Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said, “We say to the pope to re-examine these comments and to stop defaming the Islam religion that more than 1 and half billion Muslims believe in”. The president of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims has retorted by saying that that the history of the Catholic Church is also bloodstained:
| After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler’s regime, and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions,” |
That sounds fair enough – or does it? Let’s ask some questions here.
Afterall, everyone just knows about the uncivilized and bloody history of the crusades and the inquisitions, right? I mean, look at all those extremely historically accurate and trustworthy, unbiased accounts fed to us by Hollywood, for example 
.
More seriously though – John Paul II did apologise for these atrocities, didn’t he? Just what did he apologize for? How much is truth and how much a popular myth? Can we really rely on the perception of the popular culture – the product initially of the Protestant reformation (which sought to discredit Catholicism), compounded to and amplified by the so-called Enlightenment (which sought to discredit Christianity) – to proclaim the truth?
In the following posts, I shall attempt to uncover the truth and expose the myths in the issues raised above and, seeing that it’s a good opportunity, a few other popular misbeliefs about the Catholic Church as well.
09.18.06
Papal Quote: Reactions and Responses, part I
For the curious and the cautious, here’s the actual address in full (from Zenit, of course ). Since the speech, the Pope has issued an apology saying he was “deeply sorry” and that “These in fact were quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought”. It seems though, that wasn’t enough and some are requesting a fuller apology.
So far, there’ve been some pretty extreme reactions according to the Times Online article: “yesterday Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza”, while Al-Queda linked websites plans a “major attack” on the Vatican, and a Kuwait jihadist website called for full-scale “violent retribution” against all Catholics (um, yah… these do a lot to disprove the “evil and inhuman” quote! 8O). I guess this might prevent the Pope’s visit to Turkey planned in a couple of month but, perhaps, it’s not such a bad idea since the current best-seller book there is entitled “Attack on the Pope: Who will kill Benedict XVI in Istanbul?” (the article also notes that Hitler’s Mein Kempf was in that position last year)! Hm. Divine providence?
However, as our friend Universal has warned me, and as G. K. Chesterton put it, there are always good people in bad religions, and bad people in good religions, so admittedly people’s actions are not entirely a basis for assessment of the belief system. If that was the case, Christianity would fail the test pretty quickly. Afterall, there are Muslim leaders that condemn these violence too.
As the Catholic Education Resource Centre article, Islam: The Appeal and the Peril explains, there are many things which are praiseworthy in Islam, such as their complete submission and strict adherence to the moral code. As our friend Universal would say, there’s also a great deal of good things it has taken from Christianity and Judaism (since, according to Universal, Islam is in a sense an amalgamation of a Christian heresy [Nestorianism], Judaism and paganism of the Middle East – so it’s the greatest theistic heresy). Unfortunately though, as the same article notes, there’s also an inherent tendency toward violence, especially toward atheists, pagans and other non-Abrahamic monotheists (ie. those who are not Jewish or Christians), for whom the following verse of the Quran applies: “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them” (Q 9:5). Christians and Jews are slightly better off, in that we also get given the option to live in subservience: “Fight those who do not… follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Q 9:29). This is perhaps why organizations such as the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society exists, especially with regard to certain lack of Human rights in the more fundamental Islamic countries.
I’ll have a look at the more “moderate” responses on part II.
09.17.06
Responses to Pope’s Comment
It’s interesting reading about various reactions and responses to the Pope’s comments. They were meant to stress the fact that it is wrong to use violence to spread religion. Some responses are reasonable, some are not. Some are down right extreme and, in a sense, quite funny in the way they demonstrate what they’re trying to disprove in the first place. I shall write more on this tomorrow, I think. In the meanwhile, I shall leave you with a prayer from St. Augustine:
| God our Father, we find it difficult to come to you, because our knowledge of you is imperfect. In our ignorance we have imagined you to be our enemy; we have wrongly thought that you take pleasure in punishing our sins; and we have foolishly conceived you to be a tyrant over human life. But since Jesus came among us, he has shown that you are loving, and that our resentment against you was groundless. |
09.15.06
Truth about Islamic Jihad
It’s interesting – and timely, I guess, after yesterday’s entry – that on today’s top Google News page, I found Benedict XVI. The title of the article? “Pope Benedict XVI angers Muslims during German visit”. This BBC article explains much the same thing: that the Pope quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire who said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Now the media, the Muslims, and the multitude are all outraged.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love (or try to love) all people, no matter the race, sex, or creed – including Muslims. It’s wrong to attack, persecute or mistreat them in any way; they’re human beings made in the image of God also. This doesn’t mean, though, that the ideology itself can’t be criticized.
So. Why is it that so many people buy into the propaganda (often by Muslim apologists) that Islam is a religion of peace, even in the face of Hamas, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah? I mean, every student of History would know that Islam spread by sword (telling others to “convert or die”) – and continues to do so today – while Christianity spread through persecution (being told to “recant or die”) – and continues to do so as well.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems like a natural consequence of following either of the founders: Mohammed, who fought many battles himself to spread the faith, and Christ who was persecuted unto death. Hence, Islam teaches following Mohammed through Jihad, and Christians follow in the path of Jesus who says “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43).
“Jihad” is defined in my dictionary as “a holy war undertaken by Muslims against unbelievers”. Now, I realise that there are other kinds of Jihad as well, but this war against “infidels” is an integral part of Islamic ideology. Lukewarm Muslims may not adhere to it, but it’s nonetheless an essential part of the Islamic faith, and it’ll go on until the whole world “submits” (that’s what “Islam” means) to their faith. This is perhaps best explained in the Catholic Answers special report on The Truth about Islam and Violence, entitled “Endless Jihad”.
09.14.06
Truth vs. the Media, part II
As I mentioned previously, the Catholic Church and the Pope are the couple media often loves to hate. Perhaps “hate” is a strong word, but certainly it likes to misrepresent what the Church is, and what the Pope says.
Interestingly, yesterday’s Being Frank post was exactly on that – the media’s distortion of the Church and the Pope:
| It’s often interesting to observe the media reporting on Papal utterances.
Reports on Catholic News and ANSA give quite different takes on a single papal statement. I’ll let you read them for themselves here and here. The Catholic News report puts the quote in context, as part of a longer reflection. The ANSA article, on the other hand, examines the quote in isolation, constructs a false framework around it, and draws some sensationalised and misleading conclusions. |
It’s so true, and most people are easily convinced at their propaganda, simply because they are also a part of the cultural prejudice against the Church.
Take, for example, the sexual abuse scandal. It is shocking and most disgusting and should not have happened at all. However, the media portrayal of the problem is sensationalized and positively misleading, since priests are far from being the only abusers. Firstly, a study on this, Sexual Abuse In Social Context: Catholic Clergy And Other Professionals, shows that the rate of sexual abuse is no higher than… anywhere else – in fact, it’s less than either among the Protestant clergy or in the society in general (actually, the highest rate of abuse anywhere is among family members), so the problem is way blown out of proportion. The irony (again) is that the society is all too happy to point its fingers at the Church even though the blame is even greater for it. Secondly… well, just read this article on 10 Myths About Priestly Pedophilia. Hah. It’s just so true that in the present climate, the Catholic Church and the caucasian male are the only Politically Correct objects of oppression!
Anyhow, looking at the actual statistical data, I think you’ll agree that the media reports so far have been positively bigoted, and this continues even to this day. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised; the world dislikes a moral authority which restricts its immoral self-gratification. Jesus himself said, “remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. …If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father also.” (John 15:20, 22-23). Still, we must also heed His word, to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) because, “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
09.13.06
Love and Freedom
“Freedom” is such an abused concept nowadays. Karol Wojtyla, before he was Pope John Paul II, said “Freedom exists for the sake of love” (Love and Responsibility, p. 135). Love is ultimately what we really want to do, and where we’ll find true fulfillment. So, untill we can love – that is, receive, reciprocate and give – without reservation, we are not truely free, or fulfilled. This is why we’ll find true freedom in heaven, because we can love perfectly. This is how souls in hell would suffer; for not being able to love, instead being consumed with hate and selfishness.
So, this life is a school of love; to learn to truely give ourselves for God and for our neighbour. All the discipline and teachings that comes from the Mother Church are there to free us to love, through joyful obedience and self-giving participation. Here too, a passive participation of a lukewarm Catholic – acting out of fear of punishment or only with the enticement of a reward – could never satisfy him; he must be actively and ever more self-giving – acting out of pure love for God and neighbour – in order to find fulfillment. As St. Francis’ prayer goes:
| Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; and where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love; for it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. Amen. |
Paradox of paradoxes. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.
09.12.06
Catholicism: the Church of Greater “Yes”
In today’s Being Frank post, Big Ted…little ted, and friends… (he he, it’s actually a very good one), some of the comments highlighted a couple of very important facts; namely, that there is the perception and there’s the reality. Catholicism is often perceived as a religion of intolerance and restrictions – a bunch of nay-sayers – but the reality is that (if lived fully) it is the source of freedom and joy – found in being able to say “yes” wholeheartedly to the greatest and most beautiful, loving and true things of this world and the next. The Church is a loving mother who does all things for the greatest good of her children.
As Scribe pointed out, our present Pope is working to communicate this to the world and, I suspect, the members of the Church as well – that to be Catholic is to first of all to see and rejoice in the “yes”. This, he made clear in his second major media engagement as Pope, when he said, “Christianity, Catholicism, isn’t a collection of prohibitions: It’s a positive option.”
This is explained further – and masterfully so – by Dumb Ox (who, again, is not so dumb):
| Behind every “no” found in the truth of Catholic teaching there is always a far greater “yes”. |
| So, for example, to say “no” to contraception, as Christ calls us too, is to say yes to the best sex a married couple can have (truly loving, unitive and open to the wondrous possibility of bringing a new human being into the world). |
| A lot of it boils down to perception, as you point out Scribe (how many dudes you know post like this, not many, if any!) in your comment. |
| An unenlightened sheep looks at a fence and bleats about how restrictive it is; while the farmer who installed the fence looks at it and is knowingly reassured that the fence protects his beloved sheep from harmful predators, or from straying over a cliff. |
| That’s what grace is all about and that’s why we have to get out there and start opening our mouths and proposing Christ to our world – before all the fences are gone and all the sheep are dead, dying or living a lonely existence of aimless wandering without the shepherd. |
Talk about recurring paradoxes .
