Mr. Verrecchio on Islam, Nostra Ætate and the Regensburg address

Mr. Louie Verrecchio’s latest Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II column in the Sydney Catholic Weekly was rather disappointing, dealing with Vatican II’s teaching on Islam in connection with the now-concluded First Seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum, but failing to dissect Islam as trenchantly as one might have hoped. Mr. Verrecchio quotes the following portion of Nostra Ætate (the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions):

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

(http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html)

The Muslims might worship (such as they do) the one deity, but not the one God, since

Neither can we rightly say that in one God is the Trinity, but that one God is the Trinity
(my emphasis,
Dz. 278, http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma3.php)

It is important that the Council Fathers noted that Muslims “take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees”. Christians would agree that they must obey God’s commands regardless of whether they understand them, but the manner in which the respective commands of the Holy Trinity and of the Muslim deity are ‘inscrutable’ differ profoundly. Now the only three things that the Holy Trinity cannot do are lie, sin or die (see, for instance, the Catechism of the Council of Trent on the First Article of the Creed). Now if one uses the presently-fashionable definition of sin as ‘something that harms one’s relationship with God’, then it is tautological to say that God cannot sin. Hence St. Thomas’s definition is to be preferred: sin is an offence against reason. This was H.H. The Pope’s point in the famous Regensburg address: “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.” So whatever God commands us to do, we can trust that it will not contravene the moral law. Indeed, as Prof. Amerio points out in Iota Unum, even if the present universe were to cease to exist and God were to create a new one, He could not create a new moral order.

But this is not the case in Islam; the Muslim deity is the creator, not only of ‘things visible and invisible’, but even of morality—he can call good evil and evil good (allusion to Isaiah fully intended). Whereas the Holy Trinity will only ever permit evil in order to avert a greater evil or procure a greater good, the Muslim deity can do what would in the prevailing moral order be considered evil. Hence the Holy Father pointed out that

for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality … Here [Prof. Theodore] Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry …
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html)

And remember, idolatry is about the worst sin there is, hence its inclusion in the First Commandment, ahead of murder and adultery. There are two conundrums involved in this: firstly, given that idolatry (First Commandment) is worse than disobedience (Fourth Commandment), oughtn’t one disobey the Muslim deity rather than worship false gods? Perhaps the Muslims order their precepts differently. Secondly, given that the Muslim deity can do evil, why ever should he be trusted? He could be lying to us in order to avert a greater evil or procure a greater good. Quite apart from any questions of external motives of credibility, there is the serious problem of this internal contradiction.

I can think of two possible origins of Islam, then, the first possibility more generous than the second. The first is that the false prophet Mohammed genuinely felt some sense of a calling from God, and so he made up and disseminated the teachings of the Koran. But given how diametrically opposed to Christianity Islam is, and given how clearly it overturns the moral order, I fear that this possibility is the more likely: that the Devil, seeing that he was defeated in the grand scheme of things but desiring to drag as many souls down with him as possible and inhibit as much as possible the spread of Divine Revelation, appeared either in person or in one of his minions to Mohammed and seduced him with his lies.

It is interesting also to note, then, an important area of agreement between the Muslims and the secularists—for both of them, morality is a created thing, and not at all immutable. It is unsurprising, then, to see informal alliances crop up between them on issues such as polyamory and the Our Father being prayed in Parliament.

As for the First Seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum of November 4-6, Friday’s Vatican Information Service Bulletin reported that

Each of the two sides in the meeting was represented by 24 participants and five advisers who discussed the two great themes of "Theological and Spiritual Foundations" and "Human Dignity and Mutual Respect". Points of "similarity and of diversity emerged, reflecting the distinctive specific genius of the two religions" the English-language declaration says.

It goes on to enumerate these points, all them predictable. It would have been nice, though, for the Muslims to qualify all their statements with the disclaimer ‘unless Allah says otherwise’.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Andrew Avellino, 2008 A.D.

Mr. Verrecchio on the death penalty

I have been consistently impressed with Mr. Louie Verrecchio’s Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II column in the Sydney Catholic Weekly, which is a pleasant surprise given my adverse opinion of the proceedings of that Œcumenical Council. Yesterday’s installment, provocatively entitled “Human dignity via the death penalty” was no exception. Now Mr. Verrecchio writes from a mainstream-conservative perspective of the purported ‘true spirit of Vatican II’, and accordingly I expected him simply to echo and elaborate on the opinions of recent Popes on the matter. Indeed, for the first half of the article it seems to be going that way, beginning with some quotations from John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and offering a curious examination of the death penalty in the Old Testament. But around the midway point Mr. Verrechio changes direction, acknowledging the disturbing connection between opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion, and he writes that it is possible that rather than being “a victory for the culture of life”,

it may very well be more accurate to consider [prohibition of the death penalty] the result of the kind of humanistic narcissism that sees man as the ultimate goal and master of all things; including determining the value of human life, not to mention choosing who shall live and who shall die.

He concludes by suggesting that

Perhaps we should consider that the truth of man’s unique dignity may be best communicated when the infinite value of a human life taken is demonstrated by applying the only penalty that can ever reflect the value of what was lost; death.

How refreshing to see a partisan, as it were, of Vatican II acknowledging what Traditionalists had defended all along (and what I have been arguing since my first post on the death penalty), namely, that there is simply no other earthly penalty that can satisfy justice in the case (at least) of murder. Mr. Verrecchio’s article was not perfect—its leisurely lead-up to its main point, its timid assertion of that point (“it may very well be more accurate …”, “[p]erhaps we should consider …”), and its use of the word “infinite” for the value of human life when a word like ‘inestimable’ might have been more apposite are among its shortcomings—but it was most pleasing nonetheless to see a bit of balance in a paper that is usually (or rather, always) uncritically anti-execution. The reaction in the letters page should be interesting.

What a sad irony it is, though, when a defender of Vatican II condemns as “humanistic narcissism” the view that “man as the ultimate goal and master of all things”, when in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes we read the startling assertion that man is “is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself”.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
27.X.2008

Paschal Mystery or Sacrifice of Calvary?

Mr. Louie Verrecchio's 'Harvesting the Fruit' column on Vatican II continues in the Catholic Weekly, part of the mainstream-conservative effort to hold up the true teachings of the Council against the purported 'spirit of Vatican II'. O how I look forward to him addressing Dignitatis Humanæ ...

In yesterday's column he listed some of the lamentable post-Conciliar Sanctuary 're-orderings' and compares them with what the Council really said. But one paragraph seems to me rather incongruous:

"The crucifix in some places has yielded to the so-called "Cross of the Risen Christ"; a fanciful blend of Cross, Resurrection, Ascension and Parousia that turns the historical reality of Christ's suffering and death into an image worthy of its four letter acronym."

Now I can conjure all too easily the image of what he is talking about; a certain new Church in the Diocese of Wollongong has a decidedly totem-pole-like carving with 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again' inscribed, in place of a Crucifix (in fact, this Church has just about the entire range of post-Conciliar 're-orderings'--obscured Tabernacle, designed 'in the round', you know what I mean).

But isn't this strange blend of events supposed to be central to the New Mass? Isn't the New Mass all about the whole 'Paschal Mystery' rather than just the Mystical Immolation of the Lamb of God? The 'Cross of the Risen Christ' seems to me to be suited quite well to the New Mass.

Reginaldvs Cantvar