From Scotland on Sunday
THE leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has called for Muslims to apologise for the 9/11 and 7/7 bomb attacks, declaring that the public should not have to live "in fear of attack" from believers of the Islamic faith.
In a move that has provoked a storm of outrage, the cardinal claims that, as the Pope apologised for the offence caused last month by his comments on the Islamic faith, so Muslims should now step up and say sorry for the attacks carried out in the name of their faith.
O'Brien said: "There have been no apologies for the shooting of the nun [in Somalia after the Pope made his remarks], let alone for 9/11 or the London bombings. I would like to see some reciprocal moves from the Islamic side. We shouldn't have to live in fear of attack from Muslims."
The cardinal's comments were made in the same interview in which, as was revealed last week, he backed Scottish independence, praising the benefits autonomy could bring. A fuller version of the interview appears in this weekend's Catholic Herald newspaper.
O'Brien expands on his views on the British constitution. He declares that he "would be only too happy to continue to undermine the British State" if it goes on espousing sectarianism in the form of the Act of Settlement - the law which bars Catholics from marrying the heir to the throne.
Last night, the cardinal's views on Islam had stirred up a new controversy, with Muslim leaders furious at the comment. They claimed that as the terrorist attacks were carried out by extremists, mainstream Muslims who had already condemned the actions had nothing to apologise for.
O'Brien's comments came after he was asked which trend in society posed the greater threat in Europe: secularisation of Islamicisation.
He replied: "Secularisation is the greatest threat. Muslims are firm in their faith and in their views. They believe in one God. That is a point of identification; though it can also produce tensions. Muslims coming here are free to build mosques, but Christians in Muslim countries are often oppressed."
He then raised the issue of the Pope's apology, made after he had quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who had declared the Prophet Muhammad brought the world only evil and inhuman things, and made his comments on no reciprocal apology from Islam for the US attacks or London bombings last year.
THE leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has called for Muslims to apologise for the 9/11 and 7/7 bomb attacks, declaring that the public should not have to live "in fear of attack" from believers of the Islamic faith.
In a move that has provoked a storm of outrage, the cardinal claims that, as the Pope apologised for the offence caused last month by his comments on the Islamic faith, so Muslims should now step up and say sorry for the attacks carried out in the name of their faith.
O'Brien said: "There have been no apologies for the shooting of the nun [in Somalia after the Pope made his remarks], let alone for 9/11 or the London bombings. I would like to see some reciprocal moves from the Islamic side. We shouldn't have to live in fear of attack from Muslims."
The cardinal's comments were made in the same interview in which, as was revealed last week, he backed Scottish independence, praising the benefits autonomy could bring. A fuller version of the interview appears in this weekend's Catholic Herald newspaper.
O'Brien expands on his views on the British constitution. He declares that he "would be only too happy to continue to undermine the British State" if it goes on espousing sectarianism in the form of the Act of Settlement - the law which bars Catholics from marrying the heir to the throne.
Last night, the cardinal's views on Islam had stirred up a new controversy, with Muslim leaders furious at the comment. They claimed that as the terrorist attacks were carried out by extremists, mainstream Muslims who had already condemned the actions had nothing to apologise for.
O'Brien's comments came after he was asked which trend in society posed the greater threat in Europe: secularisation of Islamicisation.
He replied: "Secularisation is the greatest threat. Muslims are firm in their faith and in their views. They believe in one God. That is a point of identification; though it can also produce tensions. Muslims coming here are free to build mosques, but Christians in Muslim countries are often oppressed."
He then raised the issue of the Pope's apology, made after he had quoted a 14th-century Christian emperor who had declared the Prophet Muhammad brought the world only evil and inhuman things, and made his comments on no reciprocal apology from Islam for the US attacks or London bombings last year.
...............
O'Brien's comments came after he was asked which trend in society posed the greater threat in Europe: secularisation or Islamicisation.
He replied: "Secularisation is the greatest threat. Muslims are firm in their faith and in their views. They believe in one God. That is a point of identification; though it can also produce tensions. Muslims coming here are free to build mosques, but Christians in Muslim countries are often oppressed."
8 comments:
(1) The most we can reasonably expect from Muslims in general is an apology that they have not done enough in rising to the challenge of extremists in their midst, including those who are slaughtering Christians and other non-Muslims around the world even now.
(2) The Cardinal's remark that he would be willing to undermine the British State as long as the Act of Settlement remains in place is quite uncalled for, and I would say he has crossed a line.
The Catholic Church today enjoys as much freedom of activity as it did when this country was itself Catholic, and we are fully free to profess in public, without having to fear the police, that the British State has the duty to serve God according to the Catholic religion, and not otherwise, and must disapply whatever is repugnant to the law of God. That is as much freedom as Catholics should want in any civil society.
Whether it does its duty to God or not, He commands us to honour and obey Her Majesty and those who rule in her name as His ministers, and to render loyal allegiance to her. The Cardinal ought to know better than to impugn that allegiance, though he is as free as any citizen to have a political preference for Scottish independence. But he should not use his ecclesiastical office as a platform for advocating it, for it is a civil, not a moral, issue.
The Cardinal says that secularism is a greater threat than Islam. Wrong!
I have just received the Christian Voice newsletter from Stephen Green. He says that secular humanism, with its deliberate spiritual vacuum, is powerless in the face of Islam. Right!
Secularism is a spent force.
When Islam and secular humanism collide, the former will always prevail. It is the only faith in the world that persuades its followers to seek political power and impose a law - shari'a - which structures the whole of life. Islamic law commands that non-Muslims be killed if they do not convert to Islam.
Christians and Jews are given a third alternative of subjugated status without equal rights or citizenship. But the jihad against them is to be resumed if any of them should violate the pact of protection, or dhimma.
When Muslims offer secular humanists a choice between Islam or death, they will convert to Islam for the sake of a quiet life. To a secular humanist it doesn't really matter what you believe, so there is no objection to becoming a Muslim.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the secular humanist conscience that commands anything, let alone to hold fast to the faith even if it means death.
I think the Pope would disagree with you and Stephen Green (is he BNP?) over the Secularism.
The Cardinal has a right, even a duty, to express his opinion on civil rights. You have to remember many Scots regard their homeland as an English colony, and want none of it.
Stephen Green is an Evangelical Christian who I've known for years. He has nothing to do with the BNP - in fact Christian Voice has incurred the ire of the British National Party after exposing the BNP’s secularism, Darwinism, paganism and racism on its website.
Stephen Green said: 'Now we know for certain both that the BNP is inherently racist and that its racism is based firmly on anti-Christian Darwinian evolutionary theory. The Bible is intellectually coherent throughout in saying firstly that we are all descended from common ancestors – Adam and Eve – (Gen 1:27-28) and then that the human race is "of one blood" (Acts 17:26) and one "whole family" (Eph 3:15). It is that understanding which drove the evangelical Christian, William Wilberforce, to campaign unceasingly for the abolition of slavery. We are due to celebrate the bi-centenary of his triumph, the abolition of the slave trade, on 25th March next year.
'The BNP too is intellectually coherent. If you accept Darwin’s theory, then it follows that different parts of the human race (if Darwinists can indeed talk of the "human race" at all) will be at different stages of evolution, and indeed, may well have evolved from different apes. For example, the German evolutionist Klaatsch suggested in 1923 in his book The Evolution and Progress of Mankind that Caucasians were evolved chimpanzees, the Orientals were descended from orang-utans while Africans came from gorillas.
"I have to say, I found it difficult before all this to see how any true Christian could have anything to do with the British National Party. Now I should say it is impossible. That leaves those who have inadvertently become involved with the BNP’s recently-created front organization, the so-called Christian Council of Britain, up the creek not so much without a paddle, but without any form of boat at all.
"If there are genuine Christians still in the BNP in the mistaken belief that the Party is in some way defending the United Kingdom’s Christian heritage, what has emerged over the last few days leaves them with no option but to tear up their membership cards and get out."
The Pope is entitledd to disagree with me and Stephen about the relative danger of secularism and Islam, and I would be interested to hear his argument and would hope that he would listen to mine.
As for the Cardinal's stated position on Scottish independence,
Canon 747.2 reserves to the Church the right to declare moral principle even concerning the social order, and to jusge of any human matter in so far as this is demanded by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.
Canon 285.2 obliges clerics to avoid whatever is foreign to the clerical state even if this is not unseemly.
The question of whether Scotland should be independent or should remain part of the United Kingdom is a political issue over which good men may disagree. It is as improper for the Cardinal to take a position as it would be for the Queen or a judge. The Cardinal should be - and should be seen to be - as much the father in God of unionist Scots as of nationalists.
Canon 285.2 obliges clerics to avoid whatever is foreign to the clerical state even if this is not unseemly.
So?
I think if JP2 had followed your line, there might be few more communist governments still in the world.
That is wrong, anonymous. Scotland's political status is not a moral issue, but a purely political matter over which good men may disagree. Communism is a moral issue, for it is evil per se.
"The Pope is entitledd to disagree with me and Stephen about the relative danger of secularism and Islam, and I would be interested to hear his argument and would hope that he would listen to mine."
This is about the most arrogant statement I have read on an orthodox Catholic blogsite.It is a disgrace for any son of Mother Church, to expect the Vicar of Christ to agree with him whilst treating his Holiness's teaching with derision. This contemptuous comment betrays an ignorance of Catholicism which is culpable. No wonder the correspondent quotes such a Protestant clergyman rather than the teachers annointed by Christ himself.
Unless those who comment on this article do so without rancour and provocation I shall close the comments on this page.
Charity above all things should be our concern, rather than scoring points.
In future please be brief, in your comments.
In future, Father, I shall try to be brief - but the more points are made on the original post, the less brevity lends itself.
Post a Comment