The Latest from the Culture of Complaint

At the Bench, Deacon Greg posted on news of the cancelled interfaith dinner at a Catholic high school in Cincinnati. While the school administration and the archbishop’s spokesperson deny specific threats, the safety of students was cited for not going forward with breaking bread with Muslims.

The local CAIR seems to have landed in a Michael Voris moment with its tax-exempt status. So is it all a disguise to kidnap young Catholic women and do bad things? An example of a heavy-handed bishop blundering in the china shop? The Temple Police asserting their authority over the episcopacy?

Shakila Ahmad, a trustee at the Islamic Center, said it is “very, very rare” for an interfaith event to be canceled or moved.

“I’m really sad because it was an opportunity for people to break bread and build understanding,” she said. “If you don’t have opportunities to talk to each other, how are we going to understand our differences and build respect?”

It would seem that e-mail-addicted Catholics need to learn the lesson for their own brothers and sisters. All in all, another sparkling day for the First Quality of the Church.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Church News, Hermeneutic of Subtraction. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Latest from the Culture of Complaint

  1. Anon Necessarius says:

    Fact: Our pastor decided to host a presentation by a regional Imam inwhich the Imam was invited to address the principles of Islam to the general parish audience who chose to attend in great numbers in the parish hall. The Imam was gracious, but the parishioner audience was even more gracious, passively and warmly welcoming tenets that Islam not only regards Jesus (and Mary) and the OT prophets as venerable, but as MUSLIMS. God’s final act of fulfillment of divinity and prophecy remains the endowment to Mohammed. Everything was quite tidy and deferential and unchallenged.
    Fact: Our parish and other local churches have had threatening messages (verified) deposited directly into collection baskets warning of impending acts of terrorism that will befall our church and others by muslims. Backpack IED’s were mentioned in these messages.
    How would you, Mr. Flowerday, deal with the paradox above, if you were the pastor of our church? Can one rationalize away that paradox by remaining passive and avoiding a “church militant” attitude that chooses to ignore what appears to be an imperialistic international Islamic agenda?
    Thank you for your consideration.

  2. Todd says:

    I don’t see a paradox at all. If these two facts are connected, in fact, it makes sense.

    People who threaten violence are by nature irrational and without morality. That includes people who would lie about such acts. Untrustworthy however you look at it.

    If I were to look for a conspiracy I would consider those who have an agenda for limiting western freedoms and liberties, and those who stand embittered in the face of greater and wider communication among peoples. You, AN, have spoken of an “imperialistic international Islamic agenda,” and people not much more radical than you would gladly slip those notes into a collection plate, and consider they’ve done their duty.

    I note your “necessary” anonymity, and as the blog host, I’m prepared to concede your choice to further this discussion. However, anonymity is a different mantle from the regional Imam, and one more akin to those who delivered threats. I always look to the messenger to discern the quality of a message. I have yet to see an anonymous hand writing on my home or church walls, “Trust no one.”

    Are Christians called to die to witness to the love and sacrifice of Christ? I would hope we are. I for one, am prepared to die in the free expression of my faith. It’s a far better fate than conceding to fear and turning my freedoms over to corporations, governments, or the Temple Police–especially anonymous folks–for the sake of a safety none of them can guarantee.

  3. John Drake says:

    Surely if Mercy was intent on holding such an event they could have dealt with an individual mosque. It is completely understandable that the archdiocese has issues with CAIR.

  4. Todd says:

    Of far more concern is the deliberate escalation of ill will and the financing of anti-Islam thought in the US. We don’t need to be told how to relate to our neighbors. I’m not convinced the archdiocese isn’t imbibing some Kool-Aid on this one. You can bet if someone were making threats over a matter of church doctrine, there would be no fallback.

  5. Jimmy Mac says:

    This seems an appropriate time and place to post this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s