Benefit #1: You get more jokes. I use this reason all the time with my kids. Study hard. Get educated. Then, when somebody tells a good joke you’ll get the pun or the literary, political, theological, military, cultural or scientific reference and not feel dumb and left out. The Simpsons will be ten thousand times funnier.
Benefit #2: You won’t waste time worrying about stuff you don’t have to worry about. You won’t, for instance, fret that if you eat chocolate (or anything else) that is certified halal, you are committing the sin of idolatry.
That’s because you will know
a) that our Church teaches that, like Jews, Muslims worship the God of Abraham and that “together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” You will know that this is not some ecumenical squish that was cooked up by a USCCB Subcommittee to Establish Indifferentism, but is, in fact, a view of Islam that goes back to that notorious modernist Pope St. Gregory VII, writing to the Muslim Sultan of Bougie in North Africa in 1076:
For there is nothing which Almighty God, who wishes that all men should be saved and that no man should perish, more approves in our conduct than that a man should first love God and then his fellow men ... Most certainly you and we ought to love each other in this way more than other races of men, because we believe and confess one God, albeit in different ways, whom each day we praise and reverence as the creator of all ages and the governor of this world.
b) that Arab-speaking Catholics worship Allah at every Maronite Liturgy and are not committing idolatry by so doing.
c) that certifying food as “halal” has nothing whatsoever to do with consecrating it to to Allah or any other deity. All it basically means is “kosher for Muslims”.
Life is too short. Don’t borrow trouble by being more Catholic than the Church. If the Church is willing to acknowledge that Muslims worship (albeit very imperfectly) the God of Abraham and not somebody else then don’t mess up your enjoyment of a candy bar with pointless scruples. Halal food isn’t even offered to the God of Abraham, much less to some other god. It’s just certified A-OK for Muslims to eat so it can be sold by a thoroughly secular business concern. You might as well live in fear that your computer is idolatrous because it has an Arabic language feature.
Comments
Post a Comment
Maybe you can make b) even clearer by adding that ‘Allah’ is the Arabic word that means God, just like ‘Dios’ is the Spanish word that means God, and ‘Deus’ is the Latin word that means God
Frequently, scrupulosity comes not from lack of education, but lack of reason in ordering and sorting out the vast amounts of information people have learned through education. I have a degree in theology, know Latin and Greek, and am generally well-educated, but I also have anxiety disorder. I am scrupulous.
True that, Mike.
The word “education” can be used to mean different things.
I think Mark Shea is talking about a geniune education that includes precisely that ability to plow through and adequately process the information, sorting the wheat from the chaff.
A sense of perspective and proportion. This is priceless in our day and age.
hey Mark, in all your scurilous advice did you think of instructing your children of the greatest fact to be taught to them….....THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!! Now that would be courageous evangelisation!
Thank goodness you aren’t teaching my children!
Please acknowledge your irresponsible gibberjabber and be accountable by rectifying your entire article. It would be well educated of you to actually research what so many saints and martyrs shed their blood for! Don’t forget Saint Peter himself! (that book is called the Holy Bible too by the way).
Not surprised:
Thanks for your input. I’m perfectly aware and happily confess that there is no salvation outside the Church. I’m also perfectly aware and acknowledge that the way the Church understands that and the way folks like you understand that is not always the same.
In any case, the point of this piece was not “Everybody is automatically saved!” (Silly idea). The point is “Don’t let urban legends and false ideas keep you from enjoying a candy bar or the rest of the good world God has given you.” The Church’s teaching is hard enough. Don’t make it harder with a rigorism that God doesn’t require of us.
Dear Mark, I am just right behind what Our Lord says,
Amen, Amen, I tell you solemnly, unless you are baptised with the spirit and water you Cannot enter the kingdom,
And what about, rebuke and reprove in season or out of season?
Where does He say it is alright to omit his words? Or when does He say it is OK to trivialise His words (and enjoy that candy bar!)
I am sticking to Christ on this one. The only thing I will have to lose would be Him! as I am aware of denying Him in the presence of mere men, means He will deny me to the Father in heaven. And no man or hurt feelings are worth losing Him.
It would be wonderful to hear what John The Baptist would say and do with your article.
Christ says eating candy bars that are halal is idolatry? News to me. My Bible record him saying all foods are clean in Mark 7. Or did you omit those words? Thanking God for a candy bar is not, so far as I can see, trivializing Jesus’ words.
You don’t seem to want to take yes for an answer, not surprised. I believe and confess that there is no salvation outside the Church. You keep saying I don’t. This is like talking to those fundamentalists who tell me I worship Mary as a goddess. No matter how often I say I don’t, they keep listening to the voices in their head that tell them I do. If you won’t take my word for it that I believe and profess “outside the Church no salvation” it’s pretty hard to have a conversation. You stand there boldly defending the Church from some phantom who is not me and I stand here talking to a person made deaf by their own prejudices.
Try listening.
Mark, I do believe you are a tad confused.
Just where does Jesus deserve in your original comment ( written in red) to be unmentioned. The statement says one God that we all agree on and adore will judge us!! BUT big BUT here!! Jesus will be the judge! The one they do not adore! Why are we cowering to other faiths and sidelining Christ? Please answer that and I will leave in peace,
By the way I like very much anyone who loves Our Lady, so please do not try and categorise me again ...as for the fundamentalist,,,mmm I got a giggle.
Actually, I think St. Paul’s assuring us that eating meat offered to idols is no sin, basically covers the question of halal food is spades, doesn’t it? The question of weather the Muslims worship the same God us is moot, in terms of this question. The fact that “halal” when referring to food merely means that the food contains no pork or alcohol, and if meat has been ritually slaughtered, just makes the issue even clearer.
Halal meats are very tasty. May I suggest the lamb, in particular? Eat up, the kepab is sweet.
The ongoing comments and banter are almost better than the article.
Great article though.
EP
Dear Charles and Eric, nice to meet you. Whilst we’re waiting for Mark to go through his portfolio to come up with an answer would you two guys just read the statement that Mark thinks is not ecumenical squish.? What do you think my two catholic friends? Where is Our Lord in this big judgement day adored by muslims and Jews?
Just where does Jesus deserve in your original comment ( written in red) to be unmentioned. The statement says one God that we all agree on and adore will judge us!!
The statement is a quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you read the Catechism beyond that citation, you will discover that it mentions and quote Jesus rather a lot, including John 3:5. I don’t consider it cowering to cite the authoritative teaching of Holy Mother Church. Rather than offering knee jerk responses, you might consider reading the Catechism and focusing on these paragraphs:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
If you want to know what I make of them, go here—and trying listening instead of mindlessly attacking.
Charles:
Yep. You got it.
Slow down, if anyone is attacking it would be you.
Holy Mother Church IS beautiful, hang on a second though… didn,t she just recently have to rewrite and correct articles about marriage validity and annulment though? Something that went wrong in 1983? HaHa! so there is always room for improvement and correction!
You sound very upset that you may have perhaps ACTUALLY written a scurilous piece and someone dared to refute it…God help our Catholic press if they should ever be challenged on your exact wording.Or are we suppose to second guess you?
By the way it is really annoying when you have to go back and cover your tracks with all the endless verbose replies. I am just simple folk. I differ from you because I too have original thought and opinions. Thanks for the conversation, I’ll check in on your space every now and then
You sound very upset that you may have perhaps ACTUALLY written a scurilous piece and someone dared to refute it…
Clearly, you have the gift of reading souls.
By the way it is really annoying when you have to go back and cover your tracks with all the endless verbose replies.
Please believe me when I say I am sincerely sorry I took time out of my extremely busy day to try to supply answers to your questions and accusations. I will, believe me, not make that mistake again.
Mark, your answers were like the ecumenical squish, you coined. So both of us are a bit ticked off - BELIEVE ME!!
Don’t give up, Mr. Shea. You are a witness to “not surprised” of the love and mercy of our Lord. Of course, He does not send His disciples alone, as we heard in the Gospel on Sunday, so you have our support.
To the anonymous dissenter,
You seem to believe that the Bride of Christ is divided by time. I invite you to recite the Nicene Creed. Please pay particular attention to the line that incorporates the belief that the Catholic Church is not divided by time.
Mike:
Thanks for your kind words. To be fair, I don’t think “not surprised” is a dissenter. S/he’s too confused. To really dissent, you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. She’s beating at thin air, hasn’t a clue what I was talking about, nor what the Church teaches, nor does s/he have the slightest interest in finding out (all that teaching and stuff from the Catechism is “verbose”). It’s more emoting than dissenting. Teenagers who demand “Please answer that and I will leave in peace” and then complain when you do are not mature enough to have a conversation with. They are not adult enough to dissent. They can only emote. That’s a good thing, for teenagers eventually mature. But adult dissenters who have corrupted the intellect are in much more serious trouble.
Oh for goodness sake be a man - both of you. PLEASE!!
We need a really good mediator on this one as it is obviously being taken personal.
Any problems with Monsigneur Charles Pope? I like him very much. Actually Fr Zuhlsdorf is really good too.
How about we hear it from the Holy priests?
I will most certainly want to sit in this class…Yes? No?
Ah, Mark, how interesting! This same urban legend you link to, with just a little tweaking, becomes, as I first encountered it over a decade ago, a protest against “The Secret Kosher Tax on Our Food Supply.” Ironically, the kosher tax legend is prominent on Islamic sites. Let’s start a libelous Catholic food legend! It’ll be fun! Oh, alas. We already have that cannibalism legend.
Same paranoia, different prejudice. You shall know the truth and the truth will make you free to eat lox, bagels and candy bars, if you like.
Thanks for the leg work, Naomi. Interesting connection.
I gather your last conversation with your staffer means no mediator…disappointing. And by the way who made you and pious Mike arbitrators of the entire faith? You are a bloody journalist for goodness sake.
“The fool takes no delight in understanding, but rather in displaying what he thinks.” - Proverbs 18:2
N.S.:
Mike’s not a staffer. Just a reader. I don’t know him from Adam. We arbitrate nothing here, either of us.
In essence I do understand what not surprised is really getting at. It is quite refreshing I think.
Mark, I enjoy your blog. I think a moderator sounds like a good idea. “not surprised” is not dissenting, instead reading the article as it came across. Frankly, I thought the whole banter was very, very good in it’s quality. God speed.
Mark: I always appreciate your articles, and this is no exception. I think many people struggle with historical antipathies that reach back many centuries. I also think these antipathies have resulted in flawed exegesis of passages like 1 John 2:22-23. We acknowledge the continuity of orthodox Judaism with Christian theology. We do not acknowledge the authenticity of Muhammed as the Prophet. We need elaboration.
William:
Very briefly, one can acknowledge commonality without claiming continuity. We share both continuity from and commonality with Old Testament Jews. We are the Israel of God and the branches grafted on to their root. We share not continuity, but commonality both with post New Testament Jews and (to a lesser extent) Muslims. Both reject the revelation of Christ, but both acknowledge in various ways, the teaching of the Old Testament, with various admixtures of human error. Inasmuch as either affirms what the Church affirms, it is true. Inasmuch as either false to affirm, denies what the Church affirms, or affirms what the Church denies, they are in error. They both affirm the existence of God the Creator and compassionate judge of the universe, who revealed himself to Abraham. So do we. So they are right about that and it doesn’t hurt to say so.
doh!
Should be “fails to affirm” above.
Mr Shea,
your reply to William infers that Abraham is our common link to God. My question is does Abraham have the power to judge or does Christ.? Truly is the church denying Christ as our judge and claiming The Creator ie God the Father will judge all Muslims, Christians and Jews instead? I fail to see the truth and logic myself. It all seems flimsical at best. Please explain your reasoning.
In response to Mike advising “not surprised” to read a particular line from the Nicene Creed:
Why don’t you read the Nicene creed in the line: ” He sits at the right hand of the Father, He will come to JUDGE the living and the dead.” You inappropriately and narrowmindedly attacked without thinking sir.
I do not like ecumenism either. I do believe in doing your best to co-exist but not at the expense of watering down the truth.
Mr Shea, I am truly surprised how you can be so wishy whashy a catholic to write as you have, I will remember you in my prayers. Let’s hope Benedict xvi clarifies the true meaning of ecumenism to all the faithful as soon as he can. I feel it needs major rewording as well as the person who boldly raised the issue on this page.
Robert:
How on earth do you get from “Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe God revealed himself to Abraham” to “Abraham is our judge and not Christ”? You might as well say, “Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe God created slugs, therefore slugs will judge us and not Christ”.
The logic is self-evident. If I as a Christian affirm something that is true (2+2=4), that truth does not cease to be true when a Muslim or Jew affirms it too. The Church says, “God, the compassionate and merciful Creator and Judge of the Universe revealed himself to Abraham.” Jews and Muslims say that too. They’re right, as far as that goes, just as they are right when they say 2+2=4. So the Church acknowledges that. It’s really not that complicated. It doesn’t mean they are right about everything. As I say, Inasmuch as either Judaism or Islam affirm what the Church affirms, they are right. Inasmuch as either fails to affirm what the Church affirms, denies what the Church affirms, or affirms what the Church denies, they are in error. This is simple logic.
Joan:
I have not been wishy washy, though I thank you for your prayers. I have simply stated one element of magisterial teaching as it applied to the subject at hand: namely that the Church does not regard Islam as a species of paganism (worshipping some other god than the God of Abraham) but rather that she sees Islam as worshipping the God of Abraham, but with a radically defective understanding of who he is.
Before attacking fellow Catholics as wishy-washy or rejecting the Church’s actual teaching on our relationship with other traditions or demanding that our very busy Pope drop everything to meet your demands for some new teaching on ecumenism and interreligious conversation, I would suggest that you first familiarize yourself with what the Church has already said. Start with the Decree on Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate and Dominus Iesus. If you can’t be bothered to read them, then please don’t be bothered to denounce fellow Catholics as wishy-washy for knowing what they are talking about in repeating elementary Church teaching.
Hm, I see that there are more Roberts than myself in this world!
Seems to me that there are two questions going on here: one is, “Are Muslims (or any unrepentant non-Catholics) going to Heaven?” and another is “Is eating Halal food (or Kosher, for that matter, or tonight’s dinner if grace is prayed by an Episcopalian, etc.) idolatry.”
To the first, I’ve seen everybody affirm orthodox Catholic teaching, that is, Jesus Christ is indeed the one who will come again to judge the living and the dead, and whose kingdom will have no end. Non-Catholics will only pass his judgment insofar as they actually acknowledge him as God, Lord, and Savior. In other words, God-haters and truth-haters will indeed not inherit eternal life; they don’t seek it to begin with.
To the second, I think the confusion arises because eating Halal food can give the appearance of idolatry, which is a denial of Christ and which (unrepented) would merit exclusion from the kingdom of Heaven.
There are two answers: one is what Mark gives, that Muslims worship the same God as we do, albeit in a false way. This he supports with magisterial and Traditional documents; but I can understand the perspective that emphasizes the difference rather than the sameness.
The second is that, even if the food were genuinely offered to an idol (such as to a Greek or Hindu deity), the danger to us is not idolatry but scandal.
Here, St. Paul is abundantly clear and direct. In 1 Corinthians, chapter 8, he addresses the subject directly. I don’t want to quote the whole passage here, but the sound bite is:
But not all have this knowledge. There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols, their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
In other words, it does no direct harm to us if the food we eat has been offered to idols. It may threaten someone’s faith if that person is not educated (as Mark points out) or suffers from scrupulosity (as Mike notes). But this is not a sinful property of the food itself; it is a weakness or incompleteness in a person’s faith.
So Mark is right, that Cadbury’s accommodation of its Muslim customers is no reason not to enjoy their candy. If you enjoy their candy to begin with. Which I actually don’t - but that’s beside the point.
All we need to do..is love each other and stop worrying about the man next door, who stones and beats women who don’t “behave”..and infant brides are all the rage. I think that’s the way to live..Don’t you.? And..Oh yes..kowtow by all means..to Allah It’s all the same. Fun…
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.