“Christian Ramadan”: Does the Press Get Religion Now?

SDG here.

For years we’ve known that The Press Doesn’t Get Religion. And, usually, when the press doesn’t get religion, Get Religion gets the press. Get Religion is a group blog of religious religion journalists covering religion journalism, and in general they do an excellent job.

I was disappointed, therefore, by a recent blog post from Get Religionista Mollie Zielger Hemingway — who says she “loves analyzing media coverage of the liturgical calendar” — offering kudos to the “reporters” who “found the story” on what she describes as “rebranding Lent as Ramadan” in the Netherlands. She even praises “most reporters” covering this alleged “rebranding” for having “put the story in context.” She also adds that this “rebranding” is “a symptom of a larger condition” that “could use some sensible reporting.”

That’s one thing Mollie and I agree on: Sensible reporting is definitely needed. That’s why God created Get Religion. So where is their “sensible reporting” when it comes to a “story” almost totally devoid of facts — a story that even by usual media standards for religion reporting seems (at least to this non-religion journalist) breathtakingly irresponsible in the disconnect between the claims of the headline and lede and whatever facts appear to lie at the bottom of the stories?

Here’s the DutchNews piece that got Mollie’s kudos for breaking the story. (Actually, this may not be the piece that broke the story, since the first sentence credits another publication; my Dutch is a little rusty, but I think Volkskrant means something like People’s News or Popular News. However, perhaps it’s all the same outfit.) Here’s the headline and lede:

Lent must be as ‘cool’ as Ramadan

The Catholic tradition of fasting at Lent needs to become as ‘cool’ as the Muslim fasting peiod of Ramadan, say Dutch Catholics in today’s Volkskrant.

This year, the church is even promoting the 40-day fast as ‘the Christian Ramadan’. ‘We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent, the organisation Vastenaktie tells the paper.

Mollie also positively cites this follow-up piece in The Telegraph that goes further. Here’s the lede:

Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

For what it’s worth, the DutchNews piece doesn’t mention “rebranding,” although it does claim that “the church” is “promoting” the Lenten fast as “the Christian Ramadan.” What, exactly, does this mean?

In a Catholic context, when you say “the church” is doing X — at least if you know what you’re talking about — you mean that bishops are doing X, or at least sanctioning it. That is who speaks for the Church: the bishops. If, say, individual Catholics are doing X, you don’t say that “the church” is doing it, you say some Catholics are doing it.

In the case of the Dutch episcopacy, the prospect of someone proposing some sort of boneheaded Lent/Ramadan equivalency might not be entirely out of the question. A ways back Bishop “Tiny” Muskins made headlines by suggesting that Christians use the name Allah to refer to God, which makes a lot of sense — for Arabic-speaking Christians. It makes no sense at all for Christians whose primary language is Dutch or English. Whether this new flap represents similar episcopal thinking, though, remains to be seen.

The Telegraph piece offers the more startling headline — “Lent fast re-branded as ‘Christian Ramadan’” — written in the passive voice with no active subject, leaving it unclear who or what is responsible for this “re-branding.” To be fair, headlines are usually written by editors, not the reporters who are at least meant to be researching facts, but still it presents the alleged “rebranding” as a fait accompli.

At the very least, it suggests that someone with some sort of significant controlling stake in the Lenten “brand” — again, presumably the Dutch bishops, or at least a diocesan PR office or something — has embarked on a concerted campaign to get “Christian Ramadan” into the vernacular while consigning “Lent” to the scrap heap. (That’s what “rebranding” implies: deprecating an old, obsolete brand in favor of the new normative one.)

Then in the opening graf we learn that “Dutch Catholics” are responsible for this “rebranding.” Does this mean the Dutch Catholic bishops? Dutch Catholics in general? Is it a popular grassroots movement?  Whatever the facts, these early cues strongly suggest a broad-based Ramadanizing or Islamification of a Christian penitential season.

But wait. After telling us that “the church” was promoting Lent as “the Christian Ramadan,” DutchNews goes on to cite “the organisation Vastenaktie” as saying “We use the word Ramadan because it is a term young people are more likely to understand than Lent.”

Who or what is “the organization Vastenaktie”? DutchNews doesn’t say, possibly expecting Dutch readers to be in the know. It thus falls to the Telegraph to fill in readers outside the Netherlands that Vastenaktie is a Catholic charity. (Possibly with a special Lenten emphasis; “Vastenaktie” looks to mean something like “fasting and action.”)

So, okay, a Catholic charitable organization is concerned that the Lenten fast has lost cultural significance, and is trying to burnish its image among young people. That may be a significant story, particularly the cultural implication about young people being more familiar with Muslim cultural touchstones than Christian ones.

But it’s a far cry from the picture that you might get from the opening sentences of these stories of Lent being “rebranded” by “the church.” Even if Vastenaktie is an official arm of the Dutch church (and I have no idea whether it is or not), you still don’t say that “the church” is “rebranding” the Lenten fast because a Catholic charity has done…

Hm. Come to think of it, what exactly have they done? Exactly what form has this “rebranding” taken? What, specifically, has Vastenaktie done by way of “rebranding” the Lenten fast? Are there to be bulletins and other materials announcing the “Fourth Sunday in Christian Ramadan”? Will Catholics soon be asking each other what they’ve given up for Christian Ramadan?

Let’s see. Put together, both news stories give us a combined total of, um, zero facts in this regard. Zilch. Nada. Not a clue what “rebranding the Lenten fast” is supposed to entail. Just a quote from the organization’s director, talking about the need to “polish” the “image” of Lent and the observation that the Muslim penitential season is better known among young people. Later the Telegraph reporter vaguely mentions “linking” the Lenten fast to Ramadan, but again not a single specific as to what this means.

Perhaps at this point you’re wondering what Mollie was talking about when she praised reporters for putting “the story in context.” That was in reference to the relaxation of Lenten disciplines in the wake of Vatican II and the decline of Lenten observances among Mass-attending Catholics. I guess you could say that’s context. They just forgot to include the story. (Actually, according to comments at Get Religion, it looks like they got the context wrong too: Both stories erroneously claim that prior to Vatican II alcohol was prohibited during Lent.)

FWIW, I Googled Vastenaktie, went to their website, glanced over the homepage in Google translation, clicked on the first thing that mentioned fasting, and found a paragraph on “Christian Ramadan”. Below is an eclectic rendering in English based on a couple of online translation engines and my own ignorant judgment (my family is Dutch, but I learned almost nothing; I would welcome a more informed translation):

Christian Ramadan
A typical wordplay. In the Dutch media there is much attention for non-Christian religions and their practices. Each year Ramadan invariably pulls the front pages of newspapers in our country. By contrast, the Catholic fasting tradition is forgotten in oblivion. Young people especially know the Islamic fast, but not the Christian. The carnival obtains the news… The Catholic fasting tradition  is valuable. And the interest grows.

Putting together this paragraph with every single fact from both news stories, as far as I can tell, it looks like a Catholic charity in the Netherlands may or may not be saying something like, “You know how Muslims have Ramadan? Well, Catholics have something like that too! Lent: It’s like Ramadan… except the press talks a lot about Ramadan and ignores Lent, so maybe if we point out the connection, we can get Lent some coverage as well.”

I’m not saying that is all that Vastenaktie has done. Nor am I saying that this much, as far as it goes, is necessarily a good idea in itself. I’m not arguing any of that. I’m not defending Vastenaktie in any way. I’m saying that (1) I have no idea what Vastenaktie has actually done; (2) neither, as far as I can tell, does anyone else; and (3) the way the story is being reported and perpetuated seems wildly incommensurate with the facts that have emerged to date.

Certainly if the paragraph above, and the “wordplay” it suggests, represents the extent of the “Christian Ramadan” business, I’d say we have an instance here, not merely of journalistic incompetence in religion reporting, but of sensational Islamo-controversy-mongering.

That’s the kind of thing I expect Get Religion to be all over, instead of perpetuating.

It isn’t only Get Religion. A number of Catholic and non-Catholic bloggers have blogged on the story, either not noticing the problems in reporting, or possibly figuring it sounded crazy enough to be true. And who knows, it could be. But “could be” is not a story. Maybe someday if someone does some sensible reporting, we might find out.

Mollie commented in her piece that “It’s easy to write the first story.” She might have underestimated the difficulty. Perhaps we’ll know when (or rather if) the first story emerges.

Comments

[Alyssa Sophia]

Steve,
Did you send this on to the GetReligionistas??? Curious to know their response...

[Celeste]

"Christian Ramadan?" How about referring to Ramadan as "Muslim Lent?"

I find use of the term offensive, though at the moment I can't put into words exactly why...

Sheesh

[Tim J.]

Sounds like compelling evidence (if any more was needed) of the truly, thoroughly post-Christian state of European culture. Almost total cultural amnesia has taken place within the span of a couple of generations. So much so that the old festivals and holy days can't be understood except by re-framing them in non-Christian terms.

It is therefore not very alarming information to me, but a profoundly sad fact, laid on a pile of other sad facts.

To paraphrase Mark Shea, we are watching Europe exhale the last vapors of the gospel, just before it inhales something really nasty.

[A.Williams]

Rebranding Lent? Why not??

With the "Spirit of Vatican II" you can do pretty much whatever you want, as long as it's charitable.

TAnd this is VERY charitable to the Muslims. It makes them love us!

Oh, how I love modern religion! It just feels soooooo good! Everybody can just get along, just like John Lennon so aptly sung about! (Just think! No Heaven! No Hell too! Hey.. we're all ONE) Isn't it soooo fun??!

Oh the 'Spirit of Vatican II" is sooo soothing.

...kinda makes me want to liturgical dance!!!

[Tim J.]

Right, it's all caused by Vatican II.

Keep feeding your bias, it's easier than thinking.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn't do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn't be in such bad shape. As Doesteyevsky said, "Europe's heart always bleeds for the Turk."

Immigration isn't the cause of Europe's decline, but it isn't helping.

As I recall, Mark Shea even defended the pope kissing the Koran and the Assisi events.

[Jeb Protestant]

Tim,

Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn't do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn't be in such bad shape. As Doesteyevsky said, "Europe's heart always bleeds for the Turk."

Immigration isn't the cause of Europe's decline, but it isn't helping.

As I recall, Mark Shea even defended the pope kissing the Koran and the Assisi events.

[bill912]

Tim, I think A. Williams was deriding those who use Vatican II as an excuse for their dissent and watering down of the faith, not the council itself.

[Tim J.]

Well, I certainly hope so, bill. If so, sorry for missing the parody or whatever.

Jimmy, great post.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Whatever A. William's intend, you certainly can't blame this on Vatican II itself unless possibly as a matter of prudence. The root of this is the secularization of Europe, which Vatican II had little if anything to do with and certainly did not intend.

The situation is tragic, but given that the situation is there maybe it's not such a bad idea to make certain comparisons, to tell young people who have no understanding of their own ancestral culture to realize that, hey, Christianity has interesting customs and spirituality too and it might be something worth looking into.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Wow, that was very poorly typed. Sorry, I should clearly proofread.

[SDG]

The situation is tragic, but given that the situation is there maybe it's not such a bad idea to make certain comparisons, to tell young people who have no understanding of their own ancestral culture to realize that, hey, Christianity has interesting customs and spirituality too and it might be something worth looking into.

Based on the few facts that have emerged, that's my take too.

Look at it this way: If a Catholic minority in a historically Muslim culture wanted to communicate the idea of Lent to the larger culture, I don't think anyone need take umbrage at the idea of starting with Ramadan as a point of comparison.

Now, obviously the Netherlands isn't a historically Muslim culture, but if it's really true that young people are more familiar with Ramadan than Lent, the net effect may be the same. Regardless whose fault that is, or what should have been done about it decades ago, I'm not sure that using Ramadan as a point of comparison isn't a potentially useful strategy today.

[SDG]

Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn't do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn't be in such bad shape.

I think immigration is a symptom, not a cause. If native European populations were replacing themselves, immigration wouldn't be an issue. The more salient point is that post-Christian Europe is dying; that it is being replaced by incipient Muslim Europe is merely a corollary.

But even that may be overstating things. According to Philip Jenkins, Muslim immigrants are rapidly acclimating to European norms:

My bet would be that if you roll on another generation or so, the worst that I can say about [immigrants from Muslim countries] is the ones in France will be French and the ones in Holland will be Dutch, with all the good and bad that implies.

FWIW. However, Islamo-controversy-mongering fears about Muslims taking over the world sells better than the idea that immigrants in Europe are largely going to be European in outlook, so the former meme isn't likely to go anywhere soon.

[SDG]

A. Williams: Did you even read the post?

[[handle deleted]]

"To paraphrase Mark Shea, we are watching Europe exhale the last vapors of the gospel, just before it inhales something really nasty."

Well, in the Netherlands they're definitely inhaling a whole lote of marijuana. I'm not sure if that's what your were talking about.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Well isn't that lovely?

[bill912]

I think Steve ought to borrow Glamdring and axe that comment.

[SDG]

The comment stands, FWIW, but I deleted the unnecessarily provocative handle. Please follow the spirit of rule guidelines in choosing a handle.

[Jeb Protestant]

Steve,

But the fact is that European nations are not reproducing themselves, so the large scale immigration of Muhammadans is increasing their percentage in the population. And leftist political parties (ad others) are using their presence to preach multicuturalism (take the recent statement of the hippy-apostate who calls himself the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia).

Take Italy, which has to a certain extent has avoided the secularism of other countries. Would flooding Italy with Muhammadans have no negative effect on its culture? Even if they reject their religion and become secularists (a distinct possibility) it doesn't help the situation.

[SDG]

Fair questions, Jeb. I actually wonder whether the influence of the influx of immigrants has necessarily been entirely negative. For one thing, for all the multicultural political correctness and such, the confrontation with the Muslim East seems actually to have roused some vestiges of historically European and even Christian identity in some quarters. For another, frankly, in contrast to post-everything secular despair, Islamic influence in Europe might in part have some salutary effects in itself. We've already seen a few instances of strategic alliances of Christians and Muslims against secularism. It may be that a Muslim presence in Europe could help weaken the dictatorship of relativism and open the door to moral and spiritual absolutes, which in itself would be a good thing. It might even ultimately become a new opportunity for the gospel.

[Jeb Protestant]

I don't live there, so it's hard to say. However:

First, I do get the impression that Moslems tend to vote for the leftist parties because they find their multiculturalism more agreeable.

Second, many Moslems are single young men, and I doubt that preserving Europe from secularism is high on their agenda.

Third, who in Europe is using the influx of Moslems as an opportunity to either reach them with the Gospel or take a stand against relativism? I recall a few years ago an Italian Cardinal warned Catholics against marrying Moslems. The Pope backed off on his statement about Islam. That's about it.

[SDG]

First, I do get the impression that Moslems tend to vote for the leftist parties because they find their multiculturalism more agreeable.

That would seem to go along with Jenkins' comments about Muslims in Europe becoming Europeans, all right. Multiculturalism is not a big value in the Arab world.

Second, many Moslems are single young men, and I doubt that preserving Europe from secularism is high on their agenda.

...what?

Third, who in Europe is using the influx of Moslems as an opportunity to either reach them with the Gospel or take a stand against relativism?

What I'm saying is that, in the first place, Christians and Muslims have worked together to take a stand against relativism, for example, at the Beijing women's conference where the Vatican and Muslim participants succeeded in blocking resolutions on sexual orientation and abortion. To whatever extent Muslims in Europe retain their Muslim identity, it seems likely that they will exert a similar influence in European society.

In the second place, if you're referring to the Regensberg incident, it looks like you weren't paying attention. B16 didn't back down on anything. He is a methodical man and is still in the process of shaping his relationship to the Muslim world. However, under his short reign to date the CDF has issued two key documents affirming the unique soteriological significance of Christianity and the Catholic Church and the indispensability of evangelization. Evangelization to Muslims is a sensitive proposition but I have no doubt that it will take place.

[Jeb Protestant]

Steve,

I meant that many Moslem immigrants to Europe are young, single men searching for jobs. As I said, I doubt that protecting Europe from secularism is important to them.

The CDF may issue good documents (I haven't read them), but when a Catholic sees his bishop attend the opening of a mosque or hears him refer to God as "Allah," which has a greater influence?

I don't see what is so sensitive about evangelizing Moslems. It is a Gospel command. I imagine Moslems hope they can get a "no evangelization" promise from Kasper just as the Jews have done.

SDG,

the muslims in Europe support leftist parties not because they agree with them, but because they have a deal. The deal is the secular left does not seek to impose it's lack of values on the muslims and their communities. Thus they establish zones of Sharia law were police may not enter, they are permitted to refuse any sort of activity which violates their religion such as handling pork, or alcohol, etc. The same is happening here in the US where muslims support the Democrat Party of Death even though in the fundamentals they are much more conservative than even the most ardent members of the religious right. If only the Democrat Party of Death would extend the same courtesy to Christians and Catholics.

God Bless,

Matt

[SDG]

I meant that many Moslem immigrants to Europe are young, single men searching for jobs. As I said, I doubt that protecting Europe from secularism is important to them.

I dunno, when I was a young, single man looking for a job, I cared about opposing secularism. But beyond that, whatever traditional values they bring with them will ipso facto be in opposition to secularism.

The CDF may issue good documents (I haven't read them), but when a Catholic sees his bishop attend the opening of a mosque or hears him refer to God as "Allah," which has a greater influence?

Certainly there are boneheaded (and worse) bishops who do harm. There are also good bishops who do good. That's the way it's always been ("The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops," according to St. Augustine, himself a bishop with a healthy fear of the responsibility of his office). Wheat and tares stand side by side; it's Christ's arrangement, not mine.

I don't see what is so sensitive about evangelizing Moslems. It is a Gospel command.

Of course. I'm just saying any time you have a a subset of a population decapitating people and blowing themselves up, it tends to make things sensitive.

I imagine Moslems hope they can get a "no evangelization" promise from Kasper just as the Jews have done.

Of course Kasper has no authority to issue such "promises," and his views on Judaism have been strongly and cogently refuted by others, such as Cardinal Dulles. But I doubt if even Kasper is confused enough to deny the necessity of evangelizing Muslims.

[SDG]

BTW, Jeb, I expect you noticed the recent consternation among Jewish observers -- and liberal/dissenting Catholics -- over Pope Benedict's new version of the Good Friday prayer accompanying the Motu Proprio traditional Latin Mass (here in unofficial translation):

Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Kasper can spin all he wants. He's not in charge of what the Church teaches or believes or how she prays.

[A.Williams]

Thanks Bill 912,

Of course my comment was sarcastic.

But I was trying to make a serious point: that the root of so many problems in the Church, such as ignorance of what the season of Lent signifies, and profound ingnorance in most other liturgical areas, lie NOT with Vatican II, but rather in the 'liberal interpretation' of Vatican II which is commonly referred to by the term "Spirit of Vatican II".

And SDG, yes I did read the artical. And you can re- read your own post and realize that there are very numerous points and questions posed, of which I tried to get to the root. And the root is as stated above: Because of the neglect of proper or substantial catechesis, which results from a 'liberal' or 'progessive' attitude that such catechesis indeed doesn't even need to be taught(except maybe in its most basic form), the most fundemental and essential Catholic traditions have been all but forgotten by the general population.

Isn't this the general concept? Isn't this the debate and purpose for focusing so much attention on this artical?

And so who is responsible for such a disgraceful state of the Church? Do you think Pope John Paul II...or Pope Benedict XVI?

Of course not.... rather they were, and are, THE SOLUTION.

Maybe the blame can be laid on the progressives and liberals? Maybe on those who Archbishop Marini writes about in his new book "A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975"?

Maybe the blame can be laid on the famed "Spirit of Vatican II", of which Sandro Magister so aptly relates has been used to try to create a new ecclesiology wherein the Church of the past is of little significance, and the era of the present post Vatican II Church, an era of a "new Pentecost"?

Yes, blame laid on the progessive idea that there indeed was a 'rupture' in the 'continuity' of Catholic teaching and tradition, where, in this context LENT indeed might not even be significant anymore, since it is a custom from pre-Vatican II times?

So who is to blame? Isn't it those who have tried to bury the past...these same progressives that promote the "Spirit of Vatican II"?

Or, has the Church fallen so far that all of this doesnt even matter, and no one is to blame??

Heck....now I don't feel like liturgically dancing anymore! : (

[SDG]

A. Williams: Thanks for clarifying. To clarify my own terse question, what I meant was that, as far as I can tell, reports of the "re-branding" of Lent may have been greatly exaggerated, so in this particular case perhaps the alleged fruit of the "Spirit of Vatican II" is more hype than fact.

[deusdonat]

Tim, I think A. Williams was deriding those who use Vatican II as an excuse for their dissent and watering down of the faith, not the council itself.

That's exactly what I took away from A. Williams' post, and I concur 100% with this sentiment. Too many people have abused their wayward concept of "the spirit of Vatican II" to fit their agendas. And no one can ignore the simple cause and effect of the "fruits" of this "spirit"; rampant sexual predators among the clergy, massive exodus from clergy and Catholic laity, secularization, deemphasis of the sacred etc. This is the void the church has been left with.

JEB:Part of the problem is immigration. If Europe stopped allowing Muhammadans in (and didn't do outrageous things, such as creating Muhammadan states in Kosovo and Bosnia & encouraging Turkish membership in the EU) it wouldn't be in such bad shape.

I agree with you half-way. Mohammedan immigrations should cease immediately. But that's not gonna happen (especially in the UK and France who have a colonial debt to their former subjects). Kosova and Bosnia were special cases. There was no win-win there. You could either a) allow them to be independent de-facto Muslim states or b) allow communist Serbs to continue commiting genocide and crimes against humantiy among unarmed populations.

Regardless, I too find the term "Christian Ramadan" appalling as it fails to acknowledge the reasoning behind our 40-days of Lent. We do not do it for the sake of fasting, reflection or to be "cool". This really is bothersom to me.

[Jeb Protestant]

I think the claims of "genocide" were more or less manufactured.

[Joe K]

In my 20's I was a nominal Catholic living in Europe and my recollection of the Lenten season is filled with flamboyance and gluttony... Karnival (i.e. Mardi Gras). On a related note I believe that folks are very ignorant of their own Christian culture and history so that many of the younger generation honestly don't know that fasting is a contemporary spiritual exercise. It does not surprise me to read about 'Christian Ramadan.'

[Jeb Protestant]

I'd also point out how immigration plays into the multi-cultral agenda. Look at the US: many (most?) of the immigrants come from Catholic backgrounds but has that done anything to lessen the pluralistic and multicultural drumbeat? If you look at California, it seems to have accelerated the pace.

[deusdonat]

JEB I think the claims of "genocide" were more or less manufactured.

No, they weren't. The object of the Serbians (and later the Bosnians) was to empty all inhabitants of a region through murder, intimidation or starvation. This term "ethnic cleansing" is just a hair splitting exercise for politicians. FYI, this is precisely why the Serbs lost the region. They had no moral high ground. Ever. It was never about Christianity vs Islam. It was about Serbian hegemony. Serbs never bothered to reach out to Orthodox Albanians (roughly 25% of the population) to administer or protect their holy sites, which would have solved the problem. For them it was all about nationalism.

Joe K - I agree with you about Carnival. I used to look forward to it for a whole year (like American kids look forward to Halloween). And little by little, the meaning wore off. It was just a time for parties and dress up...NOT followed by fasting or penance.

[puella]

Jimmy,

I'm late to this, but I wanted to offer my knowledge when it comes to translation. I live in the Netherlands and am fluent in both Dutch and English.
I'm going to refrain from commenting on either the story about the "rebranding" or the blog coverage of it. Suffice it to say that I find it mostly unhelpful and yet another example of- arrrgh. I said I wouldn't.
But if you need something checked, I'd be happy to do so for you (if it's not too long).

[SDG]

Thanks for the offer, Puella. FWIW, as I mentioned in the post, my family is from the Netherlands, from Friesland; my family name is Greydanus. (This is the post author, SDG, not Jimmy.)

I see from your blog you're a little miffed at American Catholic bloggers painting the Dutch Church with a broad brush based on a couple of unfortunate incidents like Muskins and the "Christian Ramadan" business.

FWIW, the whole point of my original post was precisely to question this very rush to judgment, to point out that the coverage seemed wildly exaggerated and based on very little information. I was trying to point out that there was no reason to assume the worst, as many were doing. It seems to me I was writing against the very thing you complain about; I would have thought you'd be basically pleased.

Even my comment about Bishop Muskins was, I thought, fairly measured; all I said was that it "might not be entirely out of the question" that "someone" in the Dutch episcopacy might say something about Christian Ramadan. I was hardly tarring and feathering the Dutch Church or Dutch bishops generally.

In any case, I appreciate your offer of expertise as a translator; what would actually be more helpful would be any insight you could offer regarding the situation on the ground. Exactly what does this "Christian Ramadan" business actually amount to over there? Are a lot of people talking about it? Are people aware of it? What is being done?

What can you tell us about Vastenaktie? Is it part of the Church structure, or is it a lay effort? Any idea how big it is? Has there been any commentary by anyone in the hierarchy? Let us know whatever you can.

I suspect my translation above probably isn't too far off, but here's the actual text from the Vastenaktie site.

Christelijke ramadan
Een typische woordspeling. In de Nederlandse media is er veel aandacht voor niet-christelijke religies en hun gebruiken. De ramadan haalt elk jaar steevast de voorpagina’s van kranten in ons land. Daartegenover is de katholieke vastentraditie in vergetelheid geraak. Met name jongeren kennen de islamitische vasten, maar niet de christelijke. Het carnaval haalt het nieuws, dit jaar bijvoorbeeld naar aanleiding van gevreesd alcoholmisbruik onder minderjarigen. Het carnaval ontstond ooit bij de gratie van de vastenperiode van onthouding die erop volgde. Juist voor jongeren kan er een eigentijdse uitdaging in bestaan om het een tijdlang met wat minder te doen.

Waardevolle traditie
De katholieke vastentraditie is waardevol. En de belangstelling ervoor groeit. De Vastenaktie geeft er invulling aan, met een combinatie van soberheid met solidariteit. Je een poos onthouden van onnodige luxe om daarmee steun te helpen bieden aan mensen die in nood verkeren of in armoede leven. Bijvoorbeeld de meer dan 800 miljoen mensen wereldwijd die honger lijden. Mensen voor wie vasten geen keuze is maar bittere noodzaak. Met kleinschalige projecten, opgezet door die mensen zelf, vergroot Vastenaktie hun kansen op een betere toekomst. Vanuit ons geloof dat de wereld pas écht groeit als we voor elkaar zorgen.

Thanks again and God bless.

[Matt]

Puella,

The Dutch Church has a long history of dissent and disobedience, these are not new or isolated incidents.

- communion on the hand
- altar girls
- anybody heard of the "Dutch Catechism"?
- Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
- liturgical abuses galore

I'm sure that all Dutch Catholics do not dissent from the Church, but it seems that the hierarchy is deeply involved with such behaviour. Perhaps you could help correct any of these items which may be unfair stereotypes.

God Bless,

Matt

[J.R. Stoodley]

Matt,

These types of things, and in some cases these particular practices, are common throughout the Catholic Church at least in Western countries. Is there any reason anyone knows of that the Dutch Catholics should be singled out as any worse than the general trend in the West, or is this just based on some recent news stories and American perception of Dutch politics?

[Tim J.]

"- communion on the hand
- altar girls
- anybody heard of the "Dutch Catechism"?
- Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
- liturgical abuses galore"

Ummm, communion in the hand is not a liturgical abuse. Ditto for altar girls.

As for the other items, you ARE aware that these kinds of things happen in America, as well? Pot, meet kettle.

[J.R. Stoodley]

To be fair, Matt did not directly call receiving in the hand and alter girls an abuse. Both, if I have not been deceived by Traditionalists, started out as abuses and rather than fight it the Vatican decided it wasn't worth it and gave certain areas permission, via a couple indults I believe rather than a change in general Church law.

I think it is fair to mention such things as signs of an unhealthy Church. Reception on the tongue is more condusive to the kind of respect owed to Christ in the Eucharist, it prevents the fragments that very commonly may be found on your hands after receiving that way, and it makes it harder for people to steal a host for unsavory purposes.

Alter servers are, or were, supposed to be basically apprentices for the priests, and that is how a lot of boys used to and even today continue to become aware of an attraction for the priesthood. They have no real practical purpose besides that effect on the child.

While some former alter girls do still support male-only priesthood and say the experience brought them closer to God, in general it seems to me that it fosters a sense of entitlement to the priesthood, that boys and girls are equal (of course they are), starting out having identical roles in the Church, and therefore as they grow up should have just as much right to become priests if they want to. People see alter girls, somewhat rightly, as a first victory in the quest to allow female clergy.

These things, of course, are very much present in the United States, so unless Matt is from somewhere else I don't see why he is presenting it as a particularly Dutch problem.

JR, Tim,

JR's analysis of the genesis of communion on the tongue and altar girls is correct, Church documents specifically identify that this is not normative, and it is a concession to longstanding but illicit practices. Terrible errors committed by the Holy Father Paul VI and allowed to continue and extend under John Paul II and thus far under Benedict XVI. All three Holy Father's have spoken out against the practices to be sure.

Why do I bring them up to criticize the Dutch Church (and not Dutch Catholics necessarily)? Because these illicit practices sprang up primarily in the Netherlands.

http://www.unavoce.org/cith.htm

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=53594

God Bless,

Matt

[deusdonat]

"- communion on the hand
- altar girls
- anybody heard of the "Dutch Catechism"?
- Dutch Dominicans trying to have lay people celebrate Mass
- liturgical abuses galore"

Ummm, communion in the hand is not a liturgical abuse. Ditto for altar girls.

As for the other items, you ARE aware that these kinds of things happen in America, as well? Pot, meet kettle.

Cute : ) And I'll meet you both in the middle here. It IS indeed a liturgical abuse to widely promulgate communion in the hand, as it was never intended to be the standard, but rather an "indult". Regarding altar girls, they are allowed (except in Rome) so there is no abuse there.

But yes, everything that was mentioned in Matt's list can be found right here in the USA as well as most Western nations I would guess.

Back to the topic at hand, does anyone here remember how Belgium (Holland's little sister) was dealing with the Catholic church there allowing Muslim assylum seakers to http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1062>"squat" in a number of Catholic churches, chapels and even Cathedrals? This amazes me.

My take on it is the Catholic hierarchy must be really p***ed off with Catholics at large in Belgium to allow this to happen. I'm guessing the unspoken pretext is, "Hey, if you guys aren't going to come anymore, then we might as well put this space to good use." The irony here is if these immigrants were Catholics from Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe this would be a non-issue. But in this case the Belgian church is playing with fire. Literally.

[Matt]

deusdonat,

I did not suggest that altar girls or communion on the hand are currently liturgical abuses as such, I suggest that there are liturgical abuses galore in Holland. My point about altar girls and communion on the hand is that they originated as liturgical abuses in Holland. These and the other things mentioned are indications of the lack of orthodoxy there.

Yes, we're all aware there are serious problems here, but most of those heresies started in Europe and often in Holland.

God Bless,

Matt

[deusdonat]

Matt interesting point. Holland is a predominantly Protestant country. And usually in such situations, the church tends to be more militant (i.e. strict and orthodox) than in "Catholic" countries.

Oh...those zany Dutch

[SDG]

Holland is a predominantly Protestant country.

Yes, my Dutch family is solidly Calvinist going back four centuries. As the first Catholic convert, I'm definitely the black sheep.

And usually in such situations, the church tends to be more militant (i.e. strict and orthodox) than in "Catholic" countries.

Really? Hm. It may not be the same thing, but in the USA ,in my very limited experience at least, it seems to me that dioceses/parishes in predominantly Protestant areas (e.g., the South) can often be very Protestantized themselves, whereas in Catholic-dominant areas (e.g., the Northeast) it can be easier to find a "good" parish. But of course as I said my experience is limited primarily to the handful of states I've lived in.

[deusdonat]

SDG, Interesting observation. I think I was thinking more about examples such as Ireland (which was a colony of the UK for hundreds of years), the Nordics, Germany etc. The US is kind of a 1-off. There is nothing like it that you can contrast it with for this discussion, save possibly Canada. And I can say that in Canada, there are still communion rails and kneeling for communion.

deusdonat,

Canada? Where? Not in Manitoba, or a lot of other places, perhaps in Quebec?

God Bless,

Matt

[deusdonat]

Matt, I guess I can't give you much more of a sampling other than where I have been, which would be Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Quebec City and Halifax. In all areas I remember there being communion rails and kneeling during communion during the standard Novus Ordo masses. But outside of that, I can't speak to other locations, so I'll have to bow to your experience/knowledge on the subject.

deusdonat,

I guess we just ended up in different places. I don't think I ever saw an altar rail until I moved to Houston. The cathedral in Winnipeg doesn't even have kneelers.

God Bless,

Matt

[deusdonat]

Matt,

Kneelers-shmeelers : ) Nice if you have them, if not, the ground is just as good. I've been to several churches where people kneel on the ground. So, don't take the kneelers as a sign of orthodoxy. It just means that church invested in some good pews at one point (whether they use them or not).

And yes, I can't say I've ever made it to Winnipeg. And it sounds like I'm all the poorer for it...

[Dr. Eric]

I hope no one else pointed this out:

The followers of the false prophet Mohammed have Ramadan because Mohammed learned of the practice from us!!! We were the ones who fasted from all food until 3 pm for around 40 days (The Black Fast.) They copied the idea, fasted until sundown, and shortened the duration to a lunar month.

Mohammedism is nothing but a permutation of the old Arian Heresy! Had it been sufficiently quashed in the East, Mohammed would have had no reason to bring it back up. Unless... the "angel" that he thought was a devil really was one.

[puella]

I indeed found this post (I've lost track of who it's really by) a more balanced treatment of the latest episode, which is why it wasn't the one I linked to in my open letter (by the way, I think you may have forgotten to place a target in your anchor tag).

I'm not willing to enter into this conversation here, primarily because I've tried to talk with USAns about this before and it usually just ends up the same way. Having said that, I'm somewhat mellower now than a while back.

Matt, I'm aware, as you seem to be (although I doubt through personal experience but I'm willing to be corrected on that), of the not so great things happening here. However, I'm also aware of the absolutely brilliant things happening here. It seems that you are not, which I find a shame and (on the broader level - I don't know you and so wouldn't know whether it's also something you appear to do) one of the key reasons behind this cultural ignorance that is so (unhappily) prevalent.

deusdonat, there are altar rails in both of the churches in my parish. We have a Latin NO offered every week where they are used as the norm, and I receive Communion kneeling regardless of whether there's a rail or not. I know several here who do the same. Not that this is really any of your business, but for illustration purposes that you are cruelly generalising.

On a more finnicky note, Holland != the Netherlands.

My general point is this: until you know much more about the Church here, I find it very difficult to sit and read some USAns "analysis" of the situation in this country which simply focuses on the negative. As a commenter on my post implied, try lighting a candle.

[Zeno]

Dr. eric said: "I hope no one else pointed this out: The followers of the false prophet Mohammed have Ramadan because Mohammed learned of the practice from us!!! We were the ones who fasted from all food until 3 pm for around 40 days (The Black Fast.) They copied the idea, fasted until sundown, and shortened the duration to a lunar month."

Dr. eric,

Thanks for pointing this out!

However, Martin Luther would beg to differ in his preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks published in 1530 (courtesy of Zippy):

"From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies -- and, I might almost say, in customs -- than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us -- or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, or cleric or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. Here I mean those who seriously desire the faith of the pope and who are the best among them."

[deusdonat]

DR Eric VERY wise and accurate post! Some accredit Mohammedanism to Aryanism, but others with the Nestorians of Syria (hence the praying 5 times a day, the gnostic stories within the Qur'an and other "popular" fables of those people). I mentioned this sometime before; I was with two Orthodox friends of mine, one Greek Orthodox and the other Syriac (Oriental) and were talking about the persecutions of the Byzantines visited on the Orientals (Greek Orthodox tend to always view themselves as the perpetual recipients of persecution, never the perpetrators). When the Greek Orthodox friend finally consented, "Yes, I guess our church did persecute you guys. I'm sorry." My Oriental Orthodox friend said, "no reason to say sorry. We invented Islam to get back at you. So, we're even."

Now...we all know about the Judeo-Christian influence/plagiarism in Mohammedanism. But, how about the Pagans? Islam is FULL of pagan symbolism, thought and tradition. The moon symbol comes straight from the pagan symbol used from Al-Lat, one of the principal godesses of Mecca. And I don't know if anyone knows about the rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage). But those come straight out of tantric Buddhism! The shavng of the head, wearing of one white robe, not harming a living thing or eating meat for the duration, circling a meteorite (the Kaaba stone) etc. All of these rituals have NOTHING to do with Islam and everything to do with the pagan roots of the culture that preceded it, but have been absorbed into Mohammedanism and simply explained away as "that's just the way we do it".

[deusdonat]

I think I may be sick now.

[Zeno]

ille morbus tibi est ut qui te opus sit.

[deusdonat]

2 things I can't stand; bad Latin and Protestant (Lutheran) propaganda. I guess today is my lucky day.

[Zeno]

Bad Latin?

Again, you've demonstrated that clearly you have no competency in this language.

Also, my Lutheran quote was meant to show just how wrong Luther was in this regard and not to promote him.

However, I can see just how a Protestant disguised as a Catholic would actually detest such an act.

[deusdonat]

Vesa/Zenophobe/Harpie/Troll,

You really need to get a clue and learn to leave the rest of us alone. Seriously. Maybe get a hobbie?

[Dr. Eric]

Please translate the above Latin.

Luther is right up there with Mohammed in my book.

[Zeno]

Why do you continue with your personal attacks on me?

Must be indicative of your protestant disposition.

Perhaps you should cease your trojan horse and perhaps then your conscience will then become clear, and all my posts that initially have nothing to do with you whatsoever will then take not toll on you.

Of course, I see I speak to one whose idea of Christianity is to attack people without cause and claim himself superior to all else.

[Zeno]

Dr. eric,

Luther is right up there with Mohammed in my book.

That's the whole point of my quote from him.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Deusdonat,

Nestorian and Oriental Orthodox are completely different. Virtually opposite heresies. Nestorians (supposedly...their spiritual descendents now deny it and say it was all a big misunderstanding) said Christ was two people, a human person and a divine person somehow coexisting. The Monophysites (Oriental Orthodox) say Christ had only one nature, a divine nature (or more accurately that Christ's human and divine natures were united into one divine nature). The Chalcedonian Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) stay in between these two heresies, saying Christ has two dinstinct natures, human and divine, but is a single Divine Person.

[Zeno]

Please translate the above Latin.

Dr. eric,
Have the hypocrite who calls himself "deusdonat" do it since he claims such talent in Latin.

Provided he actually can -- although I highly doubt it given his past misinterpretations of other things Latin.

[SDG]

All right now. Do I need to call Smoky Mountain in here for another agnostic charity/courtesy/deportment smackdown of the Catholics?

[deusdonat]

Vesa/Zeno/Harpie/Troll, I never attacked you or claimed to be superior. However, it that is how your behavior manifests itself, then I'll let the rest here be the judge (as well as your bad Latin syntax). And with that may God give me the strength to ignore you as I should have the minute you started your incessant prodding. As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him.

DR Eric,

there is indeed a lot of similarity between Mohammed and Luther. Both were megalomaniacs intent on founding their own religions. While Luther took the guise of a "reformer" and tried to rally against the hierarchy of the church, he later began dissecting and dismantling core beliefs of Christianity, which ultimately created his own religon. Mohammed on the other hand was just an all around bastard. If I were to wager a bet, I would say Mohammed and Joseph Smith both have special places in hell.

I don't know for sure...just a guess.

[J.R. Stoodley]

BTW, those spiritual decendents of the Nestorians is the Assyrian Church of the East, which is often but very innaccurately labled Oriental Orthodox. They no longer hold to any Christological heresies, and have made a statement saying the Council of Ephesis (which they originally split with the Catholic Church over) is not heretical when interpreted in light of Chalcedon.

Islam is essentially a form of Arianism mixed with Judaism, and secondarily with elements from other Christian heresies and the old Arabic paganism. Perhaps the best description of it would be an Arab form of Ebionitism.

[Zeno]

SDG:
Is there a reason why deusdonat is given such license to attack me without censure whatsoever but that it is only when I defend myself that such reprimand takes place?

Unlike deusdonat, I am more accomdating of Truth and, therefore, would not be offended if such prejudice has been targeted solely at me.

[Zeno]

Vesa/Zeno/Harpie/Troll, I never attacked you or claimed to be superior.

Is that the reason you call me a vesa, a harpie, a troll?

Is that also why you implicitly accused me of spreading Lutheran propaganda?

As for your feigned superiority, who are you to declare who can post and who cannot on these here threads?

You often rely on ad hominems when it comes to my comments, but never really attack the substance of the comments themselves.

Interesting.

[Zeno]

As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him.

And, last but not least, I would never serve your Master.

[J.R. Stoodley]

puella,

I've heard that "the Netherlands" was a better term for your country than "Holland" so I try to stick with it but have never understood why. Holland is a much more natural sounding name for a country at least to American ears which I suppose is why we often use it. Why exactly is it that "the Netherlands" is preferred?

[deusdonat]

JR Stoodly,

I am VERY aware of Nestorianism and Oriental Orthodoxy, which is NOT monophysite as you say, but rather miaphysite; they do not, nor have they ever, believed Jesus had only one divine nature, bur rather that he had ONE nature which was both truly human and truly divine (as opposed to the Chalcedonian formula of Two natures: one truly human and one truly divine). The reason for this Chalcedonian split had more to do with a distrust of the Greeks and dualism than any sober theology. Either way, I am at a sincere loss to distinguish between one nature = human/divine or two natures = human + divine. It's all symantics to me, and hopefully the true churches of the councils will once again be restored to their rightful place as equals in my lifetime if God wills it.

And yes, the Assyrian church of the East is the "descendant" of the Nestorian church. Oddly enough, they are now in communion with Rome. So, what does that tell you about the power of the holy spirit?

[Dr. Eric]

Still no translation...

[Zeno]

Still no translation...

Dr. eric,
And not allow deusdonat the opportunity to prove he actually knows Latin?

How about this, I'll provide a translation after he does.

This would be fair given his accusation that it was "bad Latin".

I'm sure not only would he be able to provide a translation, but if there was anything actually wrong with it grammatically, he can point out whatever errors there might be.

[SDG]

Is there a reason why deusdonat is given such license to attack me without censure whatsoever but that it is only when I defend myself that such reprimand takes place?

Who said I was only talking to one person? Did you not notice that "Catholics" was plural?

However, since you press the point, you are a lot further over the line than deusdonat:

And, last but not least, I would never serve your Master.

Last warning, brutha. If the New Testament isn't enough reason, at least honor house rules.

[puella]

J.R.,

"Holland" collectively refers to the two provinces of Noord- and Zuid-Holland (North and South, respectively). They're the two bits which make up most of the Western coast. There are ten other provinces: Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe, Gelderland, Overijssel, Limburg, Utrecht, Noord-Brabant (South Brabant's in Belgium), Flevoland and Zeeland.

[Zeno]

SDG,

And, last but not least, I would never serve your Master.

I was merely responding to another of deusdonat's uncharitable attacks, which it seems is not permissible; so out of respect for you, I'll back off.

[deusdonat]

PUELLA,

thanks for the explanation. I wondered the same thing actually. Is it maybe "Holland" was historically a country? Maybe the rest of the provinces were taken through wars and/or treaties? In this case, I would think Holland is a historical name (very much like Iberia, which is now both Spain and Portugal).

Interesting. Thanks!

[SDG]

I was merely responding to another of deusdonat's uncharitable attacks, which it seems is not permissible; so out of respect for you, I'll back off.

NO. YOU WEREN'T. (Yes, I'm raising my voice.)

You cannot imply that a fellow Catholic "serves" a "Master" other than Christ, and then claim that you were "merely responding to uncharitable attacks."

Catholics treat one another uncharitably, alas. To their Master they stand or fall. It is not for us to cast one another out of the service of Christ because we feel we have been uncharitably treated.

Strictly as fraternal advice, with no moderatorly weight whatsoever: Stop complaining about double standards and do as you would be done by, rather than as you feel you've been done to.

[deusdonat]

Incidentally, as a Southern European, I never quite understood why the country was called "The Netherlands", since most European countries lie BELOW/UNDER it, geographicallly speaking...

[deusdonat]

Anyone hear any good tuba solos lately???

[Dr. Eric]

Still no translation... >:-(

[Zeno]

SDG,

You cannot imply that a fellow Catholic "serves" a "Master" other than Christ, and then claim that you were "merely responding to uncharitable attacks."

I take it you missed this bit from your friend: "And with that may God give me the strength to ignore you as I should have the minute you started your incessant prodding. As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him."

Not only did the miscreant deliberately misrepresent the circumstances, but he implied the very thing you say here.

Catholics treat one another uncharitably, alas. To their Master they stand or fall. It is not for us to cast one another out of the service of Christ because we feel we have been uncharitably treated.

Strictly as fraternal advice, with no moderatorly weight whatsoever: Stop complaining about double standards and do as you would be done by, rather than as you feel you've been done to.

This is without question a beautiful Christian message, SDG, I grant you; yet do you really believe it is something actually practiced in the real world by either Protestant or Catholic?

The only thing you have here in all actuality is an ideal; one that is certainly lovely to hear and aspire to but, all in all, neglected by even those who claim to be Christian.

deusdonat and others of his ilk is certainly proof of that.

deusdonat may express such hatred towards the Protestants as he has in the past in other threads; yet, many of them are more "Christ-like" in their demeanor and, therefore, more Christian than he'll ever be.

The Gates of Heaven will most likely be more welcoming toward those brand of Christians than ever permit a so-called Catholic such a one like deusdonat!

With that said, you can now return to your regular programming!

[bill912]

Perhaps Matthew, chapter 7, should be read by all those who profess to know how others will be welcomed at the Gates of Heaven.

[SDG]

Zeno,

Still with the wounded air. Deusdonat is no more my "friend" than you are -- less in fact, since I don't know that I've traded five posts with him and I've had a whole lot more interaction with you, both friendly and otherwise.

Not to speak for deusdonat, but when I read "As they say, the only power the devil has is that which we give him," I took that as similar to the proverbial use of "Speak of the devil" or "He who sups with the devil," etc. He wasn't, I think, literally comparing you to the devil, much less accusing you of being in league with him -- only regarding you as an "adversary" or "satan." Maybe it was overly provocative, but it doesn't justify your response.

Yes, I really believe that "Do as you would be done by" is practiced by both Catholics and Protestants -- not by all, of course, and not perfectly by any, and not all the time even by some. But we can try, and we can have more success than has been evident in this combox. Do your part.

I haven't seen deusdonat evince "hatred" toward Protestants, but I wouldn't tolerate that either.

Finally, since you had to throw out the "so-called Catholic" bit after two prior warnings, I'm afraid I have to disinvite to participate in the blog, at least for the time being. Feel free to contact me via Decent Films if you want to discuss further.

[J.R. Stoodley]

deusdonat,

Miaphysitism has generally been considered a version of Monophysitism by the Chalcedonian Churches. Both Eutychianism and Miaphysitism hold that Christ has one nature, but differ in exactly what that nature is, so it would seem logical to call them two schools of Monophysitism. Also, I once debated a Coptic Oriental Orthodox who was certainly Eutychian in belief. Still, the Oriental Orthodox Church likes to consider Miaphysitism distinct from Monophysitism so probably we might as well go along with it to avoid fighting over mere semantics. Whether Miaphysitism is at all reconcilable with Chalcedonian Christianity I'll leave to the theologians.

As for what are pretty much Eutychians in the Oriental Orthodox Church, well perhaps they are roughly the equivalent of Semi-Pelagians in the Catholic Church. The Church, despite being wrongly accused of Semi-Pelagianism by Protestants, has constantly condemned that heresy, yet it remains true that many if not most Catholics (unfortunately) could be considered roughly Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. Also our of ignorance they tend to deny any form of predestination in the name of Catholicism despite it in fact being a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Also, deusdonat, the Netherlands is so called because it is a low-lying area, right next to the North Sea. In fact a lot of it is below sea level. It's kind of like Upper Egypt being south of Lower Egypt. North being "up" is a fairly modern convention from mapping. Back in the day people were much more conscious of elevation when calling something geographically high or low.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Concerning Holland, it was my guess that either it refered to a larger or smaller geographical area or that it was the name of some old state in the same general region.

Still, puella, realize that in the English speaking world it is widely consdered the name of the entire nation. Kind of like we call Deutchland Germany despite that not being its name in German (Deutch) and perhaps being more historically accurate to refer to the non-Scandinavian Germanic countries collectively (Deutchland, Oesterreich, Leichtenstein, and Nederland. Maybe parts of some other countries too). This is a little worse because the word Holland apparently retains its old meaning in the region, but still that meaning has changed in English to be a synonym for the Netherlands.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Oh, and I meant to say above, the Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with the Catholic Church. I suspect deusdonat was either confusing it with the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is those of the same tradition that did reunite, or is confusing the mutual declaration in the 90s by their Patriarch and the Pope that neither Church considers the other to hold Christological heresies with an actual entering into communion. That has been the goal for some time but it has not been reached yet and unfortunately the Assyrians have taken some steps back recently. The main sticking point left, not surprisingly, seems to be the authority of the Pope.

[matt]

deusdonat,

don't take the kneelers as a sign of orthodoxy

it's a sign of orthodoxy in the design of the Church not necessarily of the faithful who may offer the additional discomfort as a sacrifice. Somewhere however, was a heterodox priest who felt man should not kneel and submit.

puella,

However, I'm also aware of the absolutely brilliant things happening here. It seems that you are not, which I find a shame and (on the broader level - I don't know you and so wouldn't know whether it's also something you appear to do) one of the key reasons behind this cultural ignorance that is so (unhappily) prevalent.

Of course I was careful to criticize the actions of the hierarchy, and not the faith of individuals, and particular parishes. Sadly positive things rarely make news when it comes to the Church. Perhaps you could share some of them with us?

Holland != the Netherlands.

Well I won't argue the point with a native, but, I'm sure you are aware in common English usage Holland refers to the entire of the Netherlands. You might not like it, and that's fine, it's really a waste of time to try and correct it in this place. If I had a nickel for every time a native of the USA referred to his countrymen as "Americans" to the exclusion of Mexicans and Canadians, and all the nice South Americans, I'd be a rich man.

According to Wikipedia
"Holland" is also informally used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands.

As to analysing the situation, I don't think you have to be a native to do that, I'm sure and your countrymen don't refrain from commenting on the situation in the US, and why should you?

God Bless,

Matt

[puella]

J.R.,

I grew up in the "English-speaking world" so I'm aware of the convention; it doesn't prevent the use of the word "Holland" being inaccurate. I did say it was finnicky.

Matt,

other than saying "the hierachy is deeply involved with such things" (possibly paraphrasing) I could interpret your initial remark to me as referring to Catholics-in-the-pew just as much as the Bishops.

It is very sad that the good things don't make the press. Why do people get into such a song-and-dance when the bad things do, instead of actively looking for the good?

Actually (and this bit is really important in my discussion), I and all (yes, all) the Catholics here I talk with on a regular basis hardly ever talk about the American Church. Hardly. Ever. If (if!) we read American Catholic news sources - and there are Dutch-language sources so it's not often - and if there's something "wrong" going on we're much more likely to just keep stum about it unless it directly affects one of us personally, or if someone has a good knowledge of what things are really like in the US.
But believe me, all the good stuff that we do see coming from the US is great to talk about. Vocations to solid religious orders (OLAM, desert nuns, Nashville, SMME, Summit, to name just a few.), material like Fishers of Men and news from our friends who have entered, married, discerned Holy Orders, organise pro-life vigils, Theology on Tap sessions via YouTube, a blogging Cardinal, USAns like (I'm 90% sure he's from the US) Fr.Z and Pontificator...I could go on! What's more, some of us take part in English-language forums where we get to know people and so these things cease to be news items at which people can throw stones.

NB: I'm speaking for myself and a group of friends. It wouldn't surprise me if there were Dutch Catholics who do the same to the US as many US bloggers do to the Netherlands...but that would be just as objectionable as those USAns who do it anyway. Besides that, I myself have mellowed in my reaction to USAns who do this - I've flipped out a couple of times in the past due to not being able to handle the frustration properly.

It's simply so patronising when people are so short-sighted. The good stuff about the Dutch Church (as well as the German, Belgian, Austrian...) is out there, but USAns hardly ever seem to read it. Surely people haven't forgotten ALL their French or German or $language? The blogs are out there - some are in English - and then there are online translators. Further, a polite well-placed request along the lines of "Hi, I'm interested in this issue in Holland (ugh! ;)) but am not sure if I got the jist of it right, would you mind giving me a summary in English?" would normally be met with an positive answer (depending om time constraints and Real Life and stuff).

The focus is far too much on reports from impersonal news sources and nowhere near enough upon people who live in the thick of it all. I'm not asking people to overlook the bad - just to make extra effort to see the good.

(and I think that's a good place to cease my contributions to this thread as it's already taken up too much of my time away from work!)

[rusta]

Why do you make fun of Islam. Your Popes have said that Catholics and Muslims are brothers. If we are brothers than we must serve the same God!

[SDG]

Rusta: What exactly do you think brothers DO? Do you HAVE any brothers?

[rusta]

Yes, I have brothers. Sometimes brothers fight, however most of the time they love each other. We are brothers because your Popes say we are brothers. Are you telling me that you don't believe in teaching of your Popes. Does this not make you an infidel, if you don't believe teaching of Popes?

[SDG]

Rusta,

I was being funny, responding more to your comment about "making fun" than anything else, which is certainly something brothers do whether they are fighting or loving. (FWIW, I wasn't "making fun" of Muslims… and even if I did, I might equally make fun of Christians. Certainly I make fun of my own brother, whom I love very much.)

What exactly did I say to raise doubts in your mind whether I believe the teaching of the popes? It seems to me you're leaping to conclusions. I am a devout son of the Church and follow the teaching of the popes in all things.

As to Muslim and Christian brotherhood: I absolutely affirm that Christians and Muslims, as well as Jews, all worship and serve one God, the omnipotent creator of the universe who revealed Himself to Abraham. In that respect, we are all brothers.

I also affirm that, given this fraternity, Christians, Jews and Muslims owe one another a special debt of love, in addition to the general obligation that all men have to love one another. When and where those who claim to fear God hate and murder one another, especially in the name of our beliefs, this is a grave offense before God and a scandal to the world.

This is not to deny that there are real and important differences between us. As a Christian, I believe that God the Father calls all men, including Muslims and Jews, to the fullness of divine truth revealed in His Only Son Jesus Christ.

I understand that this belief is offensive to Muslims, and I have no wish to offend anyone. The fear of God, though, is greater than respect for men, even the considerable respect Christians owe to Muslims.

[rusta]

I am not offended. As a Muslim I believe that you mean well but are deceived in thinking that Jesus is the 'fullness of divine truth'. Clearly this is not a very important point otherwise your Popes would not say we are brothers. Therefore it is only important to believe in ONE God - Allah or Jehovah. Muslims believe that Christians faked history, which has been recently proven. For example the Donation of Constantine is the source of Catholic tradition of Peter being the first Pope. This faked document, from the 3rd century, is what lead to the legend of Peter being first Pope. All Turkish scholars and even Greek Orthodox know about this faked document as the source of Papal Power. Therefore we accept you as brothers even if you teach faked history, and other corruptions.

[Mary Kay]

Rusta, that's the silliest nonsense I've read in quite a while.

[SDG]

I am not offended. As a Muslim I believe that you mean well but are deceived in thinking that Jesus is the 'fullness of divine truth'.

Yes, that is our key disagreement: One of us is greatly wrong about Jesus.

Clearly this is not a very important point otherwise your Popes would not say we are brothers.

In this you are very profoundly mistaken about the meaning of Christian faith. Your misunderstanding is based on an exaggerated interpretation of the fraternity that can be said to exist between Christians and Muslims.

No pope would agree with your conclusion that to know Jesus Christ as the fullness of divine revelation and the savior of the world is not important -- indeed, it is the absolute center of Christian faith, and all men are called to this faith. Such fraternity as exists between Christians and Muslims must be reconciled with this central truth; it cannot be used to diminish or sideline the centrality of this truth. I can easily produce innumerable papal quotes to support the point.

Muslims believe that Christians faked history, which has been recently proven. For example the Donation of Constantine is the source of Catholic tradition of Peter being the first Pope.

My faith is not threatened by the fact that some Christians have forged documents and committed other frauds. It is a clear historical fact that belief in the Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome long predates the spurious Donation of Constantine; the forgery was created to support an existing belief, not to create a new one.)

Is your faith threatened by the fact that, for instance, the Hadith contains many sayings attributed to Muhammad that actually date centuries later? Muslim scholarship is just beginning to come to grips with some of these issues, just as Christian scholarship did centuries ago.

Dishonesty is a part of human life. Just because evidence has sometimes been faked doesn't tell us whether the basic point is valid or invalid. The police might have planted evidence, but O.J. was still guilty.

[rusta]

Mary Kay, Before you hurl insults you should do some research. Insults do not refute the fact that Donation of Constantine is the greatest forgery in Christendom. Only fools hurl insults. The educated do research.

[rusta]

SDG, Your faith should be threatened if you believe a lie. Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, and Muslim all agree that Papacy is a forgery from 3rd century. Even your history books prove this. However certain Christians think that God will excuse the belief in lies. In your Bible it expressly states in Revelation 21:8 that, " ... all LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Thus those who willfully believe in a lie are liars. The truth will set free. So those who continue to promote this lie will all end up in Hell.