It would seem that Catholic schools should teach the Catholic faith and no others if they are to be called Catholic. If you come to one of our schools that is what you should expect. Making allowances for other religions means they are not truly Catholic schools. They become non-denominational, multi-religion facilities. If that is what the bishops want to be spreading then so be it. Let us debate that. But I do not see how you can call a school Catholic that isn't pushing the Catholic faith 100%. No forced conversions, but no other religions allowed to be practiced or taught. I am afraid that most "Catholic" schools today preach secularism. Religion is one subjected added on. A truly Catholic school should have the faith color everything the student does from math to science, to English and social studies. I am afraid there are very few schools like that and that is why at this time home schooling is the best option to teach your children the Catholic faith. And as for Muslims worshiping the same God ... perhaps a nice approach to talk with them but I do not see how that statement can be taken seriously if you look at the "God" proclaimed in the Koran. They "claim" the faith of Abraham but is it that in fact?

And should Catholic schools provide the same sort of "charity" for Wiccan students, or is that where your definition of the Golden Rule ends?

I'm having trouble understanding why this is such an incredibly awesome development...

The ultimate solution is to sell the school buildings to Moslems, have them do all the political finagling to keep their faith based schools faith-based, and then have Catholic children enroll and then have the Moslem School board hang crucifixes and dedicated adoration chapels to accomodate our beliefs.

That's fair.

So God recommends that we accommodate the heathens now?

Really? Walk me through these early Church Fathers...

Ignatius of Antioch
He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with"

Theodosius I
...as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.

These guys weren't familiar with the Muslim religion since it hadn't been invented yet, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been voting for washing statiions in Christian schools.

Whateva

I'm having trouble understanding why this is such an incredibly awesome development...

Curious. I'm having trouble remembering where anybody said it was an incredibly awesome development. All I said was that it was an act motivated by charity and not manifestly obvious as a contemptible expression of cowardice or dhimmitude, despite the insta-verdicts of some. It may well not be prudent. But the assumption that it is due to bad faith is unwarranted.

They "claim" the faith of Abraham but is it that in fact?

Technically, they claim to worship the God of Abraham and, yes, according to the Catechism and Pope St. Gregory VII they do, albeit imperfectly.

When Pius XII had a bunch of Jews squirreled away in the Vatican to hide them from the Nazis he permitted them to celebrate their rites. Should he have forbidden this squishing judaizing? How far does all this sinister modernism go?

But in this case, it's only a characteristic of bad research. Sorry, Mr. Shea, but you're flat-out wrong on the issue of monotheism. Superficially, of course, Jews, Catholics, and Muslims (as well as Middle Platonists, Neoplatonists, some of the Gnostic sects, and Arians) are monotheists. Your second citation has nothing to do with the issue. Certainly, the Church wishes that all should be saved. It always has. CCC 841 is itself a citation from Nostra aetate #3. It is not the fruit of sustained reflection on monotheism per se. That is, it says only that Muslims adore the One God, but does not go on to examine the differences between radical monotheism and Christian monotheism. And there are profound differences, not only in the theology of perichoresis, but as that concept informs the way Christians live their lives in relationship to God and to one another.

The point of such descriptions of God is that they also describe (ideally) how human beings who affirm them are to live their lives. There is nothing against Scripture in pointing out that Christians and Muslims draw very different conclusions from their very different portrayals of God (as outlined in their very different sacred books). It hasn't escaped theologians that Christians and Muslims have divergent thoughts about divine will and human freedom.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the charity we should extend to everyone. You are mixing up several distinct issues and it's obfuscating the point that (I think) you are trying to make. If your point is that Christians extend charity to all, what's not to agree with? If it's on monotheism, however, you're dead wrong.

"Technically, they claim to worship the God of Abraham and, yes, according to the Catechism and Pope St. Gregory VII they do, albeit imperfectly.
"

Do you think that there's any chance that those Catholic schools will be pointing out to their students (even if it's only the Catholic students in their segregated religious classes) that the Muslims worship God imperfectly?

Do tell...

.....that the Faith may lack verisimilitude in these schools such that Muslims feel their own beliefs won't be threatened. Otherwise, why would they bother putting their kids in these schools and pushing for cultural accommodation?

That said, I do agree that there is something irrational about western antagonism toward Muslims. The violent extremists among them should be dealt with accordingly, but the vast majority are no more a threat than most Jews or Protestants. None of these religions have the fullness of Faith, but why do Muslims possess less of it than the others?

Catholic Schools exist to teach, not just to catechize. Historically, Catholic institutions - churches, hospitals, universities, community service centers, etc. - have served all people, and many have done so while keeping a strong Catholic identity.

There is a way to accommodate and allow students their religious practices while maintaining a strong Catholicity. I agree with Mark -- it may not be prudent to allow Muslim students to do so, but it shows the Church's respect for human dignity and religious freedom.

CCC 841 is itself a citation from Nostra aetate #3. It is not the fruit of sustained reflection on monotheism per se.

Ah! But the dashed off rejections of some guy in a combox is.

Look. I'm perfectly aware of the profound differences between the three great Abrahamic religions and their various spinoffs. I do not suggest, nor does Nostra Aetate, that these differences can or should be ignored. But however you slice it, the Church affirms a basic commonality in that all three adore the God of Abraham. Spin it away how you like, but that's the Church's teaching.

Do you think that there's any chance that those Catholic schools will be pointing out to their students (even if it's only the Catholic students in their segregated religious classes) that the Muslims worship God imperfectly?

Where did I argue this? I have no idea what content Catholic schools in Britain teach. I'm not even particularly sold on the wisdom of this suggestion from the bishops. I'm simply saying that the arguments I'm hearing from the Star Chambers of St. Blogs who have found the bishop vehemently suspect of heresy are crappy arguments based on various and sundry bad ideas which, if implemented consistently, would spell disaster for the Church's relationship with, well, everybody who is not Catholic.

Why are 30% of their students non-Catholic? That seems like a high percentage. Are there not enough Catholic families? Are non-Catholics admitted ahead of Catholics because of entrance exam scores or ability to pay tuition? Wouldn't the ideal be to have a Catholic school full of faithful Catholics, with more Catholics on the waiting list to get in?

I agree that the fact of the British bishops being limp noodles on a whole host of issues does not mean we can automatically assume their decision is motivated by cowardice. But I don't think the charitable assumption that the gesture is motivated by, well, charity, should end the moral reflection.

It seems to me that it is one thing to not interfere with the practice of another religion and quite another thing to take positive steps to enable the practice of another religion. Now, I'm no moralist, so the title of my post isn't a conclusion; it is meant just as punctuated. But we do know that, for whatever truths contained in Islam, it is, taken as a whole, a false religion. So isn't it possible that we might incur some culpability for actively facilitating the practice of a false religion?

I can very well see the line that the schools are only facilitating a general honor for God through means specific to Islam, and thus fostering an element of truth, not falsehood, so even here we might slide. But that raises a further question of scandal. Let's say the action in and of itself is permissible - what message are the students, both Catholic and non-, receiving? Is it being done in a way that avoids implied indifference or some other false message? It doesn't seem to me, Mark, that your defense of the bishops managed to deal sufficiently with these issues.

Ya Mark, check out 'Real Clear Religion', a picture is worth a thousand words. I'm sorry but the shadow over the Church is huge and multi-layered. You mean well and in a perfect world you'd have a good point, but in a perfect word there'd be no Muslims.

Fr. B -

I can agree with your first statement, that Catholic schools should teach the Catholic faith and no others; but I don't think "teaching" is the same as "pushing". I do think "pushing" is so similar to "forcing" as to be indistinguishable, especially to a child. If a Catholic institution (school, hospital, soup kitchen, whatever) accepts a non-Catholic as a recipient of its services, then it has the responsibility to respect the non-Catholic customs that come with those non-Catholic persons.

I also think that non-Catholics applying for service from a Catholic institution should reasonably expect the Catholic faith to be manifestly present at that institution. In a school, they should expect that the Catholic doctrines will be taught; but they also can reasonably expect that assent to Catholic doctrine is necessary for knowledge of Catholic doctrine; any more than assent to Marxism is necessary for knowledge of Marxism.

I agree with Mark: there is no obligation to provide these accommodations, but there is no absolute reason not to.

Very interesting article. Yes, why not let all of the other religions, each and every one, have a place to worship? Or, why not have all the religions worship together? The Catholics might be for this, but I doubt if the Muslims would. I'm no expert on Islam, but I think they want everyone to become Muslim; they believe they have the true religion and a separate place to worship is a peaceful way of expressing this. What do the Catholic schools teach in the religion classes?

..practices a false religion.

If you're into sacraments and Catholic triumphalism, go nuts - they won't avail you of anything in the hour that Jesus tells you to depart from him because he never knew you.

When one who worships the Father shows up at your door and you deny him a place to pray because you've decided that your "Catholic Faith" is worth more to God than theirs, you're worse than a Pharisee. Don't tie a millstone around your neck for your suspicions of brown-skinned people.

In case you hadn't noticed, Islam is a massive, massive faith tradition. I think it's safe to assume that God is watching them and watching over them: if we're going to imitate Christ in his love, we better not be so callous stand in Jesus' face and tell Him he's better worshipped in Our Temples instead of Their Mountains.

anybody who declares Islam is a false religion

..practices a false religion.

I'm quite prepared to say I think Islam a false, man-made religion. It does not follow from this that I think charity should not be extended to Muslims so that they can obey their conscience in their observances.

It doesn't seem to me, Mark, that your defense of the bishops managed to deal sufficiently with these issues.

I'm not especially defending the bishops. I'm not persuaded they are right. I'm simply pointing out that the arguments against the bishop are based on a number of crappy ideas. I'm hoping somebody will write a criticism based on sound ideas.

Thanks for this thought-provoking article. My first reaction was to roll my eyes at these bishops. After all, just yesterday about the effects of British bishops bending to secularism on my own site. Then I came to the line:

One commenter at Rod Dreher's blog sounds this all-too-common Protestant theme by informing us that it is untrue that Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship the same God.

I hadn't thought of this as a Protestant concept, honestly. Going on to read your reference to CCC 847, though, realized that I had been looking at it through a Protestant lens. Even 4 years after coming into the Church I still carry a Protestant mindset in ways I often haven't noticed. So thank you again, Mr. Shea, for the article.

Nice. You seem pretty sure about this. I guess Catholic doctrine is just more "triumphalism". I suppose the Incarnation is just a quaint little Catholic idea. Do Eschatology and the Catholic bible hold any objective value? What about moral theology? Or papal succession? All just more "sacramental" religion. Right?

Yes, why not let all of the other religions, each and every one, have a place to worship?

You mean in Catholic schools? Well, because all the religions are not going to Catholic schools, but in Britain a lot of Muslims are. There' probably aren't too many Zoroastrians or Shinto going to British Catholic schools. So there's no need to address the huge pastoral problem posed byt Muslim students.

Or, why not have all the religions worship together?

Because that would suggest a communion that does not, in fact, exist.

Not to harp on the point, but why are "a lot of Muslims" going to British Catholic schools? Why aren't the Catholic schools serving more Catholic kids? What is the function of a Catholic grade school or high school, after all?

My two sons attend a Catholic School where about a third of the students are Indian. Most are Hindu, but I believe some are Muslim. Their parents send them to the school for several reasons, including because they do not want them in the secularizing public schools.

I am vehemently opposed to Jihadists and believe they have to be confronted whenever they appear because they feed off weakness.

That being said, if Muslim students asked for foot baths and the school could afford them (those with knowledge of the tight budgets most Catholic Schools are on know this is a purely hypothetical situation) I would not object to them. They are not asking to hold Muslim prayer services in the Church or insisting that the local Imam be given equal time at Mass. This is a minor courtesy to people, like us, who take their faith seriously.

I think it is a wonderful thing that these non-Catholic parents feel they can entrust their children to our school. These people are allies in the Culture Wars, not enemies.

I think we have to keep in mind the statement by a former Bishop or Cardinal (I believe from Washington, but not McCarrick) who stated, "We do not educate these children because they are Catholic, we educate these children because we are Catholic."

From Guardian.co.uk
“There are currently around 7,000 faith schools in England, 600 secondary and 6,400 primary. The vast majority [6,955] are Christian, with 36 Jewish, five Muslim and two Sikh schools.
At the moment the schools must meet stringent criteria including teaching the national curriculum and have buildings "which are fit for purpose" before they are accepted into the state system, but this process is being reviewed.
Once in the system the schools receive capital funding and their day-to-day running costs are met.”

Accept secular money, accept secular regulations. Government controlled religious institutions? Let’s open this can of worms!

You didn't say that the nexus was the God of Abraham, you said "monotheism." The Church is not stating a "basic commonality" other than all three religions claim Abrahamic ancestry. Whether or not there is a factual basis to this is ascertained by theological study, which you have not done (nor, obviously, have you read the Qu'ran). It's one thing to recognize claims on a common ancestry; quite another to see how it plays out in fact. You might go back to the Holy Father's address at Regensburg, in which he clearly outlined the differences between Muslim and Christian monotheism and the consequences of those differences (at the beginning of his address and later in comparison with late medieval voluntarism) - although, given your adamant citation of one passage from the Catechism, I'm sure he'd be guilty of going against Church teaching. You really can't take a complex issue like monotheism just to make a few points about extending charity. It's not fair to either subject and it trivializes both.

There are (or, could plausibly be):

(1.) Catholic schools for Catholics alone, teaching Catholicism;
(2.) Catholic schools for anyone who wishes to attend, teaching Catholicism;
(3.) Catholic schools for anyone who wishes to attend, teaching in a non-sectarian fashion;

...and other options which might occur mid-way between (1.) and (2.), or between (2.) and (3.). For example, a Catholic school for anyone which explicitly taught a sort of non-denominational Christianity would fall between (2.) and (3.); whereas a Catholic school which only admitted credal Christians would fall between (1.) and (2.).

There is, I suspect, a need for all three types of schools. There is surely a need for a school to know and to openly state which of these types of school it is. Call it truth in advertising. Or, call it simply faithfulness to one's vocation. (Organizations, like individuals, are called to particular missions and purposes!)

We should also acknowledge that in our era the tendency of human organizations is to go wishy-washy over time. If a particular school's identity matches type (2.), then it is more likely to slip over time in the direction of type (3.), than of type (1.). Yet if it is useful to have all three types, then it is more important to resist the accommodationist impulse, than the exclusionist impulse. This may have been otherwise, in other eras...but does anyone doubt that our era tends more toward the erosion of clear distinctions, than the crystallizing of them?

Mark, I am certain you are correct: The move by the school was certainly motivated in part by charity. And that's no bad motivation. Not at all.

But whether it's a good move overall remains to be seen. And that depends not only on such extraneous factors as you mention (budget stewardship), but also on what type of school this school was supposed to be (or even, what type it advertised itself as being), and what type it is becoming.

If there's a discrepancy between the school's charter and its current reality, then that's a problem.

If the particular discrepancy is that the school is less distinctively Catholic than it was intended to be, then it's not only a problem, but a far-too-common one, meriting a stronger counterattack than an error in the opposite direction would.

And in that case, perhaps the degree of outcry against the move is just? ...even if the stated reasons for the outcry ("wimpy bishops") aren't?

Mark, as usual, you take one quote from Nostra Aetate and provide it as a "prooftext" as if its explanation is infallible or something--instead of--as this current Pope has repeatedly emphasized, reading and understanding Vatican II "in light of Tradition."

The Jews and Muslims and Christians do NOT--I repeat--do NOT worship the same one TRUE God. Your serious of articles on this topic in National Catholic Register were seriously mistaken, just as this one is.

You need to try to go back and do some more Catholic apologetics and get some theological training. Robert Sungenis has called you out on this and other topics many times, and you have no coherent response.

The fact that Catholic publications continue to publish much of your stuff that is seriously theoligcally flawed is telling about the state of so-called "orthodox" Catholic publications.

Please find me a magisterial document (not proof-texting from your two same sources you repeatedly use) that says Christians and Muslims worship the same one TRUE God.

Please provide me one that is authoritative magisterial teaching. It shouldn't bee too difficult.

P. Lynch thinks truth comes from some sort of popularity contest, the type of religion with the most votes wins.
R.K. should really continue on; Jesus was just another prophet, and don't forget God 'gave' him Mary, yes the blessed virgin, as his wife, in a dream of course.
Should we even get started on the mess that is the UK, Some even want to invite in Sharia Law. There hasn't been much of a spine in England since Henry declared himself equal to God and created his own church.
Charity, in this case, really means nobody gives a fig.

I certainly believe the christian way is one of any open door, by be accepting of people we can win souls for Christ.

Please join us at www.thegiftrevolution.com as we try to change the world through giving.

Muslims do NOT worship the one true God

So when the Church says, "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day" she actually means they adore some other one, merciful God.

It's so great that combox warriors are so much smarter than the Church. Stupid people like me, who can only gape and grin and read what the Church documents say always thought that there was just one God and no other. Come to find out there's the one merciful God we worship and then there's the *other* one merciful God *they* worship.

God 2.0 must have come into existence when the Church split into the Truly True Catholic pre-Vatican II Church and the contemptible ridiculous post-Vatican II Church. Two Gods. Two holy Catholic and apostolic Churches! Neat! Somebody gonna draft a new creed to explain all this? Any bishops invited to help or is this strictly a combox conciliar thing?

Isn't accommodation of cultural differences one of the things that has made Catholicism so effective in its evangelization?
Catholicism seems to do the worst job when missionaries impose their culture on the people it tries to evangelize to...but a much better job when it tries to show how the Catholic faith is still compatible with the non-Catholic's culture.
Every non-Catholic that attends a Catholic school is an opportunity to evangelize in a peaceful and respectful way.
If it takes using fancy bathrooms to bring others to the Eucharist, then I'll be the first in line at the new lavatories.

Hey, Mark? How does it feel to be argued with and not be allowed to ban people who happen to disagree with you?

Seriously, while I agree with Mark Shea's article in principle, I don't think this latest accommodation can be analyzed in isolation from the stealth jihad and creeping dhimmitude otherwise already plaguing the Western world, and the United Kingdom in particular.

As well, I'm not so sure the belief that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God can quite be called "magisterial teaching." There is legitimate room for debate here, and not everything said in the Catechism belongs to the deposit of faith, or is definitive teaching. In this case, the assertion that Catholics and Muslims adore the one true God is an "official position," but I don't think one sins by harboring well-founded reservations regarding it.

And for the record: I actually agree with Mark Shea on this issue (that Muslims do, in fact, worship the true God); I just don't accuse my Catholic brothers and sisters of heresy or disobedience if they in good conscience believe otherwise.

Mark has an unfortunate tendency to regard every word that comes out of a Pope or a magisterial organ as the final say-so on a given issue, and seems to believe that these statements can be read in isolation from the wider Catholic tradition to establish their degree of bindingness. Unfortunately, he also has an unfortunate tendency, quite Ann-Coulterish, to demonize anyone who disagrees with him. He thinks it's Chestertonian.

That having been said, Mark's done a lot of good for the church, and this is a fine article on a very controversial subject, a fine contribution to the debate. For unlike Mar's blog, he were CAN debate!

This is awful, a Catholic school should teach the Catholic faith. Just as a Muslim school would teach the Muslim faith. This is radical multiculturalism at its worst.

Mark:

Why can't you understand that there are times when good, orthodox Catholics can disagree with an official church policy, or otherwise disagree with a non-dogmatic doctrinal formulation? In these instances, your knee-jerk appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; you should confront the arguments from those you disagree with on their own philosophical merit (or lack thereof).

It's perfectly legitiamte for one to disagree with a particular verbal formulation in a Catechism, and it's uncharitable for you to suggest that that person thinks they are "smarter than the Church".

"The Church" does not write catechisms, Mark. Vatican bureaucrats do, and quite frankly the bureaucrat who was the man-man behind the Catechism is the same guy who was just filmed participating in a sac sacrilegious "youth Mass" in Vienna which played non-sacral music, and opened the Mass with launching petition-attached helium-filled balloons in the air, with Cardinal Schonborn himself participating in this "liturgical balloon rite".

No, I am not arguing that we should assume catechetical formulations are suspect BECAUSE the man who was in charge of the catechism can't even celebrate Mass licitly, let alone run a diocese whose seminary had to be closed down because it was basically a brothel, a diocese where Catholics are declining in droves, heterodoxy abounds, etc.

I am saying that I am certainly entitled to question some of the prudential judgments of the man, including his oversight of a Catechism published in the 90s.

While the Church has absolute and supreme authority when it comes to teaching the Catholic Faith, the same cannot be said about the Church's pronouncements about the Islamic faith.

Notwithstanding Mr. Shea's shallow understanding, Muslims are the authorities on Islam, not Catholics, not even the Pope, who is infallible with respect to Catholic teaching only. If the Pope or the Catechism or some council were to pronounce that 2 plus 2 were 4 would anyone assert that such is true because stated by them? Of course not. Well, the same is true with respect to pronouncements regarding the content of Islam.

And, according to the Supreme Islamic authority, the Koran, Allah, although asserted to be the one true God, is NOT a Trinity of three persons in one devine being. To be sure, from the Islamic perspective, to assert a Triune God is blasphemy, just as to claim that Jesus is the Son of God is blasphemy.

The fact that Jews worship One God, and Muslims worship One God, and Christians worship One God does not automatically and necessarily mean that they all worship the same One God, even if there is only one God. It means that one of these groups worships the true God and the others worship a "god" that does not really exist. But one thing is clear, although they profess that there is no God but Allah, Muslims do NOT worship or recognize God the Father, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit.

Just try spouting such nonsense as Shea spouts in Saudi Arabia and see how much they agree with you.

OK, so I blew this example. It should read:

"If the Pope or the Catechism or some council were to pronounce that 2 plus 2 were 5 would anyone assert that such is true because stated by them? Of course not."

Here is yet another proof that Muslims worship the same God as us:

1. Although some Christians over the centuries have called Islam a "Christian heresy", it is much more logical to call it a "Jewish heresy". There was massive Jewish proselytization in southern Arabia in the century before Muhammad. By the time of Muhammad, many of the Arabs in Yemen had converted to Judaism, and in Mecca and Medina there were ethnically-Jewish Jews and ethnically-Arab Jews. Muhammad accepted the Jewish prophets with very few revisions (whereas his story of Jesus' life is significanlty different than ours). To this very day, Orthodox Jews are forbidden to pray in a Christian church, but they are permitted to pray in a mosque. Muhammad rejected some of the Jews' historical claims (e.g., the roles of Isaac and Ishmael were partially reversed) but he accepted their theology. Therefore, Muslims today worship the same God as do the Jews.

2. The Jews built the Temple in Jerusalem to worship their God. Not to worship a hypothetical God or any powerful being, but their God. Therefore, the God of the Jews is the God who was worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple.

3. Jesus called the Temple "my Father's house" (Luke 2:49, John 2:16). Moreover, he told the Samaritan woman, "You [the Samaritans] worship what you do not know; we [the Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22). Moreover, we also know that Jesus is himself God, one with the Father (Jn 1:1, etc.). So the God that we worship -- the Trinitarian God -- is the God who was worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple.

4. It follows that if the Muslim God is the Jewish God, and the Jewish God is the Christian God, then the Muslim God and the Christian God are the same.

5. We can go even further than this. The men of Athens were mostly ignorant of God's revelation to the Israelites, and yet they managed to deduce that there must be only one true God, who created all things -- the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause. (See Plato.) Some Athenians built an altar and dedicated it to this "unknown God." When Paul arrived in Athens, he told them that the God to whom they had made this altar was in fact his God -- the God of Jesus Christ. (Acts 17:22-28.) So the Christian God is the same as "the God of the philosophers."

You can be a Christian and reject this logic. Many Christians throughout history have rejected this logic. Among them are famous names, such as William of Ockham, Martin Luther, Blaise Pascal, and Karl Barth. And for this, Ockham is remembered as the father of poisonous philosophy, Luther began a great schism in the Church, Pascal joined the Jansenists who persisted in their errors despite papal condemnation, and Barth claimed to find nothing Christian in the Catholic Church. You are free to follow these great men. I myself will follow Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, who emphatically stated that the God of Christianity and the God of the Philosophers are one and the same.

Isn't it possible to affirm that the Allah of the Koran is not, strictly speaking, the true God, Yahweh; and at the same time to affirm that Muslims DO worship Yahweh, but do so imperfectly?

Again, I agree with Lawrence King, but Bender's right on the money. Most of the Church's official policy positions are not dogmatically binding. They are to be respected, even deferred to, but we are free to respectfully voice disagreement. Allah's identification with Yahweh is one of these.

My question would be is providing facilities for Muslim worship actually charitable? The first order of charity of course is providing the school with a strong Catholic identity through what is taught and the liturgy.

Now, I don't think Muslims should necessarily be forbidden from practicing their faith (perhaps give them time to do it off campus, if possible), but could actually providing the facilities for them to worship lead to indifferentism? And if it does, that is not a charitable act either for Catholics or the Muslims.

And I do believe taking a stronger stance vis a vis Islam, or Protestantism, or Judaism actually does result in more conversions. Which is why there were more conversions, generally speaking, than we see now.

Shea, you wrote: "It's so great that combox warriors are so much smarter than the Church. Stupid people like me, who can only gape and grin and read what the Church documents say always thought that there was just one God and no other. Come to find out there's the one merciful God we worship and then there's the *other* one merciful God *they* worship.

God 2.0 must have come into existence when the Church split into the Truly True Catholic pre-Vatican II Church and the contemptible ridiculous post-Vatican II Church. Two Gods. Two holy Catholic and apostolic Churches! Neat! Somebody gonna draft a new creed to explain all this? Any bishops invited to help or is this strictly a combox conciliar thing?"

Are you serious? Are you so out of a cogent argument that you're reverting to your usual anti-traditionalist Catholic thing? Shabby. Perhaps reading some pre-Vatican II sources would be helpful to you.

"the Sultan of Bougie"??? That's just gold-plated awsome!

...I always thought the mission of the Church was to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. Islam (Like Mormonism) is the invention of one, self-serving,
man.
2. "Allah" (Of Islam) is NOT "God": The G_d of the Jews is
He who entered into a contract with a People; The God of
Christians is a loving Father-and-Brother; "Allah" is a
slave master, not subject to even his own commands or laws.
3. "Islam" is a terrorist-criminal movement based on the power
of murder, rape, genocide, robbery,perpetual war with
all other peoples.
5. Where should the British schools put the places for sacrifice
of babies (Other than the secular abortion mills), sacrifice
of goats, ritual prostitution, cutting out of the hearts of
war captives (At "Gitmo"?) or other and historic religious
practices.

Usually this refers to those of a liberal stripe who read their own agendas into Vatican II documents. But Mark Shea and a few other bloggers also have their own "spirit of Vatican II" thing going.

EricG is right that Mark Shea reads Vatican II documents and the Catechism in isolation from the rest of Church tradition and the rest of Church documents and just assumes that every statement has an equally binding character. Such self-educated assumptions do no service to the Catholic community at large and are specious on their face. Shea would benefit from a few courses in theology and ecclesiology and some serious reading of the primary sources, both pre and post-Vatican II. The Catholic Church didn't begin in 1962.

Deal Hudson was right to be thankful for Mark Shea, human lighting rod, man of steel in a lightning storm, conductor of all things explosive.

Mark - Publish your grocery list.

A commenter on Mark's blog put it well:

[quote]

As mentioned on this blog before, there is an element of sin in the practice of any faith that is not Catholic. In allocating resources so that some may willfully follow their errant creed, the bishops are then guilty of material cooperation in this sin. Further, it is destructive to the very practice of any faith since, by allowing such activity within a supposedly Catholic teaching environment, it demonstrates either indifference to the grave and eternal implications of failure to accept Christ for who He is or relegates such activities as prayer to trivial aesthetics, easily interchangeable with whatever practice best suits a person.

In applying the Golden Rule to this situation, we must therefore determine exactly what it is that the bishops are allowing such students to do: allow their souls to enter into the clear and present danger of eternal death. As such, this foolish accommodation constitutes hatred rather than charity. Even more seriously, this situation can be nothing other than a refusal to submit to Christ’s command to spread the Good News, since it implicitly encourages those enmeshed in false creeds to wallow within their errors.

[end quote]

Mark I'm sympathetic with your desire for fairness and charity here, but "We've tried that over the past two millennia, and it was a bust."

Were the past two millennia that showed the growth of Christendom really a "bust" compared to what has happened to the Church since--Oh, round about the time that Dignitatis Humanae was published? I'm not dissenting from the document's teaching, but suggesting that perhaps it's asking too much of human nature to expect people to HOLD ultimate truths as absolutely essential, then ACT as if they were a difference in taste. A Christian society should enshrine Christian rituals and folkways, through and with the State, while being tolerant of the quiet practice of other faiths. In other words, we should be MORE tolerant than the Moslems are of Christians, but avoid what I'd call "practical indifferentism." So yes, I would forbid yarmulkes at a Catholic school. And hijabs. And immodest dress. And pierced noses. Allow one, and you open the door (psychologically, though not logically) to all the others.

Can you say "contraception"?

If Catholic schools want to remain open to only teaching Catholics, than Catholics better give up their favorite sexual security blanket. Muslims are "out-growing" the pew-sitters in the Church - they are the fastest growing population in England.

The fact that Jews worship One God, and Muslims worship One God, and Christians worship One God does not automatically and necessarily mean that they all worship the same One God, even if there is only one God.

No comment really. I just want to savor that distilled incoherence for moment.

Now, on to business:

John Z:

I don't think the Church's history of abuse of Jews is anything to be proud of. Neither does the Church, judging from Nostra Aetate. That's what I'm talking about here, ultimately. My point all along has not been "The UK bishops are unquestionably right!" I'm not at all persuaded they are. Rather, my point is that the arguments being deployed against them are ultimately the rationale which led to abuse of Jews in the past. I think it's best to nip crappy arguments in the bud. It does not follow that there are no sound arguments against the bishop's reasoning.

Doug:

Yeah, it always makes me think of some sort of 70s disco.

It's all too easy to throw the charge of "Catholic tribalism" at people who want to keep a modicum of Catholic religious and cultural identity. And Catholics have a right to set some parameters here. It's not a questioning of precluding charity at all. That's just a red herring. And the idea that Catholics have precluded charity to others for the "past two millennia" is preposterous on its face. Since when have Catholics not offered charity to those in need? I'd like some citations, rather than a blanket statement here. Gregory the Great thought it was a wasted day if he had not had the opportunity to perform charitable works. And the monastic orders (East and West) were known for their charity and hospitality to all. Even after the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants worked out a modus vivendi in many cities and hamlets, one result of which was the exchange of charitable works (cf. Divided by Faith, by Benjamin J. Kaplan).

I find Shea's constant drumbeat about "Catholic tribalism" both offensive and untrue. I find his distortion of Church history equally objectionable. Perhaps he should read Deus caritas est for the true vision of charity in Catholic theology, as it has been practiced and as it should be practiced, and stop proffering libel. And perhaps Mr. Shea should take a rest before commenting on other issues that he does not understand.

I would also ask Mr. Shea why it is so important for him to dismiss any and all efforts at Catholic integrity in theology and culture as well as in the formation of its people. This is not tribalism. It is a recognition of Catholic Tradition and Catholic liturgy as well as Catholic traditions, which are necessary supports for Catholic dogma and doctrine. Shea seems to think dogma and doctrine exist in a culturally-free vacuum (which is impossible, in any case), where they can be cobbled onto any existing system with no effect on this doctrine and dogma. The evangelization he's so adamant about only amounts to syncretism with his erroneous understanding of culture and theology. Catholic education is part of the formation of Catholic children. And Catholic bishops and educators don't just have the right, but the duty to make sure that these schools are able to support such formative endeavors.

John:

As one other reader noted, this issue cannot be treated in isolation from the "creeping jihad" in Western institutions.

And, as I stated in my earlier reply, it cannot be treated in isolation from the general drift of our era, which is away from sharp distinctions and loud insistence on objective truth, toward the wishy-washier forms of ecumenicism, and the blending of all colorful distinctions of opinion into drab political correctness.

So while I agree with Mark that the motivation was charity, I think it was likely misguided charity in this instance.

Still, I think it's valid to make allowances for how the school defines itself, and for the possibility of variation in how rigorously Catholic a school's charter is.

Schools may vary according to:

(1.) Who May Attend: (Catholics only? Just Catholics and Orthodox? Just Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, other major faiths? All faiths but not atheists? All faiths, period?)

(2.) What Is Explicitly Taught, and How Explicitly: (Catholicism, and you get tested on the orthodoxy of your answers? Catholicism, test-free? Catholicism, with guest lectures by Orthodox priests? By Evangelicals? No sectarian teaching at all?)

(3.) Allowances Made For Non-Catholic Worship/Practice: (Not permitted? Not permitted outside a dorm room? Permitted on an ad-hoc basis in school facilities if the room is "checked out" or rented? Facilities made available?)

(4.) Allowances Made For Non-Catholic Dress: (Not permitted? Only certain faiths permitted? Anything goes?)

You get the idea. A Catholic school should explicitly state, in all such areas, exactly what kind of school it is, and should stick to it. And, there ought to be Catholic schools of all types; that is, they shouldn't all be on the maximum-permissiveness end of the scale in all criteria.

So, when you say,

...isn't it fair to qualify that a bit? To say that the current problem is that there aren't any Catholic schools forbidding such things, but that there ought to be at least some schools of this type, even if not necessarily all Catholic schools should be of this type?

In a sense, the problem is that in permitting "maximal diversity," the schools are all identical.

Ainsley:
If "Catholic Identity" is to be drawn small and well-defined, then the Church would resemble nothing more than a circle of consetoga's with the True Faith within, and those pesky Pagans without. I can appreciate the noble and proud notion of the FAITH preserved with the UTMOST in integrity and honor, passing the torch with reverence and deliberation. It is a beautiful concept. The Holy Spirit, in my life at least, often places me in situations that require more gifts of charity and prudence than doctrinal surety and apologetic acumen.

Perhaps that is what the English Bishop has in mind.....

Shea:
".....No comment really. I just want to savor that distilled incoherence for moment....."

If only you would have gotten McCain to work that into a debate...........

All this arguing over whether or not Muslims worship the True God, or how well catechized Mark is, seems to completely miss the main point of the article, which is: there's something inherently wrong with criticizing good will to Muslims simply because it is good will to Muslims. I know a number of comments here have scorned Mark's references to Catholic tribalism, but he has a very important observation that keeps getting glossed over.

A Catholic might have a leg up on a Muslim because he is a Catholic and worshiping in the true faith. But there's a certain body of people--and I won't speculate how big this body is, but they can be exceptionally loud--that feels that anyone not Catholic is a bitter enemy that should be driven into the outer darkness. This is not how we as Catholics are supposed to behave by any means. We are to go out and make disciples of all nations, and that's an ongoing effort that too many of us (and I'm as guilty as anyone else) are willing to just let slide. "There's the internet, they can find out about Catholicism if they want" is too much of a prevalent attitude in that regard.

Still, that's besides the point. The point is making bad arguments about a particular decision by British Bishops. Whether or not Muslims worship the same God as Christians is to large extend irrelevant in regards to making the Catholic schools more accommodating to Muslim students. Discussing whether this decision might be theologically damaging to the Catholic students is more appropriate; discussing whether the decision came because of secular pressure (i.e. from the government) or worry about Muslim retaliation, is more appropriate; but claiming the decision is bad because Muslims are Muslims is a stupid argument.

Frankly, I think it is acceptable to have non-Catholic students at a Catholic school, under certain guidelines. The reason I feel this is because it would do people a world of good to actually learn what Catholics believe. At the very least, non-Catholic students can view the teaching on Catholic doctrine as a cultural context course, and at the most it might bring about conversions. Under this line of thought, though, it makes sense to be more accommodating to the non-Catholics, especially if not doing so roughly translates to: "sure, you can attend, but only if you violate your conscience." I know some have no problem with this statement, but I do.

Pushing people away is not necessarily the best way to win them over. In some cases it is necessary (denying communion to non-Catholics, for example) but other times the situation is not so straightforward.

But the arguments for or against, regardless, should not be made from bad reasoning.

Act 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

I guess this must be a misprint in my bible Shea.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Catholic church is the one, true church but last time I checked the bible trumps even the catechism and a quote from a Pope.

Ryan,

Mark Shea was the one who brought up Muslims and monotheism, not the rest of the commenters. And he was wrong. Shea's theology was inadequate as were his sources. Ergo, the comments. These comments weren't addressing the issue of Muslim inclusion in Catholic schools. They were addressing a point of theology, which Mark Shea made.

Therefore, your post is beside the point.

I guess it would depend on what kind of cultural accomodation were being offered. Is the school going to allow female Muslim students to attend the obligatory morning Mass with their heads covered? Are female Catholic students allowed that accomodation? I'd think better of allowing Muslim boys to not have to face east when they urinate if Catholic boys did face east when they pray.

I think I am obliged to believe that Jews and Christians worship the same God, although the Jewish understanding is defective. Otherwise, I'd have to believe the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament; we've already been there as a Church and decided it doesn't work for us. With regard to Muslims though, I'm afraid Muslims are going to have to do a better job of convincing me that the statements made in the most recent Catechism represent their understanding correctly. We've encountered before the "God" who requires of his people the murder of innocents and our response has been to destroy that god and abolish his worship. There's a cottage industry in the West right now of finding imams who will declare that Islamic terrorists don't represent true Islam; do they speak with "magisterial" authority on behalf of the Islamic faith? You may argue, correctly, that Islam does not have a "magisterium" in the sense in which I am using it. Well, tough. I see the statements in the Catechism as a willingness on the Church's part to accept Islam's claims at face value, and I see "Islam's" public behavior as a worship that vitiates those claims. And if there is no one who can speak authoritatively to say "This is not Islam" then I will draw whatever conclusions seem most reasonable from the evidence provided. Unless my Church defines Islam's god for me for them.

Mark, let me make this simple challenge again:

Please find me a magisterial document (not proof-texting from your two same sources you repeatedly use) that says Christians and Muslims worship the same one TRUE God.

Please provide me one that is authoritative magisterial teaching. It shouldn't bee too difficult.

Mark, thanks for commenting on my paragraph. Your article seems to have hit a nerve! But if the Hindus did go to Catholic schools, should the schools provide a separate place of worship for them? I'm neither an expert on Islam nor a theologian, but if Muslims and Catholics worship the same God, as the Catechism says, why do the Muslims need a separate place of worship? Do Muslims attend Catholic schools because the schools are academically better than the government schools? And do Muslim parents send their children to Catholic schools because there is no risk of their becoming Catholic? Why wouldn't charity include offering the Muslims Catholic Christianity. Thanks again for this interesting and timely article!

I read in a recent addition of America Magazine how some Muslim college students in New York were some times seen reading/praying or just sitting in front of the Blessed Sacramant at Adoration Chapels. There seems to be a somewhat interest or fascination by these students in the Catholic belief of the Eucharist. Maybe Muslim students should be informed that before enrolling in a Catholic School only Catholic beleifs and practices will be allowed. If the student still wishes to enroll knowing this, possibly there is an interest in our faith? Also, I believe this only helps strengthen our faith without any confusion to the Catholic students attending.

Please find me a magisterial document (not proof-texting from your two same sources you repeatedly use) that says Christians and Muslims worship the same one TRUE God.

Your request is unintelligible to me. There is only one God, Brian. There's not a true God and some other God. So when the Church says "together with us they worship the one God", that means and can only mean the one true God.

What you are really saying is, "I don't like that magisterial document. So I won't listen. Instead, I will belittle you for pointing me to it again, make a nonsense demend and then tell myself I'm right when you can't fulfill the nonsense demand to my satisfaction."

I can't make you listen to Nostra Aetate. But sensible Catholic who don't hold some crazy theory about Church 1.0 and 2.0 don't have much trouble with it.

Act 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

I guess this must be a misprint in my bible Shea.

On the contrary, it's sound Catholic teaching. Being a monotheist is not tantamount to being saved. Caiaphas was a monotheist. So was Judas Iscariot. We are saved by Jesus Christ, not by believing in the existence of one God.

Next time, KaziA, try knowing what the Pope actually teaches before writing it off as "trumped" by the Bible. It turns out that the Pope teaches the Bible.

Mark Shea, you didn't really respond to Kazia's question. Yes, the Pope teaches the Bible, as all Popes do. But you didn't engage the passage under discussion.

Christ calls all men to himself. How then do we as members of His body express this in our dealings with Muslims, Hindus, and all others who do not yet know Christ? The operation of our Catholic schools, as with all our works of charity, are done in the name of evangelizing - which I interpret as doing what I can to bring all to Christ who desires to be in relation to them as His spouse. He is the Way.

At every Mass we proclaim:

“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” (Nicene Creed, 381 A.D.)

When Pope Benedict restated this recently he was branded hateful and unchristian like by many whom skipping over where he also restated: “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic church.” CCC 819

There is one true Church and one True God.

One true deposit of faith and one true God.

One true full deposit of faith and one true God.

Outside the confines of the one true full deposit of faith in one true God and his Church there are elements of [sanctification and truth].

Mark,
You article was interesting. While I have no problem with religious freedom in the public sphere, a Catholic school is NOT a representative of the government and thus has no obligation to allow for the religious practices of non Catholic religions. Is this charity or multiculturalism at work?
Respectfully,
Rick

...We beleive in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of god, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, TRUE GOD from TRUE GOD, begotten, not made, one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

CCC The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without caesing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:

All is One?

Globe web site is from Hard Rock Cafe in NY depicting major religions all on one wall, all is one?

Is this the true Church?

The crux of the argument seems to be that it's even more politically incorrect to put into practice Catholic teaching regarding Jews than it is to put into practice Catholic teaching regarding Muslims - so we should do neither.

Well, fine, I'll bite. Rabbinic Judaism, to a Christian, is just as false a religion as Islam. Judaizing and Dhimmitude should both be thoroughly abhorred, and no, the Catholic Church should not accommodate Jewish ritual observances in her own institutions. And no amount of collective guilt or fear of being branded as a bigot should prevent a Catholic from saying so.

Error has no rights. Never has, never will. Encouraging error is not charity. Never has been, never will be.

Hey we do all worship the same one God.

So it really does not matter if you are Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

It's all the same God. It really doesn't matter; choose the faith you like best. It's all good.

what about the covenant that has gone through Israel to Catholicism? Are you sure you want to dismiss the Jews as readily as you seem to be doing?

"I could not abandon the faith, without falling back on something more shallow than the faith. I could not cease to be a Catholic, except by becoming something more narrow than a Catholic. A man must narrow his mind in order to lose the universal philosophy; everything that has happened up to this very day has confirmed this conviction; and whatever happens tomorrow will confirm it anew. We have come out of the shallows and the dry places to the one deep well; and the Truth is at the bottom of it."

G. K. Chesterton

Many of the commentators on this issue seem to be unaware that Catholic schools in Britain are funded by the state and are under increasing pressure from the Education Ministry to stop being "elitist" by serving only Catholics or parish members--and thereby not being of service to the whole community. As many districts turn more and more Muslim or atheist, they are required to represent the surrounding neighborhood. That's why the bishops, having accepted the sovereign's coin, feel impelled to make a preemptive surrender in the hopes that present vague "guidelines" will not become mandatory. But the slippery slope to mandatory is already there, as indicated in a report today from the Runnymead Trust, in the account of the London Times:

"Faith schools should no longer select children on the basis of their religion, a new report recommends.
"The two-year study by the Runnymede Trust, the race-relations think-tank, provides a devastating critique of the role of faith schools in 21st-century Britain, accusing many of having lost sight of their original historic mission to help the poor.
"It concludes that faith schools educate a disproportionately small number of poor children, offer inadequate education about other religions and often display an “insular and absolutist” approach to the rest of society."

The whole story is at: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5289211.ece

The Pope may teach the bible, Islam, more specifically Mohamed didn't and that's the issue here. You aren't discussing a matter of infallible magisterial teaching, you're discussing ecumenical political correctness re: what is "monotheism" expressed as an opinion which is not the same thing.

Mormons are "monotheists" as well and if Catholic teaching institutions want to accommodate any of their "sacred" traditions they are free to do so but neither their God nor "Allah" are the God of the Jews and Christ no matter how you personally choose to spin it because expressing that as a truth is scary and to be frowned upon in polite comapany.

Mormons are "monotheists" as well

No. They're not. They are polytheistic. And the Church teaches that too.

http://tiny.cc/6i4hL