November 22, 2004
WHAT'S AT STAKE:
Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy: Smugness oozes from European politicians who demand that Muslims repudiate violence as a precondition for residence in the West. To repudiate the death sentence for blasphemy, as meted out to Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, would be the same as abandoning the Islamic order. (Spengler, 11/23/04, Asia Times)
Muslim refusal to tolerate blasphemy has nothing to do with rage or recalcitrance. It is a theological necessity. Executions for blasphemy would attract no attention in Iran or Saudi Arabia. The trouble is that the population of Islamic countries has spilled over en masse into the West. Imams in Europe cannot pronounce differently on such matters than they would in their home countries, and blasphemy cannot be tolerated by traditional society."As for heretics, their sin deserves banishment, not only ... by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death." Those are the words of the 13th-century Catholic authority St Thomas Aquinas, the most influential of all Catholic thinkers, presented by Catholic writers from Lord Acton to Jacques Maritain as the antecedent of European democracy.
An apologist for St Thomas, Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, excused the hard line against heresy on the grounds that tough times required it:
Thirteenth-century societies were highly fragile. Beyond ties of kinship, many citizens experienced little to bind them to others. Most were subjects of a few - and one ruling aristocrat was often overturned by another ... geographical isolation was often intense, and shifting patterns of warfare, baronial allegiance, and foreign occupation awakened acute local insecurity. Under political anarchy, the common people and the poor suffered much. Under all these uncertainties, the chief consensual bond among people was Catholic faith and Catholic ritual. Virtually all unifying conceptions of relationship and social weight, meaning and order, came from that faith.
St Thomas did not merely support a death sentence for individual heretics, but weighed in vigorously on behalf of the Crusade against the Albigensians, which laid waste to most of Provence. Does Novak believe that today's Muslim societies are any less fragile? If he believes that 13th-century conditions justified the death penalty for heretics in Christian Europe, why should Muslims not apply the same logic to their own societies?
In fact, the terrestrial power of the Church, along with its authority to burn heretics, was pried out of her cold, dead fingers. It took the frightful 30 Years' War to break the political power of the Church in Europe, and the reunification of Italy to reduce the Vatican to its present postage-stamp dimensions. The Church in the person of pope Pius IX responded by excommunicating the entire government of Count Cavour.
Not until the Second Vatican Council of 1965 did the Church reconcile itself to the role of a religion of conscience without temporal power. But the disintegration of European Catholic life coincides with Vatican II. Church attendance in most European countries has fallen to single-digit percentages, and the lowest fertility rates are found in Spain and Italy, formerly among the most Catholic. It is unclear whether Catholicism will survive the transition to religion of individual conscience from temporal power, and the prognosis is bleak.
The real question is whether Europe will survive the transition to such extreme individualism. The problem isn't just that the Europeans tolerate blasphemy but that they tolerate heresy even from the Christianity-based liberal social order. Eat away at your own foundations long enough and the edifice crumbles. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 22, 2004 9:16 AM
I have news for you OJ - you are descended from the heretics.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 22, 2004 3:14 PMYes, they had the decency to leave a society they disagreed with, not demand "tolerance." We were hardier folk then.
Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 4:19 PMThe Protestants left Europe? When, just now?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 22, 2004 4:59 PM1622
Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 5:15 PMOrrin, I thought that your position was that Muslims, other than the Shi'ites, have been weakened by their theological need for the government to be controlled by the mosque, and by the fact that the failures of their governments to be perfect must also mean the failure of their religion.
That seems to imply that Shi'ites can allow heretics.
If the Muslims are to survive the 21st century with their religion intact, (a doubtful prospect), they're going to have to find a way to allow dissent.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 22, 2004 7:31 PMYou needn't allow heretics, just non-believers.
Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 8:35 PMIt can be a dicey thing to differentiate true dissent from heresy. Cranmer, Luther, and Calvin were dissenters, but not against purity.
MLK, Jr. was a dissenter, but not against goodness.
However, the only dissenters in Europe today seem to be immigrants.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 22, 2004 8:45 PMThere is a big difference:
The Muslims were imported into Europe for selfish reasons. The Protestants were persecuted out of much of Europe for state supremacy reasons. (As were the Catholics out of England.)
Obviously, if the Muslims are going to pay for the retirement of godless Europeans, they will expect something in return.
Posted by: Randall Voth at November 23, 2004 9:38 AM"It can be a dicey thing to differentiate true dissent from heresy. Cranmer, Luther, and Calvin were dissenters, but not against purity."
They were heretics because they turned away from the authority of the Church. It had nothing to do with purity, everything to do with authority.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 23, 2004 1:35 PMRobert:
Luther, Calvin and Cranmer were indeed turning away from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Luther and Calvin saw that it had become impure. It was about purity for them! It was about purity of faith and purity of church polity/governance. Regarding Cranmer, you may be right about his motives. He saw that papal authority were standing in the way of his King's personal wishes.
Posted by: Dave W. at November 23, 2004 5:11 PMApropos of another thread--could someone remind me just what Luther had to say about the Jews?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 23, 2004 8:02 PMThat they needed to accept Christ.
Posted by: oj at November 23, 2004 8:32 PMHeretics are always purists.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 24, 2004 10:43 AMRobert:
All conservative movements are purificationist and they tend to support institutions rather than overthrow them.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2004 11:09 AMNonsense, purification movements exterminate things, they don't conserve. The last thing that a conservative can be is a purist. A conservative realizes that traditions are a mix of the good and the bad, but doesn't trust the wisdom of the current generation to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and is always slow to change the established order of things.
Purity produces sterility. Nothing good comes from purity. This world of life grew out of the ooze and the slime, not from anything pure.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 25, 2004 5:56 PMAnd all religion is an attempt to purify it.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2004 5:59 PM