[ebb tide]

In the 14^th century, Clement V bemoaned that in Christian lands one hears “the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet”; in the 15^th century, Callixtus III denounced Islam as a “diabolical sect.” Pius II warned against Muhammad as a “false prophet,” and Pope Eugene condemned “the abominable sect of Mahomet”; in the 16^th century Pope Leo X portrayed the Muslims as replacing the light of salvation with “totally unyielding blindness”; and in the 18^th century, Pope Benedict XIV castigated Christians who indirectly promote “the errors of Mohammed” when they take Muslim names in order to avoid taxation and other penalties by Muslim authorities.

And there was harsh criticism of Islam in past centuries by saints such as Thomas Aquinas, or John of Damascus, who called Islam “diabolical.”

The Church and Islam

[Hieronymus]

Thomas, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, does take what can be seen by reason, with an emphasis on what the Muslims are able to see from reason, and works from there.

This work was written who was written at the instigation of St. Raymond of Penafort, who was very big on the mission to the Muslims (IIRC, which I do not guarantee he for a time oversaw the Dominican missions to the Muslims of the 13th century, which are the only such missionary effort to this group that has had substantial success.

There is such a thing as bitter zeal; there is also such a thing as false irenicism.

I think that well-formed theologians need to continue to read Vatican II and all of the other counsels. I think people who haven’t read the Catechism several times or something like the Imitation of Christ and the Bible should focus on these things rather than delving into Vatican II. I also think that my thoughts are going to have a minimal impact on people’s actions.