"My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men’s Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern that I came to share. That concern was that Mr. Spencer’s talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam." Bishop Robert McManu
Bishop Robert McManus was the dhimmi cleric who canceled Robert Spencer's lecture at the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts at the behest of terror-linked Islamic supremacists. The reason this sad little man gave was that Spencer's talk might "undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue." Catholics have never been in such peril under the sharia across the world. What positive achievement is he talking about? His submission? What is his positive achievement? Forbidding a righteous Catholic to speak of oppression and subjugation, and of the Catholics across the world living under the sharia? What is the Bishop's "positive achievement"? Enthusiastically enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws in the service of Islamic supremacists? Seems to me, dear Bishop, your inter-faith only goes one way -- to Islam.
The Bishop acted too hastily. There is still time to right this grievous wrong.
Will the Bishop reflect and correct, or will the Bishop commit the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others, Superbia (hubris, pride)?
Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts canceled my scheduled address to this Catholic Men's Conference on March 16 after pressure from an Islamic supremacist who is an open "friend and supporter" of a convicted jihad terrorist. In the letter below, he justifies his action; my comments are interspersed.
Bishop McManus called me last Wednesday morning, but it was a wrong number: he was calling someone named "Steve" and somehow dialed my number by mistake. I seized the opportunity, told him who I was, and asked for a face-to-face meeting (which I have previously requested in a phone message to his office and in emails to him, his secretary, and his spokesman). He said he was in the airport in Dallas and would call me back; he never did, and up to this point I have not received the courtesy of any kind of reply from anyone to my requests for a meeting.
Here is the petition that is circulating asking Bishop McManus to allow me to speak after all.
"Catholic Men’s Conference opens ticket sales," from Catholic Free Press, February 8 (thanks to Tom):
Bishop shares concerns about conference speakerMy dear friends in Christ,
It is fitting that as the universal Church celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, I as your bishop, who am called to work to implement authentically the teachings of this historic council, should reflect on the various documents of this momentous Church event.
In light of my recent decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Catholic Men’s Conference next month on the topic of Islam in its relation to Christianity, I should like to reflect briefly on the conciliar document entitled, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), specifically on paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 which speaks about the special relationship that Christianity has to Islam. The paragraph states, “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these are the Muslims who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (LG. #16)”
It is indeed important to "reflect" on what that text means. I do so at length in my book Not Peace But A Sword, which will be published March 25 by Catholic Answers. Does it mean that we are not to speak about the theological differences between Christianity and Islam, or about the Qur'anic roots of Muslim persecution of Christians, or related issues? I don't think so. Bishop McManus says below that it means that Catholics should engage in "inter-religious dialogue with Muslims." Fine. Should that dialogue proceed on the basis of ignoring unpleasant truths, or of discussing them, respectfully and openly?
As a result of such a theologically salient statement, the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."A harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world"? I wonder if the bishop would be so kind as to provide even one example of where inter-religious dialogue between the Catholic Church and Muslims has "produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation." Sure, the Muslim leaders in Massachusetts assure him of their good will -- but remember, in canceling my appearance he is catering to the demands of a "friend and supporter" of a convicted jihad terrorist.
And meanwhile, here is that harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world over the last few days:
Syria: Jihadist rebels loot Christian church, homes
Libya: Muslims threaten nuns, force them to leave the country
Egypt: Anti-Christian hostility heats up amid unrest
Turkey: 85-year-old Christian woman repeatedly stabbed, cross carved onto her corpse
All this is over just the last few weeks. And there is much, much more, as a quick perusal of the Jihad Watch archives will reveal. But let's imagine for the sake of argument that Roman Catholics elsewhere are indeed reaping a "harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world" from their dialogue with Muslims. Would that dialogue not be more fruitful if it actually discussed real difficulties between Christians and Muslims, the root causes of those difficulties, and ways to remedy them?
My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men’s Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern that I came to share. That concern was that Mr. Spencer’s talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam.Nota bene: He never asked me not to speak. He never communicated with me at all, except for that wrong number call.
But in any case, why would a talk about "extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally" undercut dialogue with Muslims who profess to reject those atrocities and the interpretation of Islam that underlies and justifies them? If they reject the jihadists' understanding of Islam, why wouldn't they welcome and applaud an honest discussion of that understanding of Islam, which presumably they oppose as much as I do?
In press reports concerning the cancellation of Mr. Spencer’s presentation, it was inaccurately stated that my decision was based on my wanting to avoid a media event unfavorable to the Diocese of Worcester. That was not the case.The source for this is one of his own clergy: "Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, lead organizer of the men’s conference, told the Telegram & Gazette that some groups, including members of the Islamic Society of Greater Worcester, perceive Mr. Spencer as anti-Islamic. While the diocese does not share that view, he said, the invitation was withdrawn to avoid 'a media outcry.'" -- Worcester Telegram
