The Arabic Writing on the Wall

UK_London-Mosque

It takes courage to speak out against the threatening presence of Islam in today’s world. And it takes courage to defend those who have the courage to speak out.

Eight years ago, after Benedict XVI gave his controversial Regensburg address, most European commentators were shamefully timid in their response. Most refused to raise their heads above the parapet, preferring the coward’s option of not making any response at all. In the light of this continuing cowardly silence, it is timely to remind ourselves of the ugly face of Islamic fundamentalism.

At the darkened heart of radical Islam is what Bishop Nazir-Ali, the former Anglican Bishop of Rochester, has called a “dual psychology … of victimhood, but also the desire for domination.” In my own homeland numerous new mosques have sprung up across the country, many of which are being staffed by fundamentalist clerics. Such extremism seems to flourish in the pluralistic climate of so-called multiculturalism and has contributed to the alienation of so many young Muslims from the society into which most of them have lived all their lives.

The alienation works in both directions with many Britons feeling alienated from their self-ghettoized Muslim neighbors. In a recent poll, one in five Britons stated their belief that “a large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense of loyalty to this country and are prepared to condone or even carry out acts of terrorism” and more than half of those polled considered Islam a threat. These frightening figures caused the writer and historian Niall Ferguson to conclude, with characteristic candor, that a terrorist attack could be “the trigger for the next English civil war.” Since Ferguson also stated that he suspected a terrorist attack as being “bound to happen … sooner or later,” he was effectively saying that England has a loaded weapon pointed at its head, with the trigger poised.

The polarization of British society into mutually antagonistic factions has forced even the most dyed-in-the-wool pluralists to concede that multiculturalism has proved a dismal and destructive failure. Ruth Kelly, a senior member of Tony Blair’s last government, suggested in the days before she chose to leave the political arena for a career in banking, that the multi-cultural experiment “may have resulted in a more fractured society,” thereby uttering a truth that would have been considered an unmentionable blasphemy in Labour Party circles until recently. (Since Ms. Kelly is a member of Opus Dei, and is therefore, presumably, a tradition-oriented Catholic, her rise through the ranks of the feminist-fuddled ranks of the Labour Party has always been a mystery to me. Perhaps the refreshing sanity of her rebuttal of her own party’s long-standing dogma might have something to do with the deeper creed to which she adheres.) Heralding what appeared to be a revolutionary u-turn in her government’s thinking she called for an “honest debate” on “integration and cohesion”: “We have moved from a period of near uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness.” This is almost Orwellian in its doublethinking convolutions: multiculturalism, the battle cry of anti-racist egalitarians, is now seen as apartheid! The comrades must be getting a little confused by the political somersaults they are being asked to perform.

Nor was multiculturalism the only longstanding Labour Party dogma that Ms. Kelly attacked. Addressing the thorny subject of mass immigration, she argued that to discuss the subject was not being racist. This must have come as a big surprise to most of her comrades, not least because the Labour Party has effectively stifled all debate on the subject of immigration for half a century on the grounds that questioning the wisdom of large-scale immigration was “racist.” How many more eyebrow-raising revolutionary revelations can the comrades be expected to take?

Even stranger than the sight of members of the Labour Party coming to their senses is the sight of Hollywood actors speaking words of prophecy. John Rhys-Davies, the actor who plays Gimli the Dwarf in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, spoke with ominous potency on the deeper meaning of Tolkien’s epic: “I think that Tolkien says that some generations will be challenged, and if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilization.” Then, with that gift of “applicability” which Tolkien himself proclaimed was the way in which his work should be read in relation to events in the world, Mr. Rhys-Davies drew some sobering conclusions. As with the civilization of men in Middle-earth, our own Western civilization was in a “precarious” state because of a “collapse” in population. “Western Europeans are not having any babies,” he lamented.

“There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe which nobody wants to talk about,” he continued, “that we daren’t bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially. And rightly we should be. But there is a cultural thing as well … By 2020, fifty per cent of the children in Holland under the age of eighteen will be of Muslim descent.” This combination of declining European birth-rates, coupled with large-scale Muslim immigration, constitutes not so much a racial threat as a threat to western culture, he concluded.

“There is a change happening in the very complexion of Western civilization in Europe that we should think about at least and argue about,” he said. “If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much. But if it involves the replacement of Western civilization with a different civilization with different cultural values, then it is something we really ought to discuss … True democracy comes from our Greco-Judeo-Christian Western experience. If we lose these things, then this is a catastrophe for the world.”

The ultimate lesson to be gleaned from rational criticism of the irrational nature of Islam, such as that offered in Benedict XVI’s perennially relevant Regensburg Address, and the violent reaction to such rational criticism by Muslims the world over, is to be found in these words by Mr. Rhys-Davies, who is veritably a Giant in Dwarf’s clothing.

Europe has learned its lesson the hard way and it is doubtful whether she will ever recover. If the United States is to avoid the fate of Europe, which seems destined to become Eurabia unless she can be re-evangelized with the Christian culture of life, it must heed the hard lessons and avoid the mistakes of multiculturalism and prevent any future mass migration of non-Christians into North America. We have been warned. We have seen the Arabic writing on the wall.

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared July 18, 2014 on Imaginative Conservative and is reprinted with permission. Pictured above is a London mosque.

Joseph Pearce

By

Joseph Pearce is Writer-in-Residence and Director of the Center for Faith and Culture at Aquinas College in Nashville, TN. He is also the co-editor of the St. Austin Review, executive director of Catholic Courses and series editor of the Ignatius Critical Editions. His book on Alexander Solzhenitsyn received the prestigious Pollock Award for Christian Biography.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    As regards demographics, it is worth noting that those Muslim countries that have been most successful in overcoming illiteracy – Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Tunisia have seen a sudden collapse in their fertility rates. In Iran, this occurred over a single generation, from an average of 7 births over a woman’s lifetime in 1980 to 2.17 in 2000 and to 1.6 in 2012.

    In these countries, the old ways are clung to by remote peasants from mere ignorance and isolation; they have been abandoned in the cities, where women, in particular, have better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary education.

    One would expect this pattern to be repeated in the West, with universal education obligatory, gratuitous and lay.

    • slainte

      How beneficial is an “education” which causes couples to have few or no children?
      .
      Education, as you describe it, has not worked well in the west where contraception and abortion have collectively wiped out whole generations of our progeny while misleading women into believing that their “liberation” is dependent upon having few to no children.
      .
      The generations that we caused to be wiped out would have constituted our defense against Muslim aggression.
      .
      The fact that some Muslims have elected to sign onto this destructive and unnatural principle of pleasure without responsibility may be beneficial to us in the short term, but it damages all of humanity in the long term.

      • DE-173

        “How beneficial is an “education” which causes couples to have few or no children?”

        Nailed it. What passes for “education” today is largely indoctrination.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Nevertheless, the correlation between literacy rates and total fertility rates is there, too well documented to be seriously disputed

          • DE-173

            Slainte didn’t question the correlation, but the wisdom.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        I was merely pointing out that, in Muslim countries, fertility rates are in inverse proportion to literacy rates (and especially female literacy rates).

        This decline may be temporary, or may be counter-acted by other factors.

        Thus, in France, the population grew from 30.573 m at the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1816) to 41.415 m at the outbreak of WWI (1914), an increase of only 35.44%. By contrast the English population rose by 383.02% in the same period, over ten times faster, from 8.762 m to 33.561 m

        In the following century, the French population grew to 63,702 m, an increase of 53.81%. The steepest rise occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, with a growth in the birth-rate of nearly 1% a year, before mass immigration from the Maghreb. A similar Baby-Boom occurred in other Western countries, but it was greater and lasted longer in France, possibly due to the aggressively pro-natalist policies of the government.

        • slainte

          MPS, when was birth control introduced in France and under what circumstances?

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            “[W]hen was birth control introduced in France and under what circumstances?”

            Various folk methods had been known timeout of mind. More modern methods emerged about the turn of the last century. The figures I quoted for the 19th century show that French people were controlling their birth-rate very well without them.

            Pro-natalist measures were introduced by government in the aftermath of WWI and this included the law of 1920, prohibiting any kind of encouragement to use contraception or any kind of propaganda in its favour, but stopped short of outright prohibition. The law was directed against organizations like the Family Planning Association in the UK or Planned Parenthood in the USA. It was repealed in 1967.

            Abortion, although illegal, was very common. Anyone who remembers France before the Veil law of 1975 will know that every village, almost, seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker]. Everyone knew it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and studiously ignored it. It was only when a woman died that the Parquet (like Captain Renault in “Casablanca”) would be “shocked, shocked to discover” that such things went on and a prosecution of some unqualified woman (never a medical professional) would follow. The silence from the pulpits was deafening

            • slainte

              “…The law was directed against organizations like the Family Planning Association in the UK or Planned Parenthood in the USA..”
              .
              So perhaps members of the French legislative body were aware of the correlation between these groups and the eugenics movement.
              .
              The ease with which abortion was accepted in France (as you describe) may be some indication of the erosion of Catholicism among the French as compared to other “Catholic” countries of that era (ie., Spain and Ireland).

  • ForChristAlone

    Keep your powder dry, men.

  • Morningstar4

    Pope Benedict’s Regensburg’s address is a masterpiece. It’ll be prophetic. We are all grateful for him and his legacy. Thank the Good Lord for Benedict. On to another matter…

    “If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much.”

    That flew under your radar, sir, without comment. You don’t believe it, the vast majority of, dare I say it, white people don’t either. I know. As a Catholic in East Asia for over 10 years, I’ve lived amongst homogenous peoples who’d be horrified to think their own people were becoming extinct but that there’d be others of mixed-race to take their place. It’s ok, apparently, for whites, who, in Britain, Europe, the whole Anglosphere, have with great hope and charity invited peoples into their land who will become the majority–it’s ok for these people to be replaced by another “genetic stock.”

    No it isn’t.

    • Nick_Palmer3

      And Reverend Schall’s “The Regensburg Lecture” is an excellent explication of Pope Benedict XVI’s tour de force. It always frustrated me when even serious, orthodox Catholics would refer to the pope’s comments as a “mistake” or “misstatement.” I believe (and hope) that the comments were intentional, and the reaction completely expected.

      • John Wilson

        “Reverend Schall” is ungrammtical. “Reverend” is not used with just a last name. And properly, it is not a form of address. In the same way one would write Hon. John Doe but never Hon. Doe. Nor would address the person as Honorable or Honorable Doe. However, as “Father” is a vocative, it may be used with just the last name. Thus: Father Schall.

        • Nick_Palmer3

          Thanks, John, I think. I don’t know how to reply without sarcasm. I made a mistake, sorry it offended.

    • jdumon

      In my opinion, this population’s replacement will not be so easy as it looks at first glance
      Once the economic environment will be downgraded, violence will raise its ugly head and a civil war will start, first in Europe, beginning by France.

  • http://amazon.com/author/jamesglaeg James Glaeg

    This article speaks stern and courageous stuff. I do see one ray of hope. As the picture Pearce paints turns ever more starkly into reality, the heretofore aggressive culture of repudiation within our media, arts and academic communities may unexpectedly soften and change. I have noticed a few small signs of this happening already.

  • mollysdad

    You also have to expect the unexpected and reckon with the remote possibility that the Islamic Caliphate will overwhelm Turkey in the next few years, and perhaps sooner than we think. If that happens, the jihad will have reached the borders of Greece and Bulgaria. Tired old Europe has no will to defend herself, for there is in the secular humanist conscience nothing to forbid conversion to Islam if that’s what it takes to save your life. In that event, The mujahideen of the Caliphate could capture Europe just by brandishing swords and riding camels.

    • ForChristAlone

      The Islamofascists are hell bent on restoring Islam to Spain. They will succeed because Spain and all of Europe are spiritually bankrupt. Islam’s first aim: repopulate Europe and before anyone notices, they will be the majority. Europeans are living their lives off of sex, drugs, rock n roll, ecology and technology. Boy, will they be shocked when their comings and goings are dictated by the caliphate. Europeans believe that Muslims are a peaceful people because that’s what they want to think about everyone (except Americans). They will soon find out that peaceful co-existence is of no concern to them; forcing everyone to worship Allah is.

      • slainte

        “…Islam’s first aim: repopulate Europe and before anyone notices,…”
        .
        It has already happened, have you been to England or France lately?

        • ForChristAlone

          We first went to Paris (and then 4,000 miles of auto travel throughout France) in 1983. The last time I was there in 2008, the changes were unbelievable. If I were not familiar with the landmarks, I would have sworn I was in Fez.

    • jdumon

      During the Cold War, the leftist liberal’s slogan was: “Rather being red than dead”.
      Now it has become : “Rather being green (muslim) than dead”
      Indeed they have no objection in forcedly converting from atheism to Islam. They cannot imagine only one second that for a christian converting to Islam might be impossible

      • mollysdad

        What they will do is convert to Islam, though they don’t really believe it to be true. With the passage of time they will adapt their beliefs to their actions and convince themselves that there is a God called Allah and that Mohammed is the messenger of God. They will marry as Muslims and have children, and these future generations will be convinced Muslims from the outset.

  • DE-173

    “Since Ms. Kelly is a member of Opus Dei, and is therefore, presumably, a tradition-oriented Catholic, her rise through the ranks of the feminist-fuddled ranks of the Labour Party has always been a mystery to me. ”

    No mystery. There’s a reason the Decalogue said “Thou Shalt not have strange gods BEFORE me” and not “INSTEAD” A statist idolater always gives primacy to god state.

    “If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much.”

    To borrow a phrase, ethnic cleansing and genocide by any other name would be as odious.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Traditionalist Catholics, in Europe especially, have always been wedded to the idea of the “sacred and indissoluble union of Throne and Altar.”

      Even today, Generalissimo Franco remains a ideal for many of them; the man who used a largely Muslim army from Spanish Morocco to crush the Spanish Republic.

      • DE-173

        Interesting exposition of a fantasy that should be a dead idea for close to five centuries, where that “union” made the altar the slave of the throne.

        In any case, she’s no “traditionalist Catholic”, she’s a traditional statist politician.

        What part of “My Kindgom is not of this world” do these dullards not understand?

  • P2H

    Crusade?

    • Alojzije

      No!!! Crusades were bad, we catholics are pacifists now.

      But hey, at least muslims are not pacifists, so we are praying to God to help christians in iraq and He is sending other muslims to help them because we are pacifists now.

    • Yankeegator

      OoRah!!!

  • Gerjen

    It sounds like Mr. Rhys-Davies is not ready to completely distance himself from the ideology of multiculturalism when he says that “the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much.” That is the basis of multiculuralism–that all peoples are the same–just economic units that can be moved around from geographic location to geographic location and that culture is not something that organically grows out of a particular genetic stock but something that can be transposed from one people to another through bureaucratic institutions. People who share the same genes also share a common history and a common destiny. As if replacing the English in England with Arabs or Indians that speak English and adhere to western-liberal values would make no difference in forming English identity.

  • richado

    Arabic/Islamic writing is on the wall because it has been aided and abetted by left liberal enablers and their agenda.

  • Myshkin

    The U.K. needs to deport anyone from a country where Christians are persecuted in any way. This should include children and grandchildren of immigrants. Same thing for the USA. Islam is an ideology masquerading as religion. It should be banned in any Western country.

  • Fred

    It is remarkable to see how fast things can change in the world is it not. Ten years ago I know I would have laughed if somebody told me that a person like the current occupant would be sitting in the White House who can barely muster anything positive to say about Israel, supports murderous groups like the Muslim brotherhood, and is so openly committed to the genocide of children in the name of free choice. I would have laughed to hear about the disintegration of Europe, and the infection growing in the USA. I can’t laugh any more of course though as I see the path that got us here. I know I am guilty of some cowardness, but I can’t help but feel that there is a collective culpability in our own practice of Christianity including low birth rates and being comfortable in just practicing in our homes and parishes, not evangelizing. The stories of martyr’s seems like the stuff of faraway lands, but our own government now is actively persecuting our faith through laws to make us cower. Who would have thought? I’m not comfortable saying that I can see the work of the evil one, but it seems to me that his fingerprints are everywhere. Nobody wants to be a martyr (except jihadists), but it seems to me that we had better find our voices and be bold or we will be run over. Maybe we will anyway, but in judgment how will we defend the strength of our convictions?

    • Micha Elyi

      …comfortable in just practicing in our homes and parishes, not evangelizing.
      –Fred

      Feel “comfortable” asking your pastor to support your effort to organize a group to go door-to-door and invite people in the parish boundaries to attend Catholic Christian worship mass next Sunday? If not, why not? Where’s the bishop?

      • ForChristAlone

        Yes, except that one does NOT need one’s pastor’s approval to do door to door evangelizing. You could wait until doomsday for that to happen. They’re too timid to evangelize for the most part. I once asked my pastor about starting an “Alpha for Catholics” (google it) at our parish. He suggested I come to the next parish staff meeting to present this idea. The “staff” of our parish is constituted of: the parish manager (aka bookkeeper), the pastor’s secretary, the head maintenance man, the church organist (aka ‘music director’) and other leaders of the parish who are in a position to determine whether we as a church should evangelize. See what I mean?

        • Catholic & loving it

          They have become a bureaucracy & not the Church (lovers of Christ). Sad. Jeremiah 2:2, God shouts, remember how you loved me in your days of youth? As a young bride? Come back to that. It breaks my heart when parishes & their parish councils or staff are run like secular bureacracies & reject letting Christ by letting the Holy Spirit shake thing up. When they lack that zeal for the Catholic faith. These parish staff might as well just turn the parish into a Kiwanis or Civitan Club, even though those civil clubs (which aren’t even tasked with spiritual commands) are probably more effective & vibrant at what they do.

          • ForChristAlone

            I hope the Crisis editor asks you to write a piece for this site. You have a lot to say on this topic – all of which is spot on!

        • DE-173

          See what I mean?
          Yes. Said Pastor missed his call as a bureaucrat. Is he now on the staff of the USSCB (sans collar)?

      • Catholic & loving it

        May I also suggest the Catholic organization named St. Paul Street Evangelization in addition to house-to-house ministries. We need a more visible presence. Christ Jesus said that the Church should be a shining city upon a hill & not to hide our light under bushel basket (St. Matthew’s Gospel). But many Catholics after the ’60s were taught to keep your religion hidden & secret. No religious displays, they said. By Christ’s standards, they’re wrong. Bring on Eucharistic processions to the streets, bring on Marian marches on the town squares, bring on street evangelization, bring on house to house ministries, bring on brothers & nuns with habits!! People of Europe & American are spiritually hungry & frustrated, why are we Catholics hiding? Why are we teaching our youth that it’s not “polite” to discuss religion in public or in table conversations? What happened to being Fools for Christ, I afraid of what others in the public might think of our first Love (Christ Jesus)? Bring back the Foolish Lovers of Christ of our Catholic Faith like St. Paul the Apostle & St. Francis of Assisi. Who cares if others are “offended” by our Love. Bring it! Let your light shine. Be the city upon the hill!

    • Catholic & loving it

      If right after the Muslim terrorists blew up the Twin Towers & attacked the Pentagon & planned to blow up either the Capitol or the White House (but failed because courageous ones stood up against them while flying over the Pennsylvania forest lands) under the command of a man named Osama, we would elect a president whose father was a crazy Kenyan Muslim & whose name Obama sounded so much like Osama & whose middle name was Hussein (especially while engaged in an unnecessary war with Saddam Hussein), I would’ve said that’s ridiculous… Yet here we are, our 8-year President after the Muslim invasion in our country is Barack Hussein Obama. What a strange coincidence.

      • Fred

        Thanks, and no, I do not equate the forms of martyrdom. I think we all see the shortcomings of our Bishops, etc., who seem attached to worldly things and not making waves – perhaps trying to keep peace reflecting the state of our divided culture. A recent response to another post reminded of Bishop Sheen’s declaration that we must hold our Bishop’s accountable. The question remains to ponder – this is the world we live in, what are “we” going to do about it. I really enjoy all your comments, thanks.

    • Catholic & loving it

      Fred, please note that the Muslim definition of Martyr is radically different from the Christian non-violent, Christ-like definition of Martyr. For Muslims, a martyr is one who kills himself in protest (like deliberately burning their own bodies in protest of a government, which is still suicide- not true martyrdom) or kills himself in order to kill others (like suicide bombers or jihadists) or armed soldiers who die while killing other soldiers in wars (like the “martyrs” so officially revered in the Islamic Repuplic of Iran). Christian Martyrdom never involves angry suicides nor killing others, but a Christ-like nature & love. It might seem like a minor point to dispute, but Internet Atheists are very keen in blurring any distinction between Muslim & Christian martyrdom. Public Atheists like Hitchens are very prone to do the same (perhaps intentionally).

  • jdumon

    The West is doomed since it has apostazied its christian toots. Islam is the scourge sent by God. The replacement of the West’s atheistic population by a mainly muslim one is a more terrible chastisement than the deportation of the unfaithful Jewish people to Babylone.

    • Yankeegator

      This is what I’m seeing too…

  • Ban.Islam

    Ban Islam in Europe, North and South America!
    Don’t let the forces of terrorism and evil enter your lands.
    Send those Muslims back to the Arab lands.. Muhammad is a false prophet, he is a sex maniac, a pedophile and a liar flying in a donkey! that no one have ever witnessed.
    Christianity and Judaism is the real religion of peace. NO TO ISLAM! BAN ISLAM!

    BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM! BAN ISLAM!

  • Micha Elyi

    When Joseph Pearce says “fundamentalist”, what does he mean?

  • Assyrian Church of the East

    It takes courage? Really??? Do you expect to be visited by death squads in the dead of night over your denunciation of Islam? Do you expect to lose your cushy fellowship at Aquinas College over it? Did you even expect a single negative reaction to your denunciation of Islam on this thread?

    Please – preaching to the choir takes nothing in the way of courage.

    And here’s a “politically incorrect” thought for you: The principal reason for Muslim discontent against the West in the present era has to do with the West’s insistence on subjugating and dominating Muslim parts of the world on account of their energy resources. In other words, Muslims have very good reason to be antagonistic towards the West.

    • ForChristAlone

      You’ve gotten the propaganda down very well. You ought to apply for a promotion in the caliphate. Just remember that Robespierre had no absolute immunity.

    • HA

      the principal reason for Muslim discontent against the West in
      the present era has to do with the West’s insistence on subjugating and
      dominating Muslim parts of the world

      Muslim discontent in Nigeria seems pretty high given the activities of Boko Haram. What has that country done to subjugate and dominate Muslims? What about the Jemaah Islamiyah bombings in Indonesia, already the most populous Islamic country in the world? Or the Islamic terror-bombings in Mumbai and Nairobi and Cairo, etc., etc.? If Western subjugation is the principal cause of all this, I would think that Muslims would be giving a pass to Nordic countries that go out of their way to placate Muslims (in comparison with that of the United States). But no such luck. Murderers for Allah press on with their efforts all over the world, in lockstep with craven apologists such as yourself who still want to pretend that it’s the fault of the West.

    • HA

      Do you expect to lose your cushy
      fellowship at Aquinas College over it?

      I don’t know how ‘cushy’ a fellowship at Aquinas College is, but if Mr Pearce ever had aspirations for an editorial in the NY Times or Washington Post, or any stalwart of mainstream media, he can certainly kiss those goodbye. And if he keeps at it, he’ll certainly get his share of of death threats.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    In England last week I met a soulless country. Churches, especially the stolen ones with their empty niches and defaced statues, were like the pyramids of Giza: we don’t know and don’t care about the faith and culture that inspired them, we just marvel at the buildings in and of themselves.

    I was in Cambridge and the few Catholic churches were far from the center of the city, though no less beautiful. Yet, one in particular depicted the state of the faith in England. The Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs, with their history poignantly told in its stained glass windows, had about a dozen people attending mass at noon on Friday, of whom only one or two were seemingly English and the rest were all from other parts of the world.

    I don’t care about who will occupy this vacuum, but about who created it in the first place. As in the church honoring the English martyrs, there are barely any English witnessing to the faith, but the downtrodden from remote corners of the world are still inspired by those early witnesses and will carry the light of the Faith onward, whatever their complexion.

    • ForChristAlone

      And if those 12 people, along with the Holy Spirit, at The Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs were to begin evangelizing that locale in earnest…well, who knows what would happen next. The same applies to our own parishes. Let’s stop decrying empty churches; let’s get serious about the PRIMARY mission of the Church – to evangelize.

  • www.work76.com

    my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $62 hourly on the internet . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay was $19960 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can look here. ===>——>> www. work76 .com

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056 Cale B.T.

    Err, aren’t those remarks by John Rhys Davies from 10 years ago?

  • End abortion,sodomy&divorce!

    The Church is being attacked by the real axis of evil…abortion, sodomite rights and islam in the middle east destroying all evidence of Christianity!!!…and the Shepherds do what…lets just get along and ALLOW EVIL IN OUR MIDST!

  • BillinJax
    • DE-173

      “We pray that you will exercise your office to pursue the common good, especially in care of the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn, the poor, and the immigrant. We will continue to stand in defense of life, marriage, and our first, most cherished liberty, religious freedom.”

      The question is, was it clear to Obama that a Catholic prelate would be praying for him and not to him?

      I’ve never received a call from a Cardinal or Bishop when I got a new job, and I’m actually a member of their flock.

      To make a supplication like that would be the same as jumping from a roof wearing a red cape and praying to fly.

      Too bad the Cardinal is so politically inastute.

      • BillinJax

        Good question. Can’t be really sure of the answer.

MENU