Silent about a threat that is theirs today as well. My column in FrontPage today:
Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, gave a recent interview with a French reporter, in which he was highly critical of the mainstream media and even of his fellow bishops for ignoring the Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians. Archbishop Jeanbart was turning over a rock, exposing a scandal within the Catholic Church of catastrophic proportions.
“The European media,” he charged, “have not ceased to suppress the daily news of those who are suffering in Syria and they have even justified what is happening in our country by using information without taking the trouble to verify it.” And as for his brother bishops in France, “the conference of French bishops should have trusted us, it would have been better informed. Why are your bishops silent on a threat that is yours today as well? Because the bishops are like you, raised in political correctness. But Jesus was never politically correct, he was politically just!”
He reminded them: “The responsibility of a bishop is to teach, to use his influence to transmit truth. Why are your bishops afraid of speaking? Of course they would be criticized, but that would give them a chance to defend themselves, and to defend this truth. You must remember that silence often means consent.”
Archbishop Jeanbart said that Western governments were foolish to take in so many Muslim migrants without any possibility of vetting them for jihadist ties: “The egoism and the interests slavishly defended by your governments will in the end kill you as well. Open your eyes, didn’t you see what happened recently in Paris?”
No, they didn’t see it. They didn’t want to see it.
Archbishop Jeanbart is not the first to say this. “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?” asked Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI). Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan appealed to the West “not to forget the Christians in the Middle East.” The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.”
But the Patriarch should have understood, since he is a major part of the problem. After all, he recently said: “No one defends Islam like Arab Christians.” It is to defend Islam that Western clerics do not raise their voice against such acts of brutality. It is to pursue a fruitless and chimerical “dialogue” that bishops in the U.S. and Europe keep silent about Muslim persecution of Christians, and enforce that silence upon others. Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, said it on February 8, 2013 as he was suppressing a planned talk at a Catholic conference on that persecution: “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.”
That’s right, it’s all for the sake of the spurious and self-defeating “dialogue.” For all too many of Archbishop Jeanbart’s colleagues, including his boss, Patriarch Gregory, and especially the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to speak out about this persecution renders one a continuing danger to the Church and someone they believe has stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse.
Jeanbart should ask his colleagues in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops about why their eyes are so resolutely closed. He should ask bishops like McManus, Kevin Farrell, Jaime Soto and others why they move actively to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about this persecution. He should ask them why they are so convinced that Islam, at its core, teaches peace, despite the superabundance of evidence to the contrary in Islamic texts and the actions of Muslims who read them. He should ask why the U.S. Catholic bishops tolerated dissent from so many core Catholic dogmas for decades, but move as ruthlessly as any Grand Inquisitor to suppress dissent from the idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which isn’t even a dogma of the Church. He should ask them why they are abandoning their Middle Eastern brethren and keeping their own people ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat.
Cowards, time-servers, trimmers and self-deluded wishful thinkers dominate the Church hierarchy today, among both bishops and priests, and all too many Catholics believe that to say so makes one disloyal to the Church. Nonsense. Calling these people to account for the damage they have done and are doing is the highest form of loyalty to the Church. But they are completely in control, and don’t even deign to engage those who oppose what they are doing. Well, they have the Church they want now, and as the years go by, it will become clear to everyone what they have done, and what unimaginable damage and destruction they have enabled.

Mickey mat says
Agreed. But irony abounds when like in our church they pray for persecuted Christians but refuse to acknowledge who is persecuting them. The passive tense is always used. How convenient.
Jaladhi says
In a word – “political correctness”!! Worst possible disease at least for last 20 to 50 years which it has induces its victims(mostly Westerners and non-Muslims) to lie unabashedly for Muslims and feel unnecessarily guilty of past perceived sins!!
Solution – start practicing truth telling and Islamic taqiyya( seems to me taqiyya is for Muslims and yet the West practices it to fool their own people).
anthony says
Jesus warned us not to become like the world, ironically the church being politically correct is more becoming like the world…sad.
Annak says
They are in for a shock.They must be the ” luke-warm ” Christians that Jesus SPEWS out ,according to Revelation
Bob says
Members of the apostate church of prophecy!
mortimer says
Why the craven cowardice to speak out? All Christian denominations are targeted by Muslim terrorists. The Muslims generally will not speak. So if the high-ranking clergy do not speak out, who will?
The shepherds are not defending the sheep. Shame on them.
Instead, they are concerned about Muslim refugees and supportive of bringing them to Europe and America where they will continue the Islamic program of imposing discriminatory Sharia which is intended to hurt Christians.
Why do something (or many things) that will be harmful to Christians? These are not shepherds!
Glenn says
I have an esoteric point which I hope is clear. I think that at the elite levels of Christian and Islamic theologians, there is a comity which many of us don’t understand. Marxism and “social justice” didn’t just collide with Christianity, and create things like “liberation theology”, it also played into Islamic scholarship and thought. In Iranian Shi’ism and it’s Islamic revolution, and with Ba’athists and in many other ways.
This shared vision of what the “good” looks like, Utopian progressive-marxist ideals, unifies them ideologically against a capitalist West. In many ways, Christianity has moved passed classical liberal ideals and full bore into Progressivism. In other words, the problem is (as usual) with us grubby little people who just don’t understand their refined ideas. Sigh…
If anything doesn’t convince you that the elite need to go, what will?
mortimer says
Robert Spencer asked many good questions for church leaders :
“…why they are so convinced that Islam, at its core, teaches peace, despite the superabundance of evidence to the contrary in Islamic texts and the actions of Muslims who read them…why the U.S. Catholic bishops tolerated dissent from so many core Catholic dogmas for decades, but move as ruthlessly as any Grand Inquisitor to suppress dissent from the idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which isn’t even a dogma of the Church…why they are abandoning their Middle Eastern brethren and keeping their own people ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat…”
It is clear that church leaders generally are seriously uninformed about the jihad threat…do not know the important doctrines of political Islam: 1) the jihad doctrine 2) the apartheid doctrine…al Walaa wal Baraa 3) the taqiyya doctrine 4) the vigilantism doctrine 5) the terrorism doctrine.
All of those doctrines are the minimum for understanding the goal, the means and methods of POLITICAL ISLAM…world conquest and imposition of Sharia.
Very few Christian clergy have a deep knowledge and understanding of political Islam. It is to our great peril that they continue in this enormous lacuna of knowledge on the most dangerous threat to Christians worldwide.
mickeymat says
By assuming our church leaders are unaware of the basic tenets of Islam perhaps we are affording them the presumption of innocence when it is not deserved. I have informed my Vestry and pastor (Episcopal Church) of all these things but they have basically refused to avail themselves to the information which is readily available. I taught 7th and 8th garde in my former life and I assure you, these concepts are not hard. They could be easily understood by my students at their age. What we are seeing here is willful denial, not ignorance. These people are not uneducated but they are totally ruled by political correctness. I have lost my church of 27 years because they have abandoned their duty to God.
deja vu says
Very well put. These leaders are hirelings, not shepherds.
I’m thankful to say that there are still church leaders who are true shepherds, mostly (but not exclusively) to be found among Baptists, especially the ‘reformed’ Baptists who have a very high view of the inerrancy of Scripure and preach accordingly.
AnneCrockett says
A cold case from the sixties resulted in ex-Catholic priest John Feit being charged. Why is this relevant?”Shortly after the killing, the church transferred Feit far away to a monastery. He would be moved to other locations over time, and about three years after the killing, the church transferred Feit to Our Lady of Assumption monastery in Ava, Missouri.”
“What was also suspicious was that just 24 days before the killing, Feit had been arrested for attacking another young woman at a church in a town about 10 miles from McAllen.
Feit pleaded no contest to misdemeanor aggravated assault. A judge found him guilty and fined him $500 with no prison time.”
So if you think the church is just misguided, think again. They are capable of anything, up to and including covering up a murder. Standing up to corrupt church leaders is the ONLY way to be a Christian. I am sure Jeanbart will get plenty of flak from his brother bishops for daring to speak out of turn. Thanks for showing him some support
Angemon says
Indeed.
salim says
I feel sorry for the Christians in the ME, they have been badly let down by the Christians in the West.
My words to this bishop is this Arabic poetry with which he must be familiar “They would hear your words if there is life in them, but there is no life in the people you are speaking to’’
The West today is almost the negative image of all it once stood for. The peaceful and oppressed ME Christians should have been the ones rescued and given shelter by the west. They would feel at home in the Christian west and would pose no threat to any one, with no need to vetting them. They have been being neglected, even discriminated against, in favour of the fanatical jihadi Muslims.
Muslim women are hammered not only by the unfairness of sharia law but also by the western feminists. This once progressive society now promotes backwardness in order to appeased the offenders. Our tolerance is granted to the intolerant as we grant freedom (of expression, religion and movement) to those who don’t believe in freedom. Even the great democratic values have been used to protect and promote those who want to abolish that very democracy.
Kepha says
Mr. Jeanbart, your Western colleagues fear being labeled “reactionary” and “racist” by Marxist jornos, academics, and “community activists/organizers” more than they fear the Lord Himself.
Too many church leaders in the West are busy doing all the running they can in order to remain a respectful five paces behind their cultured despisers. Since the Silly ‘Sixties and Sillier ‘Seventies, “Third World liberation”, of which the Jihadi movement seems to be just another incarnation, has been one of the big idols of the respectable Left. Have we not seen all of our supposed innaleckchool betters telling us that Islam is peaceful, tolerant, and “cool”? The me-too’s in clerical robes are racing to join the rear fringes of that crowd.
Zimriel says
And not only in the West. It was only a month ago we had a fellow Melkite boasting of his church’s support for Islam (link on my nic).
Duck says
Simple question with a simple answer…..they are cowards. Christ was not a pacifist.
Champ says
“Christ was not a pacifist.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re right …
Question: “Was Jesus a pacifist?”
Answer: A pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose. A pacifist often refuses to bear arms for reasons of conscience or religious conviction.
Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) in that He will one day bring true and lasting peace to the earth. And His message in this world was remarkably non-violent (Matthew 5:38–44). But the Bible is clear that sometimes war is necessary (see Psalm 144:1). And, given some of the Bible’s prophecies of Jesus, it is hard to call Him a pacifist. Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13).
In Jesus’ interaction with the Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his servant, and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus was not preaching pacifism. John the Baptist also encountered soldiers, and they asked him, “What should we do?” (Luke 3:14). This would have been the perfect opportunity for John to tell them to lay down their arms. But he did not. Rather, John told the soldiers, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Jesus’ disciples owned weapons, which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He even told His followers to bring swords. They had two, which Jesus claimed was enough (Luke 22:37–39). As Jesus was being arrested, Peter drew his sword and wounded one of the men present (John 18:10). Jesus healed the man (Luke 22:51) and commanded Peter to put away his weapon (John 18:11). Of note is the fact that Jesus did not condemn Peter’s ownership of a sword, but only his particular misuse of it.
The book of Ecclesiastes presents life’s balance of contrasting activities: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: . . . a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, . . . a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, and 8). These are not the words of a pacifist.
Jesus did not sound like a pacifist when He said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ‘For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD’” (Matthew 10:34–36). While Jesus is not stipulating warfare, He definitely embraces the conflict that comes with the incursion of truth.
We are never commanded to be pacifists, in the usual sense of the word. Rather, we are to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9). In doing so we must take a stand against evil in this world (which requires conflict) and pursue righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22). Jesus modeled this pursuit and never shrank from conflict when it was part of the Father’s sovereign plan. Jesus spoke openly against the religious and political rulers of His time because they were not seeking the righteousness of God (Luke 13:31–32; 19:45–47).
When it comes to defeating evil, God is not a pacifist. The Old Testament is full of examples of how God used His people in war to bring judgment upon nations whose sin had reached its full measure. A few examples are found in Genesis 15:16; Numbers 21:3; 31:1–7; 32:20–21; Deuteronomy 7:1–2; Joshua 6:20–21; 8:1–8; 10:29–32; 11:7–20. Before the battle of Jericho, Joshua was met by “the commander of the army of the Lord” (Joshua 5:14). This personage, who was most likely the pre-incarnate Christ, was distinguished by holding a “drawn sword in his hand” (verse 13). The Lord was ready to fight.
We can be assured that it is always with justice that God judges and makes war (Revelation 19:11). “We know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:30–31). What we learn from these and other biblical passages is that we are only to participate in warfare when it is justified. The countering of aggression, injustice, or genocide would justify a war, and we believe that followers of Jesus are free to join the armed forces and participate in warfare.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-pacifist.html
WorkingClassPost says
This is surely the distinction between the islamic concept of religious war (jihad), which is fought about, over, and for, religion. And the Christian holy war, which defends God and His people, whoever and wherever they may be.
underbed cat says
Important article Robert. the words of Jean-Clement Jeanbart, Archbishop of Aleppo interview, go directly to the heart and the mind. His words are also your words, as you have for so many years with constant effort, exposed the truth out about the brutal killing and what motivates these horrors of islamic jihad. The insanity, deception of a movement under the facade of a religion, actively working to demonize those who explain the doctrine, as if we live in an alternate hateful world and the president visiting a mosque and the pope to defend and extend the deception and laws ready to criminalize truth and strike fear into the hearts.
Watching the Democratic debate, only Bernie, mentioned anything concerning a glimpse of knowledge of isis and iran’s ties to terror, and the outside question that was featured by an apparent “warner” or otherwise woman of ties to doctrine, to misdirect. Did you notice?
Barbara says
The silence from parish priests and others in the Church including 99-100 % of ” ordinary lay faitf¡hful” is appalling and very disturbing, to say the least. Pope Francis and pope Benedict XVI have spoken out without sparing the Words, thank God, but apart from them, there is a deafening and heartbreaking SILENCE.
Shameful. History will not forget this treason.
Mickey mat says
While it is true that various religious officials (including my Episcopal pastor) have spoken out against Christian genocide I am struck by the fact that they never identify the perpetrators but instead frame the violence in the same way one would frame a natural disaster. I’m afraid this is not helpful nor is it courageous and will have little effect. When given a chance to defend Islam from what they perceive to be bigoted criticism they exhibit all the courage in the world. They blame the victims and refuse to even look at the very open and plain language of the Koran and of Shariah which is, not surprising the root cause of the ensuing violence. Christians are taught (at least they used to be) that having hatred in your heart is as serious as actually carrying out acts of violence against those who you hate. It stands to reason that the hatred behind making second class citizens of those who do not share your religion or to women and homosexuals is the first step to the committing of violence against those groups. And those who do not committ the violence nevertheless condone it and aid and abet it.