Monday, February 20, 2023

Was Muhammad a Pedophile?


An Examination of Muhammad’s Relationship with a Nine-Year-Old Girl



















For the Western mind, perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a "pedophile." This is, of course, extremely offensive to Muslims, who view Muhammad as the ideal servant of God and as the greatest example of what a man should strive to be. Nevertheless, Muhammad’s relationship with a young girl presents a problem for Muslims, especially for those who want to share their faith with others.

Since much of the following information will come as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with this issue, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about Muhammad. Pedophilia is one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against a person, so the term "pedophile" should not be used lightly. We must also remember that, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a "sexual predator," as the term "pedophile" implies. Christians especially should be wary of flippant name-calling. With that said, let us carefully examine Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, recalling the Western principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.

Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:

The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]

RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.

The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]
Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]
Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]
Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[6]

This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.

(For a fuller treatment of the early evidence regarding Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, click here.)

In addition to traditions regarding Aisha’s age, the Hadith also provides details about how the relationship began and progressed:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: "You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said: ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.’"[7]

After having this dream about Aisha, Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to agree. Aisha was later taken to Muhammad’s house:

The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said: "But I am your brother." The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."[8]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Madina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: "Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.[9]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: When the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.[10]

Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for treatment equal to that of Aisha:[11]

The wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) were in two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him). The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) loved Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give it to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had come to Aisha’s home . . . The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. . . . [Muhammad replied]: "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspiration did not reveal it to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." . . . Then the group of Umm Salama called Fatimah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and sent her to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to say to him: "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms."[12]

Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. The Hadith offers a certain amount of support for this view:

When I took the permission of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he asked me whether I had married a matron. He said: "Why hadn’t you married a virgin that would play with you, and you would play with her?" I replied: "O Allah’s Apostle! My father died and I have young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them."[13]
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[14]

Nevertheless, it must be noted that, if Muhammad had truly been obsessed with young girls, he could have taken many others as his wives. Muhammad eventually held complete power in Medina and later in Mecca, yet he didn’t build himself a harem of young girls. Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the charge that Muhammad had a perverted obsession with prepubescent girls, critics should be careful when making such a claim.

To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear (1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young, (2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he dreamed about her, and (3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data reporting the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny Muhammad’s relationship with her only do so out of embarrassment.

SECOND MUSLIM DEFENSE: Morality is relative to one’s culture.

Another method of defending Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is the Muslim appeal to moral relativism. According to this view, since different cultures have different standards of morality, it is wrong to criticize the standards of others based on one’s own ethical system. Consider the following responses by Maqsood Jafri and Abdur Rahman Squires:

The Arabs practiced polygamy. In the wake of custom the Prophet Muhammad married some ladies. Hazrat Khadijah was fifteen years older [than] him at the time of marriage. Most of them were his age sake. In his fifties he married Hazrat Aiysha, the daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr when she was just bloomed to youth. Hinting this marriage some of the orientalists charge Prophet Muhammad as a "pedophile". It was not only the Prophet Muhammad who had married a young girl [but] even the father of Hazrat Aiysha, Hazrat Abu Bakr had also married a young girl in his sixties. It was . . . part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom. Hence not to be taken seriously.[15]
The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can be consummated is at the onset of sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today—it is certainly not something that Islam invented.[16]

Thus, since the practice of marrying young girls was "part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom," it is "not to be taken seriously" as a criticism of Islam.

RESPONSE: Islam is utterly inconsistent with moral relativism.

This defense is truly amazing, for, when defending Muhammad’s moral perfection, Muslims often maintain that Muhammad condemned the Arab culture for the prevalent immorality:

After spending his life in such chaste, pure and civilized manner, there comes a revolution in [Muhammad’s] being. He wearies of the darkness and ignorance, corruption, immorality, idolatry, and disorder which surround him on all sides. . . . He wants to get hold of that power with which he might bring about the downfall of the corrupt and disorderly world and lay the foundations of a new and better one. . . . He wanted to change the whole structure of society which had been handed down to them from time immemorial.[17]

Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, "We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!" Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, "Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."

This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.

THIRD MUSLIM DEFENSE: Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s plan.

Muslim apologists have developed another answer to Muhammad’s critics, namely, that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s divine plan (i.e. God had an important reason for it):

It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hazrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was developing both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam. Moreover, she was the only virgin lady to enter the House of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and was thus very competent to share the feelings of other ladies of younger age who had numerous questions to ask from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with regard to sexual ethics and morality. These ladies felt shy of asking them through the elderly wives of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) out of modesty. They could speak out their minds comparatively more freely to Aisha who was more or less of their own age group.[18]
Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already a cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in).[19]

Here Muslim apologists argue that Muhammad married Aisha for a divine purpose. Young girls who had questions about sex needed someone to talk to, and who better for this task than the young wife of the Prophet? Further, Muhammad wanted to establish puberty as an appropriate age for marriage, so he decided to demonstrate this rule by marrying Aisha.

RESPONSE: Muslims have failed to offer a sufficient reason for God to ordain the marriage.

There are numerous problems with this defense. First, such a response could be used to justify nearly any behavior. Consider a husband on trial for beating his wife. When he takes the stand, he explains, "Your Honor, many women are victims of spousal abuse, and they need someone to talk to. Out of the kindness of my heart, I decided to beat my wife, so that she would be able to comfort other women whose husbands beat them." Such an explanation would never be accepted (except, perhaps, in countries under Islamic rule, where the Qur’an guarantees a husband’s right to beat his wife[20]). Besides, if Muhammad had outlawed sex with children instead of becoming a willing participant, little girls wouldn’t have to worry about sex, and they wouldn’t need to question Aisha.

Second, it isn’t necessary for a lawgiver to institute laws by performing actions that create a precedent. In other words, Muhammad didn’t need to marry a young girl in order establish a law about marrying girls who had reached puberty. Muhammad, as Islam’s lawgiver, could have simply issued a decree. For instance, Muhammad allowed husbands to beat their wives. Was it necessary for Muhammad to beat his wives in order to establish this as a law? Certainly not. Similarly, when an American lawmaker says that killing someone in self-defense is acceptable, no one argues that the lawmaker must go out and kill someone in self-defense if his law is to stand. Hence, the argument that Muhammad needed to marry a young girl to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage completely fails.


Third, the Muslim claim that Aisha was a "precocious child" strains the evidence. Aisha herself reports that, when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she was playing on a swing with her friends. She was also still playing with dolls. Based on the evidence, Aisha sounds like a normal little girl, not like a young adult. Besides, Muhammad didn’t marry her because she was precocious; he married her because he was dreaming about her.

Fourth, it is unlikely that God was using Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since the Qur’an itself seems to allow marriage to prepubescent girls. According to Surah 65:4, a man must wait three months to divorce a wife who hasn’t yet reached menses. If Islam allows a man to divorce a girl who isn’t old enough to have her period, it follows that Islam also allows a man to marry a girl who hasn’t yet reached menses. And if the Qur’an allows marriage to prepubescent girls, then Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would in no way rule out such a practice. (In the spirit of interpretive charity, I’m open to alternative interpretations of the Qur’an here. That is, I’m willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt if they offer another reasonable view of this passage. Based solely on 65:4, I would say that several interpretations of the text are possible. However, if we consider early Muslim commentaries on the verse, the understanding I give above appears strongest. To read these commentaries, click here.)

Fifth, Muslims search for reasons to justify Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha because they are convinced that everything Muhammad did had a divine purpose behind it. When critics point out Muhammad’s numerous murders and assassinations, Muslims claim that these violent acts were just. When critics note the extent of Muhammad’s polygamy, or his participation in the slave-trade, or his countless robberies,[21] Muslims provide answers based on the view that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example. Similarly, when Muslims are confronted with the evidence for Muhammad’s sexual encounters with Aisha, they assume that there must have been a reason for it. They then invent reasons for Muhammad’s behavior (i.e. the other little girls needed someone to talk to about sex), and they offer these reasons as a defense of Muhammad’s morality. However, non-Muslims do not share this confidence in Muhammad’s moral perfection. Indeed, when non-Muslims hear about Muhammad’s violence, his greed, his polygamy, and his support of spousal abuse, we aren’t as quick to say "He must have had a reason" as Muslims seem to be. Because of this, Muslim justifications for Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha sound hollow when presented as a logical defense of his actions.

Finally, Muslim explanations for Muhammad’s behavior fail to take into account the dangers that accompany sex at a young age. Many Muslims claim that, as soon as a young girl gets her first period, she is ready to bear children. This "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" mentality, aside from being disgusting, is completely false. A nine-year-old girl isn’t ready for sex or children, even if she reaches menses earlier than other little girls. Children that young are still growing; when they become pregnant, their bodies divert nutritional resources to the developing fetus, depriving the growing girls of much-needed vitamins and minerals. Further, complications often result from adolescent pregnancies, because the bodies of the young girls simply aren’t ready to give birth.
(For a discussion of child-brides, click here.)
The West has discerned the dangers posed by adolescent pregnancies. Muslim apologists often claim that marriage to young girls was common in biblical times. This may be correct, but it is because these marriages were part of the culture, not because God endorsed them. Whereas many Christian countries have recognized the potential harms brought on by pregnancies among adolescent girls and have raised the legal age for marriage, Muslim countries are often kept from such advancements because of Muhammad. This is very interesting, for Muslims often claim that Muhammad was scientifically enlightened and that the Qur’an is a scientific masterpiece.[22] In reality, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is injuring young girls across the Middle East and North Africa. The dangers have even been noted by the United Nations, which issued the following report in an attempt to curb the practices supported by Islam:
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them.
Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents’ home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed.
Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing.
Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother’s own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women.
In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer "status" on a woman.
An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly.[23]
Contrary to Muslim claims, a nine-year-old girl just isn’t ready for sexual intercourse or for its possible ramifications (i.e. pregnancy, giving birth, breast-feeding, and raising a child). It is unnecessarily dangerous, for a much safer relationship could be crafted if the marriage were to take place several years later, when the girl reaches her late teens. Muslims may respond to this by arguing, "But Aisha never became pregnant, so none of this matters." Yet it does matter. Every year, countless young girls, still playing with dolls, are taken to live with much older husbands. If these husbands were to be challenged, they wouldn’t respond by saying, "But it’s part of Arabic culture"; instead, they would reply, "It can’t be wrong, because Muhammad did it." In other words, even if we grant the bizarre claim that Aisha was somehow ready for sex and marriage, most nine-year-old girls aren’t ready for sex and marriage. Yet the practice of marrying children continues to this day in many Muslim countries, largely because Muslims hold up Muhammad as their highest role model.
FOURTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: The average lifespan in Muhammad’s day was so low that people had to marry young.
Osama Abdallah argues that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was understandable because people in Muhammad’s day needed to marry early:
Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. From my personal knowledge, the average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.[24]
On this view, since people could die at any time in the "hot desert," they would get married at a very early age to make sure they had as many years together as possible.
RESPONSE: Muhammad was already more than fifty years old when he consummated his marriage to Aisha, so there was no need for him to marry such a young girl.
Abdallah’s claim might make sense if Muhammad had been nine or ten years old when he married Aisha. But the Prophet of Islam was already well advanced in years. He was far closer to death than any young woman he might marry, so why not marry a young woman instead of a young girl? Why not marry a fully developed twenty-year-old instead of a little girl playing on a swing? By marrying Aisha when she was so young, Muhammad was, in effect, condemning her to a life of widowhood, for the Qur’an prohibited the marrying of Muhammad’s widows (33:53). Beyond all this, Abdallah’s argument ignores the facts. Muhammad didn’t marry Aisha because the average life span was fifty years old; instead, he married her because (1) he had been dreaming about her, and (2) he had the power to persuade Abu Bakr to give him his daughter in marriage.
FIFTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: Other people have done it too—even Christians!
Abdallah also employs an "everybody’s doing it, so it’s okay" defense:
Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl, it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind. In non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been "BETROTHED" to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. Therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was "BETHROED" to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the "Holy Ghost" of the Bible, that "Impregnated" Mary as a "Rapist" or "Adulterer.".[25]
RESPONSE: Besides committing the "tu quoque" fallacy, this defense misses the point of the criticism against Muhammad.
Tu quoque is a type of fallacy that attempts to ignore a criticism because of some hypocrisy found in the critic. For instance, suppose I’m a thief. One day, I catch someone stealing my car, and I say, "Stop, Thief!" If the person stealing my car turns to me and says, "But you’re a thief too, so it’s not wrong for me to steal," he will be committing the tu quoque fallacy.
Muslims rely heavily on the tu quoque. When people criticize Islam for terrorism, it’s common to hear Muslims say, "But Americans are killing Arabs!" as if this were a meaningful response to the charge. Likewise, when someone says, "Look at all the people Muhammad killed," Muslims respond by saying, "But people were killed in the Bible too."
To say that Joseph married a young girl in the Bible does nothing to address the problem of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. At best, such a defense would only show that Christians are being inconsistent. But in reality, the Muslim defense doesn’t even show this, since their comparison fails for several reasons.
First, there is no real historical data reporting the age of Mary when she married Joseph. True, given the custom of the time, she was probably fairly young, perhaps as young as twelve or thirteen. But since we have no historical references to her age, we can’t rule out the possibility that Mary was twenty years old. The point here is this: people criticize Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha based on what we know (i.e. that Aisha was nine years old), whereas Muslims reply based on what we don’t know (i.e. the age of Mary).
Second, we must not forget that thirteen years old is very different from nine years old. Nine-year-old girls typically haven’t reached menses. In a best case scenario, a girl that young may have entered the beginning stages of puberty. A thirteen-year-old girl, on the other hand, may be coming to the end of puberty. Thus, even if we grant a young age for Mary, there would still be a world of difference between her and Aisha.
Third, Muslim apologists seem to miss the fact that Joseph is not the standard of morality in Christianity. When critics point to the age of Aisha, they are arguing something like this: "You’re trying to tell me that Muhammad was the greatest moral example of all time and that I should believe everything he says? I can’t believe that a person who would have sex with a little girl was the greatest man ever." More simply, Muhammad is foundational to Islam. If there is a problem with Muhammad, there is a problem with Islam. If Muhammad was immoral, then it becomes difficult to take his teachings seriously. Thus, it makes no sense for a Muslim to say, "Well, Joseph married a young girl too." Joseph isn’t foundational to Christianity. If an ancient text were found tomorrow, and this ancient text proved that Joseph was a thief and a murderer, this wouldn’t affect Christianity at all, because Christians don’t consider him to be a prophet, or a bringer of revelation, or even an important figure in Christianity. Thus, if Muslims want to show that Christians are being inconsistent, they need to show that Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or someone central to Christianity, did the things that Muhammad did. Fortunately, Jesus was sinless, and the apostles lived exemplary lives once they had committed themselves to Jesus.
The internet is filled with examples of Muslims responses of this sort. Muslim websites constantly note that young girls are married in various countries and that these young girls sometimes give birth. No one doubts this. The problem is that this has nothing to do with whether or not marriage to a nine-year-old girl is morally acceptable for a mighty prophet. The fact that Muslims are forced to resort to an "everyone’s doing it" defense shows that they have run out of responses.
ASSESSMENT: While the evidence isn’t enough to condemn Muhammad as a "pedophile," his sexual relationship with Aisha is unacceptable.
Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia in numerous writings, sermons, and conversations. We have seen that the earliest Muslim traditions offer support for this view. However, the evidence sustaining the charge of pedophilia is perhaps too limited to warrant such a harsh conclusion. We know that Muhammad had a sexual relationship with a young girl, and that this was reprehensible. Yet we must take cultural differences into consideration in formulating an accurate appraisal of a person’s character. In Muhammad’s society, sexual intercourse was acceptable when a girl reached menses, and Muhammad may have waited until Aisha had reached this age. (Note: There’s no good historical evidence that Muhammad waited for Aisha to reach menses. However, I think it’s important to be generous in our interpretations as much as possible, so I’m willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Aisha had reached puberty.)
Similarly, we don’t have enough information to call Muhammad a "pervert." While Muhammad’s sexual acts may seem startling, we don’t know enough about the nature of these acts to condemn him as a sexual deviant or a predator.
Nevertheless, Muslims are too hasty in dismissing Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha. We can’t simply ignore a prophet’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muslims view Muhammad as the highest example of a moral life, but his marriage to Aisha conflicts with that view. If they want to put Muhammad forward as the standard of morality, Muslims need to come to terms with the many questionable things Muhammad did, as well as the awful impact of these actions.
There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.
If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.

Notes:
[1] Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet (St. Lambert: Payette and Sims, 1993), pp. 183-184.
[2] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, tr. (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2002), Number 5133. See also 5134.
[3] Ibid., Number 3896.
[4] Ibid., Number 5158.
[5] Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 3310.
[6] Ibid, Number 3311.
[7] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 3895. See also Number 5078.
[8] Ibid., Number 5081.
[9] Ibid., Number 3894.
[10] Ibid., Number 5160.
[11] The Qur’an commands husbands to treat their wives equally (4:3), a command that Muhammad clearly violated. Of course, the same verse also forbids husbands to marry more than four women, but Muhammad received a revelation granting him immunity from this law (33:50).
[12] Ibid., Number 2581.
[13] Ibid., Number 2967.
[14] Ibid., Number 6130.
[15] Professor Maqsood Jafri, "On The Character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)."
[16] Abdur Rahman Squires, "The Young Marriage of Aishah."
[17] Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North America, 1986), pp. 53, 56.
[18] Sahih Muslim, Note 1860 (p. 716).
[19] Squires, "The Young Marriage of Aishah."
[20] According to the Quran, "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great" (v. 4:34, M.H. Shakir Translation).
[21] For references, see "Islam Beheaded."
[22] For more on this, see "Talking Ants and Shrinking Humans."
[23] Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights, Fact Sheet No. 23, "Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children." (Online source) The actual report is much longer than the selections quoted here.
[24] See http://www.answering-islam.com/aisha.htm.
[25] Ibid.

Women in Islam
Articles by David Wood
Answering Islam Home Page

Friday, February 17, 2023

What happens to those who have never heard about Jesus?


All people are accountable to God whether or not they have “heard about Him.” The Bible tells us that God has clearly revealed Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The problem is that the human race is sinful; we all reject this knowledge of God and rebel against Him (Romans 1:21-23). If it were not for God’s grace, we would be given over to the sinful desires of our hearts, allowing us to discover how useless and miserable life is apart from Him. He does this for those who continually reject Him (Romans 1:24-32).


In reality, it is not that some people have not heard about God. Rather, the problem is that they have rejected what they have heard and what is readily seen in nature. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” This verse teaches an important principle—everyone who truly seeks after God will find Him. If a person truly desires to know God, God will make Himself known.

The problem is “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:11). People reject the knowledge of God that is present in nature and in their own hearts, and instead decide to worship a “god” of their own creation. It is foolish to debate the fairness of God sending someone to hell who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Christ. People are responsible to God for what God has already revealed to them. The Bible says that people reject this knowledge, and therefore God is just in condemning them to hell.

Instead of debating the fate of those who have never heard, we, as Christians, should be doing our best to make sure they do hear. We are called to spread the gospel throughout the nations (Matthew 28:19-20Acts 1:8). We know people reject the knowledge of God revealed in nature, and that must motivate us to proclaim the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. Only by accepting God’s grace through the Lord Jesus Christ can people be saved from their sins and rescued from an eternity apart from God.

If we assume that those who never hear the gospel are granted mercy from God, we lose our motivation for evangelism. We also run into a terrible problem. If people who never hear the gospel are automatically saved, then it is logical to make sure no one ever hears the gospel—because then there would be a chance they will reject it and be condemned.

The Bible is clear that those who perish without Christ will face an eternity in hell. Jesus’ mandate to evangelize the whole world is still in force. People need to call on the name of the Lord, but “how . . . can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14–15). Those who have never heard about Jesus Christ desperately need to hear, and that caused Paul to exclaim, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16).

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

What is the Catholic catechism?



The book you are about to read above is a compilation from many sources. It is not 
an indictment of Catholics as individuals but on the role of the papacy down
through the ages as she (mis)guided the faithful deliberately or unknowingly in
the path of (un)righteousness. As one living in a predominantly Catholic
country, most of my friends and acquaintances are Catholics and many of them
are ignorant of the unbiblical practices being taught by the magisterium. The
fear imposed upon the faithful regarding conversation with other groups of
Christians and the reading of books written by them makes it almost
impossible to reach them. Behind the many traditional practices are untold stories
of lies and deceits whose only purpose was to lead the faithful astray.

Salvation is given to those who trust in the saving grace of God
through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior when He died on
the cross to save us from our sins. It is not by joining a church as Roman
Catholic Church and other churches have taught. Many Catholics are not aware
that they are being fed with beliefs and practices unsanctioned by God. Some
of them are just plain heresy that could easily sway the undiscerning faithful as
they follow unquestionably the teachings imposed on them.

Many Catholics given an opportunity to hear the gospel preached by
orthodox Protestants find new understanding and often turn away from the
Catholic faith. The Bible contains everything necessary to save souls without
going through rituals as imposed by the Church. The Church even goes on to
add new doctrines that are contrary to the Bible. The faithful are taught other
elaborate ways which they need to do to gain salvation contrary to the simple
truth taught by Jesus.

Most Catholics have no idea of how their religion has slowly
developed from true orthodox Christianity based on the Bible into a religion
that has some resemblance to the Bible teachings yet on closer study turns out
to be quite different. This is because the Bible, especially the New Testament,
had been deliberately distorted, extended, omitted, perverted, twisted and/or
misinterpreted to make them mean whatever the Pope wants them to mean. She
also refuses to accept and mend her ways in the light of a better understanding
of the Bible. By proclaiming herself infallible, she puts herself into a bind that
she cannot get out of. Now she is forced to continue the charade unmindful of
the effects on the souls of the faithful. In all regions where she predominates,
as she did during the Middle Ages, she is able to impose her will not only on
her own faithful, but also on all others that refuse to adhere to her teachings.
The Church is intolerant of anyone writing about her history and wrongdoings.
History has shown that she will through great lengths to suppress anything that
remotely resembles anything written against her. Even in tbis age of openness
and free information, she finds it difficult to be enlightened to allow all views
especially on the very important matter of individual salvation.

What is the Catholic catechism?

A catechism is a summary of instructions through a series of questions and answers, prepared in book form, containing instruction on religious doctrine. The intent of these instructions is that they be used in a class environment or other means of formal instruction. The Westminster Confession, every part of which contains scriptural backing, is one such set of instructions. The Catholic catechism is another famous catechism.

The catechism of the Catholic Church is different in that it is not written in a question-and-answer format. Instead, the Catholic catechism is a summary of the official teachings of Roman Catholic beliefs including creeds, sacraments, commandments, and prayers. The Catholic catechism is divided into four parts:

• Profession of Faith (the Apostles Creed)
• Celebration of the Christian Mystery (the Sacred Liturgy, especially the sacraments)
• Life in Christ (including The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology)
• Christian Prayer (including The Lord’s Prayer)

Also, the Catholic catechism is replete with footnotes referencing not only Scripture but also the Church fathers, the ecumenical councils, and other authoritative statements, especially those delivered by the Popes. And therein lies the greatest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Whereas Protestant churches cite the Bible as their sole source of authority for church doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church equates Catholic traditions with the Bible as authoritative for their beliefs and teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (paragraph 82).

According to the Catholic catechism, the Catholic Church relies on the authority of church tradition for their doctrines not found in the Bible. These doctrines include such controversial practices and teachings as these:

• the Mass
• penance
• veneration of Mary
• purgatory
• indulgences
• the priesthood (with enforced celibacy)
• the confessional
• the rosary
• venial and mortal sins

Protestants, who reject the Catholic catechism, assert that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the sole source of doctrinal truth (2 Timothy 3:16Revelation 22:18–19). But Roman Catholics say, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97).

The Catholic’s reasoning, as found in the Catholic catechism, is as follows:

• “The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 77).

• “This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 78).

• “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82).

An example of the results of this kind of thinking is the number of doctrines concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus. Throughout the centuries, Catholics have “revealed” new doctrines concerning Mary. These new teachings, which are part of the Catholic catechism, are found nowhere in the Holy Scriptures:

• Mary is the Mother of God — AD 431
• Prayers are offered to Mary — AD 600
• The Immaculate Conception (establishing her sinlessness) — AD 1854
• The Assumption of Mary — AD 1950
• Mary is the Mother of the Church — AD 1965

Another example is the doctrine of purgatory:

“All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030). Nowhere is this teaching of a believer being punished for sin after death found in the Bible.

Although the Pope is revered as the head of the church on earth by nearly 60 million Roman Catholics, the Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth; Jesus is the exclusive Head of the church (Matthew 28:18Colossians 1:18).

From the above examples, we can only conclude that the Catholic catechism is not biblical and, in fact, contradicts Scripture in many respects. Once the teachings of man are elevated to the same level as the Word of God, error naturally follows. No man, whether priest or Pope, is divine. Only the Holy Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are divinely authoritative (1 Corinthians 2:12–132 Peter 1:21). No man-made teaching, including the Catholic catechism, is on the same level with the Bible.


Catholic Charismatic Renewal



The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a movement within the Catholic Church that is part of the wider charismatic movement across historic Christian churches.[1][2]

The Renewal has been described as a "current of grace".[3] It began in 1967 when Catholics from Duquesne University attended a Protestant worship service and claimed to have been "baptized in the Holy Spirit". It is heavily influenced by American Protestantism, especially Pentecostalism, with an emphasis on having a "personal relationship with Jesus", deep emotional experiences, and expressing the "gifts of the Holy Spirit".[4]

Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens described charismatic renewal as: "not a specific Movement; the Renewal is not a Movement in the common sociological sense; it does not have founders, it is not homogeneous and it includes a great variety of realities; it is a current of grace, a renewing breath of the Spirit for all members of the Church, laity, religious, priests and bishops. It is a challenge for us all. One does not form part of the Renewal, rather, the Renewal becomes a part of us provided that we accept the grace it offers us”[5] According to Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, "He [Jesus Christ] is no longer just a set of theses and dogmas.... no longer just an object of worship and of remembrance but a living reality in the Spirit".[6]

Catholics who practice charismatic worship usually hold prayer meetings outside of Mass that feature prophecy, faith healing, and glossolalia. In Ann Arbor, Michigan, a Catholic church describes charismatic worship as "uplifted hands during songs and audible praying in tongues."[7][better source needed]

According to theologians Peter Hocken, Tony Richie and Christopher Stephenson, the Catholic charismatic renewal is intrinsically ecumenical and has given rise to covenant communities with members from major Christian denominations who lead a "shared life based on baptism in the Holy Spirit".[8]

Perceptions of the charismatic movement vary within the Catholic Church, although it has been favourably regarded by the last four Popes.[citation needed] Proponents hold the belief that certain charismata (a Greek word for "gifts") are still bestowed by the Holy Spirit today as they were in Early Christianity as described in the Bible. Critics accuse charismatic Catholics of misinterpreting, or in some cases violating, Church teachings on worship and liturgy. Traditional Catholics, in particular, argue that charismatic practices shift the focus of worship away from reverent communion with Christ in the Eucharist and towards individual emotions and non-liturgical experiences as a substitute. Other Catholics say that their involvement with charismatic renewal has revitalised their faith and led them to a deeper devotion to Christ in the Eucharist and a fuller appreciation of the liturgy.

Theological foundations

Pentecost by El Greco

Renewal advocates believe that the charisms identified in Saint Paul's writings, especially in Romans 12:6–8, 1 Corinthians 12–14, and Ephesians 4:11–12, continue to exist and to build up the Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2003). The nine charismatic gifts considered extraordinary in character include: faith, expression of knowledge and wisdom, miracles, the gift of tongues and their interpretation, prophecy, discernment of spirits and healing.(1 Corinthians 12:8–10)[9] These gifts are related to the traditional seven gifts of the Holy Spirit described in Isaiah 11:1–2 (wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord, as listed in Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1831). The nine charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 are also related to the spiritual and corporal works of mercy.[10] Other references to charisms in the Catechism of the Catholic Church include §§688, 768, 799–801, 890, 951, 1508 (charism of healing) and 2035. The belief that spiritual gifts exist in the present age is called Continuationism.[citation needed]

History

Origins

In search of a spiritual experience, the graduate student Ralph Keifer and history professor William Storey, both of the Catholic Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, attended a meeting of the Cursillo movement in August 1966. They were introduced to two books, The Cross and the Switchblade and They Speak with Other Tongues, which emphasized the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's charisms.[11]

In February 1967, Storey and Keifer attended an Episcopalian prayer meeting and were baptized in the Holy Spirit.[12] The following week, Keifer laid hands on other Duquesne professors, and they also had an experience with the Spirit. Then, in February, during a gathering of Duquesne University students at The Ark and The Dove Retreat Center north of Pittsburgh, more people asked Keifer to pray over them. This led to the event at the chapel where they too received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, as well as many other students who were present in the chapel.[13] Keifer sent the news of this event to the University of Notre Dame, where a similar event later occurred, and the Renewal began to spread.[14]

While the Catholic hierarchy was initially reticent about these developments, Pope Paul VI officially welcomed Catholic charismatics in 1975.[12]

Expansion

Adherents of the movement formed prayer groups and covenant communities. In these communities, members practiced a stronger commitment to spiritual ideals and created documents, or covenants, that set up rules of life. One of the first structured covenant communities was the Word of God (1970) in Ann Arbor, Michigan and True House (1971) and the People of Praise (1971) in South Bend, Indiana.[15] In 1982 a "community of communities" was formed called the Sword of the Spirit. A schism would eventually occur within the Word of God, where one of its founders remained president of the Sword of the Spirit and another founder stayed with the Word of God and founded the Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowships in 1990. Whereas the Sword of the Spirit is an ecumenical organization, the Catholic Fraternity is only for Catholic communities.[4]

To facilitate communication between different expressions of charismatic renewal which were developing in the Catholic Church worldwide, in 1972 the first International Communications Office (ICO) was established in Ann Arbor, Then in 1976 it was transferred to Malines-Brussels (Belgium), the diocese of Cardinal Suenens; he changed it to the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Office (ICCRO) in 1978; this office transferred to Rome in 1981 and to the Vatican in 1985. In 1993 it was granted pontifical recognition and became International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service (ICCRS), to emphasise its role as a pastoral ministry service to Catholic charismatic renewal worldwide.[16]

In addition to the covenant communities and international offices, the Catholic charismatic renewal also experienced international development due to missionary priests who experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit while visiting the United States and implemented their own such services when they returned home. The earliest international growth of Catholic charismatic renewal could be found in England from 1969 and in the early 1970s, amongst Catholics in Australia,[15] India, Brazil, and Nigeria.[4] The International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services has had a significant role in the guidance of this form of expansion.[4]

Today

The Eucharist being elevated during a Catholic charismatic renewal healing service, in which the faithful not only pray for spiritual and physical healings, but also for miracles.
Praise and Worship during a CCR Healing Service.

As of 2013, the Catholic charismatic renewal had over 160 million members.[17] Participants in the Renewal also cooperate with non-Catholic ecclesiastical communities and other Catholics for ecumenism, as encouraged by Vatican II.[18]

The charismatic element of the Church is seen as being evident today as it was in the early days of Christianity. Some Catholic charismatic communities conduct healing services, gospel power services, outreaches and evangelizations where the presence of the Holy Spirit is believed to be felt, and healings and miracles are said to take place.[19] The mission of the Catholic charismatic renewal is to educate believers into the totality of the declaration of the gospels. This is done by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; a one-to-one relationship with Jesus is seen as a possibility by the Charismatic. He is encouraged to talk to Jesus directly and search for what the Lord is saying so that his life will be one with Him; to walk in the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22–23, this is what the charismatic understands by giving their life to Jesus. Conscience is seen as an alternative voice of Jesus Christ.[20]

CCR Golden Jubilee 2017

In response to the invitation of Pope Francis,[21] ICCRS and Catholic Fraternity organised together the Catholic charismatic renewal golden jubilee in 2017. The event began on May 31 and celebrations continued until Pentecost Mass on June 4.[22]

Ecumenical implications

Given that the charismatic movement has spread across numerous Christian denominations, it carries implications with respect to advancing ecumenism.[23][8] As the charismatic movement spread among Catholics, speakers from other Christian denominations have been invited to lecture at Catholic conferences.[8] Leo Joseph Suenens, a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, led a study of Catholic charismatic renewal; its conclusion stated that "It is evident that the charismatic renewal is a major ecumenical force and is de facto ecumenical in nature."[8] Ecumenical covenant communities arose within the Catholic charismatic movement with members from major Christian denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, etc.); notable examples include Word of God and People of Praise.[8] Theologians Peter Hocken, Tony Richie and Christopher A. Stephenson have written that these covenant communities demonstrate that "A shared life based on baptism in the Holy Spirit could and should be lived ecumenically."[8][24]

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

A central concept in charismatic renewal is the experience of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (or "baptism with the Holy Spirit" or the "infilling of the Holy Spirit"). This refers to an individual receiving a personal experience of the power of God, as the Apostles did at Pentecost;[25] and as believers did in the early Church when they were baptised and received prayer with laying on of hands,[26][27][28] or simply hearing the good news of salvation.[29] Catholic theologians McDonell and Montague conclude, from their study of the Bible and ancient Christian authors, that "the baptism in the Spirit is integral to Christian initiation." They go on to say that "baptism in the Spirit is not special grace for some but common grace for all."[30]

Traditional Catholics consider that the Sacrament of Baptism is sufficient in itself.[citation needed] However, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Papal household, explains that "Catholic theology recognizes the concept of a valid but tied sacrament. A sacrament is called tied if the fruit that should accompany it remains bound because of certain blocks that prevent its effectiveness." He goes on to say that sacraments are not magical rituals that act mechanically, without the person's knowledge or response. The individual's personal response and faith is needed in order for the grace and power of the sacraments to flow into their life.[31]

Reaction

From the Church hierarchy

Pope John Paul II

The initial reaction to the movement by the Church hierarchy was cautiously supportive. Some initially supported it as being a harbinger of ecumenism (greater unity of Gospel witness among the different Christian traditions). It was thought that these practices would draw the Catholic Church and Protestant communities closer together in a truly spiritual ecumenism. Today, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal enjoys support from most of the Church's hierarchy, from the Pope to bishops of dioceses around the world, as a recognized ecclesial movement.[32][33][34][35]

Four popes have acknowledged the movement: Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis.[36] Pope Paul VI acknowledged the movement in 1971 and reaffirmed it in 1975.[4][37] He went on to say that the movement brought vitality and joy to the Church but also mentioned for people to be discerning of the spirits.[13] Pope John Paul II was also supportive of the Renewal and was in favor of its conservative politics.[4] He (as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) acknowledged good aspects of the movement while urging caution, pointing out that members must maintain their Catholic identity and communion with the Catholic Church.[32]

Pope John Paul II, in particular, made a number of statements on the movement. On November 30, 1990, The Pontifical Council for the Laity promulgated the decree which inaugurated the Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowships. Brian Smith of Brisbane, elected President of the Executive of the Fraternity, called the declaration the most significant event in the history of the charismatic renewal since the 1975 Holy Year international conference and the acknowledgment it received from Pope Paul VI at that time, saying: "It is the first time that the Renewal has had formal, canonical recognition by the Vatican."[33]

In March 1992, Pope John Paul II stated

At this moment in the Church's history, the Charismatic Renewal can play a significant role in promoting the much-needed defense of Christian life in societies where secularism and materialism have weakened many people's ability to respond to the Spirit and to discern God's loving call. Your contribution to the re-evangelization of society will be made in the first place by personal witness to the indwelling Spirit and by showing forth His presence through works of holiness and solidarity.[34]

Moreover, during Pentecost 1998, the Pope recognized the essential nature of the charismatic dimension:

"The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church’s constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God’s People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church’s charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities."[35]

The Papal Preacher, Rev. Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, has written on the topic numerous times since 1986.[38]

Pope Francis has spoken encouragingly about charismatic renewal on many occasions. In June 2014 he said: "You, Charismatic Renewal, have received a great gift from the Lord.  You were born of the will of the Spirit as a current of grace in the Church and for the Church."[39] On June 8, 2019 he encouraged everyone in Charismatic Renewal "to share baptism in the Holy Spirit with everyone in the Church."[40]

Formation of CHARIS

On June 6, 2019, the CHARIS ("Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service") service was officially inaugurated. On that day, the activities of the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services and the Catholic Fraternity, the two international organizations recognized by the Holy See that have provided the Renewal service worldwide so far, have ceased.

The CHARIS service is subordinate to the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.[41] The purpose of CHARIS is to promote and strengthen communion among all expressions of Catholic Charismatic Renewal, as well as promoting and working for unity among all Christians, CHARIS has a "public juridic personality" within the Roman Catholic Church and has come into being as a direct initiative of the highest ecclesiastical authority, Pope Francis.[42]

The primary objectives of CHARIS are "To help deepen and promote the grace of baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout the Church and to promote the exercise of charisms not only in Catholic Charismatic Renewal but also in the whole Church."[43]

Criticism

Charismatic Catholics and their practices have been criticized for distracting Catholics from authentic Church teachings and traditions, especially by making the worship experience more akin to Pentecostal Protestantism.[44] According to Samuel Rodriguez, Charismatic services in America simply help in increasing the number of Catholics converting to Pentecostal and evangelical denominations: “If you are involved in a Charismatic service today, in ten years’ time—inevitably—you are going to end up in one of my churches.”[45] In particular, some traditionalists criticize charismatic Catholics as being crypto-Protestant.[46]

Critics of the charismatic movement argue that practices such as faith healing draw attention away from the Mass and the communion with Christ that takes place therein.[citation needed]

Others criticize the movement for removing or obscuring traditional Catholic symbols (such as the crucifix and Sacred Heart) in favor of more contemporary expressions of faith.[47]

The belief that extraordinary spiritual gifts no longer operate in ordinary circumstances is called Cessationism.[48]