Charles de Foucauld, a Catholic priest who is about to be canonized by the Vatican, spent much of his adult life living alone among Muslims, first among Arabs in Morocco, and then among Tuaregs in Algeria. He wished for, but did not himself attempt, the conversion of Muslims. He instead saw his mission as one of offering himself as an example of a self-effacing inoffensive priest, living an ascetic life of prayer, that might lead some Muslims to unharden their hearts toward Christianity.
To repeat from yesterday’s post: “In The Tablet the liberal Catholic Christopher Lamb claimed that “at a time when political strategists, and some inside the Church, wish to present a ‘clash of civilizations’ between Islam and Christianity and call for the ‘Judeo-Christian’ west to be defended, de Foucauld offers another way.”
That is not true. De Foucauld was very clear about the enmity between Islam and the West, To repeat from yesterday: He predicted the clash of civilizations in his letters, explaining that in the future the Muslim “intellectual elite” will have “lost all Islamic faith” but will use Islam to “influence the masses,” and ordinary Muslims will remain “firmly Mohammedan, brought to hatred and contempt for the French by their religion.” De Foucauld prophesied “an Islamic political threat to Christian civilization, warning of the dangers of Muslims left untouched by the love of Christ.”
But the Normandy-based Little Brother [who spoke to the Church Militant reporter] said that he rejected Lamb’s liberal spin: “The truth is that de Foucauld longed for the full and fervent conversion of Muslims into the deep and wondrous experience of Jesus that Catholicism mediates.”
“Those who claim de Foucauld’s life offers an example of passive benign cohabitation with Islam have not read his letters. He agonized over finding ways to gain the trust of the Muslims so conversion could follow. He was preparing the ground for future missionaries to carry out the task of conversion,” the Little Brother stressed.
“He [de Foucauld] also criticized the West for not acknowledging the violence the Koran encourages towards Christians and recognized the impossibility of Muslim converts remaining with their communities who would otherwise ostracize and kill them. He even accused Christian Europe of not caring enough either for the ‘Musselman’ or for Jesus to even try to convert them,” the Little Brother added.
Speaking to Church Militant, canon law expert Dr. Catherine Caridi insisted that “Fr. de Foucauld was being canonized for his heroic virtue and not just for being nice to Muslims or anybody else.”
Caridi, whose book Making Martyrs East and West: Canonization in the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches is considered an authoritative text on the canonization process, said: “The notion that de Foucauld upended his whole life to move to North Africa, simply because he wanted to live amicably among the Muslims without converting any of them is so erroneous, it’s almost laughable.”
“Father de Foucauld wanted to bring souls to Christ, as he himself had been brought to Christ through his spiritual re-conversion,” she said. “Having been stationed in North Africa in his military days, he had seen up close the native population — and wanted to present them with the example of a Catholic priest living a life of prayer, so as to gradually lead them to the true faith.”
Caridi explained:
The key word here is “gradually.” De Foucauld knew the Muslims were resistant to the Gospel and converting them would take time. He first lived among them quietly, acclimating them to the idea that there was in their midst a Catholic priest who treated them charitably and behaved with humility and simplicity. Many of them soon came to respect him — an important first step.
“Father de Foucauld wrote to Catholics in France, asking them to send him rosaries to give to the local people — specifying that the rosaries should have a medal in place of the crucifix. He knew that the Muslims would never accept a gift with a crucifix attached; but a medal would be seen as something more acceptable to them….
“Despite his earlier desire to convert to the religion of Muhammad, “Islam, for de Foucauld was ultimately void of truth,” Block writes, citing the French priest’s remarks: “I could see clearly that Islam was without a divine basis and the truth was not there,” and “these souls are lost and will remain in that state if we do not take measures to influence them.”
“According to Muslim writer Ali Merad, de Foucauld saw Muslims as “slaves of error and vice,” from whose “spiritual dereliction” he was present to rescue them….
Two versions of Charles de Foucauld are presented in this Church Militant article. One version assumes he was engaged in ‘inter-religious dialogue” with Muslims, that he had a favorable view of Islam, and that he refused to accept the inevitability of a “clash of civilizations.” None of this is true. This version ignores what he had learned about Islam over the decades of living among Muslims, and which he recorded in his letters.
Of course he was in no position to openly criticize Islam, nor could he proselytize as he would have been able to do in the non-Muslim world. In Muslim societies, either activity could lead to his death. What he hoped to do was to offer himself as an visible example of Christian faith, leading an inoffensive existence among Muslims who would be gradually won over by his example, their minds and hearts prepared to accept Christ, which de Foucauld assumed would have to wait to be accomplished by those who came after him.
The other, true version of Charles De Foucauld is this: initially he had a favorable view of Islam; at one point he even contemplated converting to it. But as he lived in Muslim lands – first in Morocco and then in Algeria – he came to see Islam as a dangerous faith. “Islam, for de Foucauld was ultimately void of truth,” the scholar C. Jonn Block writes, citing the French priest’s remarks: “I could see clearly that Islam was without a divine basis and the truth was not there,” and “these souls are lost and will remain in that state if we do not take measures to influence them.”
According to the Muslim writer Ali Merad, de Foucauld saw Muslims as “slaves of error and vice,” from whose “spiritual dereliction” he was present to rescue them.
These views could not be openly expressed by De Foucauld when he lived in Morocco and then Algeria. He confined them to his letters, the only outlet where he could securely unburden himself of what he believed to be true about Islam and Muslims.
Now we have the spectacle of the Vatican about to canonize someone who, were he alive today, would certainly be consigned by Pope Francis to the outer darkness for what the Vatican would describe as “islamophobic” views. The canonization of Charles d e Foucauld will provide a salutary occasion, for those of us who do not share Pope Francis’s views, to discuss what the French priest really thought of Islam (“without a divine basis and the truth was not there”), and about Muslims (“slaves of error and vice”). De Foucauld’s clear-eyed sense of the political threat that Islam poses to Western civilization – his observation that whatever a handful of elite Muslims might think, “ordinary Muslims will remain firmly Mohammedan, brought to hatred and contempt for the French by their religion,” and his prophesy of “an Islamic political threat to Christian civilization,” will receive – not a moment too soon — the wider diffusion they deserve, though without, we can be sure, the Vatican’s embarrassed blessing.