Thousands of honor killings occur every year, according to the United Nations. They go largely ignored by the mainstream media. But a recent case is putting honor killings in the public eye for the first time. American Thinker writes about a young woman who is living in fear of being murdered by her father because of her conversion to Christianity. American Thinker has more:
The unassuming and previously unknown Rifqa Bary, has now become, arguably, America’s most conspicuous apostate from Islam to Christianity. Truncated, grossly warped media depictions of her plight demonstrate that the American chattering classes remain stubbornly unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone confront Islam’s malevolent doctrinal intolerance, ignoring Magdi Allam’s plaintive appeal.
Rifqa Bary is a 17 year-old Sri Lankan native who was living in New Albany, Ohio (a suburb of Columbus) until recent dramatic events precipitated her flight to Orlando, Florida. An excellent student and High School cheerleader, Rifqa apostasized from Islam, clandestinely practicing Christianity for some 4-years by her account. Hard evidence, i.e., a FaceBook webpage captured by Pamela Geller — consistently ignored by the media, including Fox News — clearly documents that she was a professing Christian over two years ago, at any rate.
Here’s a video of the girl explaining her fears:
August 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The thing is, if this girl was 17 and ran away to procure an abortion, but her parents didn't want her to, we know the outcome would be different.
But since she's a convert to Christianity threatened by a religion we're told never to criticize…meh, not so much.
August 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm
great point amy.
August 24, 2009 at 8:17 pm
IMHO, I think she has a personal relationship with the Lord. She knows Jesus himself – and not just about Him. She took the greatest risk not for a Christian
ideology but for a living Person – Christ the Lord. I seriously doubt if she's Roman Catholic, but that's moot point to anyone who knows, loves and serves the
living God – sincerely and honestly. As Vatican II acknowledged, there is truth and goodness outside the Catholic Church.
I also believe that she is truly at risk. Hopefully, no one doubts that at the State department.
August 24, 2009 at 8:56 pm
"Hopefully, no one doubts that at the State department."
Don't bet the farm on that one, we've a sorry history of turning a deaf ear to the pleas of victims. Just as a historically noted example, check out the story behind the MS St. Louis. Others might include our abandonment of the South Vietnamese, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and several more that anyone with an appetite for truth can find.
I love our country dearly but sometimes the government really stinks on the topic of human rights. And that applies no matter which party is in power.
August 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Let's all keep this girl in prayer. What an incredible story- I'm glad they've not forced her to go back.
August 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm
"As Vatican II acknowledged, there is truth and goodness outside the Catholic Church."
But no salvation.
August 24, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs broke the story and is blogging daily on developments. Follow it on Twitter at @atlasshrugs or on the Atlas Shrugs web site at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
She does at least 2 updates per day on the case.
August 24, 2009 at 9:53 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 24, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Anon4:39. The assertation that truth and goodness exists outside the Church was in the context of affirming that other denominations and religions are indeed part of the Catholic Church. Cfr. Lumen Gentium – Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. So, if they are part of the Catholic Church, then they will be saved. Theology aside, isn't it intuitive that this girl who has risked her life because of her knowlege and love of Jesus not be saved by Him who has called and chosen her?
August 25, 2009 at 1:20 am
This girl's story is so very inspiring. What faith she has in Our Lord! I was so moved by her that I sent her story to several friends, including a dear priest friend of many years.
This has gone on in history from the beginning. It boggles my mind to think of her faith and her courage. I'm glad she has a place to stay. If she didn't, heck, I would take her in. It would be an honor.
August 25, 2009 at 4:32 am
Rifqa looks a bit brainwashed. She is saying the fundie phrases over and over. I'm not doubting her faith and her conversion, which really seems genuine. But I think she is very young, emotionally immature and fell prey to a sect which may not have her best interests at hand. But like many people who first convert to sects and later find the truth in the Catholic church, let's hope that's where Rifqa's path leads. And of course pray for her safety.
August 25, 2009 at 7:41 am
Rick, what absolute nonsense. The documents of the council are ambiguous, but they absolutely do not say that false religions form part of the Catholic Church, or that salvation is found outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff and submission to the Catholic and apostolic faith. To read it as saying anything remotely like this is to accuse the council of heresy.
The documents of the council MUST be read in continuity with the Church's sacred tradition and the definitions she has previously made. Here are some of them:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her" – 11th Session of the Council of Florence
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." – Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem
""And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation." – Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore
"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation" – Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
""There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." – Fourth Lateran Council
August 25, 2009 at 12:34 pm
First of all, I'm talking about the Christian girl in the video who risked her life to follow Jesus. I suggest that you confer with your priest or bishop about this; because, I am sure nothing I write can convince you; I doubt if you even read my post carefully to note that I do not contradict that teaching either. They are saved because they are PART of the church. That where dogma evolved in Vatican II.
August 25, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I agree "unless he is excused through ignorance ". And do you think anyone would persist in being a Moslem, Hindu or Jew if they knew Jesus personally? Res(video) ipse loquitur.
August 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Dogma does not "evolve". The Church cannot say something which directly contradicts what it has previously defined. It can only make explicit what was previously implicit in the deposit of faith. What you're saying very clearly contradicts the church's Magisterium.
Heretics and schismatics (protestants, eastern orthodox, etc.) are also explicitly included in the definition of those not in communion with the church. Heresy and schism sever one from the church. Period. The Second Vatican Council had no authority to change this reality, nor did it attempt to.
Having a "personal" and entirely subjective "relationship" with Jesus does not suffice for salvation. One must be part of His Church and must assent to its doctrine. The truth of the faith is not some trivial detail. It must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected.
The sort of indifferentism you're peddling is precisely what what Popes like Pius IX and Leo XIII so emphatically condemned.
"This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." – Pope Leo XIII, Annum Ingressi Sumus
It`s a scandal that so many Catholics openly dissent from this teaching.
August 25, 2009 at 7:21 pm
What happened to: "Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control." – Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem – NB: the excused part?
If people knew Christ, then they would not reject Him or His Church. If they reject His Church, it is because they do not know Christ. If they do not know Christ – "ignorant beyond their control" and aggravated with constipated Christians who condemn everyone to hell, then as the good pope Pius IX taught "…he is excused…"
Thanks for the lesson. So, my counsel is confer with your priest. Reactionaries as just as mistaken as liberals.
August 25, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Well, as Jesus said to Martha, "(You) are worried about many things, but only one thing is required".
Seems to me that the Lord would be overjoyed by this young lady's conversion to Him. Her faith is quite lovely to behold.
I trust Christ to judge her heart & soul, just as He will do with all of us. I can only say this much: He certainly won't be needing my help with His decision. 😉
August 25, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Anonymous at Aug. 25, 1:58 PM, I suggest you read Mk. 9:38-41. Maybe you can explain what was going on there?
August 25, 2009 at 9:33 pm
It`s incredible that `Catholics` on a `Catholic` blog can be so standoffish when someone simply presents and directly quotes the dogmatic teaching of the church.
It really says something about how seriously people take the church`s magisterial documents when they will try to find any excuse to ignore them and any way to refute them, even going so far as to attempt to interpret scripture in contradiction to the church`s dogmatic teachings (Mk. 9:38-41 does not say that a person is saved without the Catholic faith). This is the exact opposite of the approach that a faithful Catholic would have.
Anyone who would reject or culpably fail to accept the church`s teaching and the authority of the Pope cannot be saved. I`m not talking about any particular case; this is simply the dogma of the church, `reactionary` or not.
August 26, 2009 at 1:23 am
Anonymous, I made no claims base on the Scripture cited. I only asked for your explanation in light of previous comments you'd made.
Since there is no contradiction of Scripture vs. dogma I felt you should be able to reconcile that particular passage.
Again, what is your interpretation of that particular passage? How do you reconcile it with your previous statements? What authority can you cite for that reconciliation, as I'm sure you're not so arrogant as to rely solely on your own unaided interpretation?