Reactions of Catholics to the Koran-burning controversy

I know some do support the burning of the Koran; others merely oppose the statements that have out against the burning. For example, The Thinking Housewife has this post on a statement from the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue: On Burning Sacred Texts.She also wrote something in response to a statement by
Cardinal McCarick: Kumbaya Diplomacy. Here's an interfaith statement. There's a FB group, "Catholics Against the Burning of the Quran."

Then we have a flyer from Communion and Liberation declaring that it is not islamophobic.CL talks about fear; is it taking its cue from Pope John Paul II, "Be not afraid"? Christianity is not defined in opposition to Islam; but is respect to be shown to the religion or to those who profess it? What is Islamophobia? Hatred of Islam? Fear of Islam? of Muslims?

More evidence that the basis for the new Catholic moral theology is human dignity, and the new virtue is respect?

Let's not take that line of thinking too far -- even if respect is not listed as one of the virtues in the Summa Theologiae, still showing respect and consideration for the feelings of others and not giving undue offense seems right. (Is it identical to or a part of friendliness? Or contention?) But is it possible to give respect to a religion, which is an abstraction rather than a substantial reality in itself?

The burning of a Koran can be a sign of disrespect to Muslims, and this can be intended as a consequence. But what of the actual act of burning a Koran. Is it disrespect or desecration or sacrilege?

It might seem that a Koran is not tied to the service of God in the same way a mosque is; though it does help man, Muslims claim that it is divine in origin. (Hence, a Christian might believe that it is more akin to an idol than some natural object that has been dedicated to the service of God?) However, this claim could be made: it does serve God in so far as it spreads His message to Muslims and others. So it is sacred or holy both in origin and use, which is dedicated to God. A Muslim who believes that the Koran is sacred by origin and use would be committing sacrilege if he burned it. But it is difficult for me to see how this is the case for someone who does not believe that the Koran is sacred by origin. Is it objectively sacred by its use?

If the answer were yes, then this would seem to give a more intellectually secure founding to the claims made by various representatives of the Church than the potentially erroneous "all religions deserve respect."

But I think a Christian is not bound to show the same respect that a Muslim is obligated to show to the Koran. But this does not mean that it is licit for him to destroy it either as a means of offending Muslims or to demonstrate to Muslims his belief that Islam is false. (Even if doing the latter is not injurious to social harmony, it may lead to scandal for the Muslim, that is the sort of obstacle that would prevent him from converting to Christianity.)

I tend to think, then, that the rationale given by Church spokesmen is linked to a false ecumenism. (If something similar to what I just wrote above cannot be stated because it is impolitic to do so, then should the Curia be issuing statements that are based on a bad rationale or a twisting of Church teaching? If the Church is trying to teach Christians then it should do so with the truth. The question is whether "All religions deserve respect," is authentic Christian teaching or if it is false ecumenism. I'd be willing to consider arguments that it is authentic Christian teaching, so long as they do not appeal to just Vatican 2 and post-conciliar documents, but show how these documents are in harmony with what has come before.)

A discussion thread at Catholic Answers.

Edit.
Mark T. Mitchell, Rev. Jones and the Bonfire of his Vanity
Fr. Z: Questions raised by Nostra aetate about the Christian God and Muslim Allah