The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCrucifix case a victory for 'open door' Catholicism
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 24, 2011
When I was in grad school, a professor once had my class on ancient Rome read a letter from a young nobleman to his parents, in which he breathlessly described the connections he was making in high society and his ambitions for a senatorial career. The catch was that the letter was dated 476 A.D., the same year which historians now regard as marking the fall of Rome, when the last Western emperor was deposed by a Germanic chieftain.
The lesson was that sometimes historical turning points are lost on the people who actually experience them -- it takes time for their real meaning to emerge.
In Catholic terms, something analogous may have happened last week. In case you missed it, here’s the story in a nutshell: In a stunning and unexpected development, the European Court of Human Rights reversed its own 2009 ruling and upheld Italy’s right to display crucifixes in its public school classrooms. The deeper significance is that public expressions of religious belief have been found not to conflict with European standards of human rights and freedom of conscience.
Though it may not have burned up airwaves in the States, the story nonetheless has significance far beyond the borders of Europe, and here’s why.
Vis-à-vis what Christian tradition talks about as “the world,” there have always been two basic schools of thought. One is what we might call an “open door” policy, emphasizing dialogue with the world, presuming its good will and meeting it halfway, because that’s what evangelization means. The other is a “fortress” instinct, seeing the world as fundamentally hostile, and thus seeking a more inward-looking church capable of staying true to itself.
So far, the opening years of the 21st century have been a boom time for the fortress mentality in Catholicism, especially at the leadership level. Church/state clashes over abortion and homosexuality, coupled with perceptions that the church has become a scapegoat for a much broader social problem with sexual abuse, have fueled an increasingly defensive psychology.
Many church leaders have become more prone to interpret disagreement as defiance, more cautious about contamination by secular values, and less inclined to explain themselves to people they believe don’t really want to understand.
However understandable those reactions may be, they obviously make dialogue more difficult. In that context, the take-away from last Friday’s ruling cuts neatly in the opposite direction: “Maybe détente is possible after all.”
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The outcome could recalibrate Catholic attitudes towards secularism at the gut level, providing a powerful boost for the “open door” approach. For bonus points, it’s also generated fresh ecumenical and inter-faith momentum … not bad for a day’s work.
Based in Strasbourg, the Court of Human Rights handles cases arising under the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights. An Italian parent named Soile Tuulikki Lautsi (who holds dual Finnish and Italian citizenship) had filed a complaint charging that display of a crucifix in schools where children are compelled to attend violates their rights. In November 2009, the court agreed. It doesn’t have the power to order the crucifixes down, but it imposed a 5,000 Euro fine on Italy for what it called “moral prejudice.”
Inside the Vatican, it’s almost impossible to overstate the psychological impact of that decision. Among many senior officials, it was taken as proof positive that alleged secular neutrality to religion in today’s Europe often masks overt hostility. If Italy can’t even put up a crucifix in its schools, for God’s sake, what’s next?
The Italian government appealed, and was eventually joined by 20 other states out of the 47 which form the Council of Europe. (The Vatican was not a party to the appeal, although it made no secret of its support.)
The coalition tapped Joseph Weiler, a New York-based attorney who’s regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on European constitutional law, to make the case. Weiler selected what turned out to be a winning strategy: Taking down the crucifix, he insisted, is no more neutral than leaving it up. Both express a worldview, and the enlightened European position is to tolerate either choice.
The appeal was considered a long shot, given that several of the justices who make up the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights were also part of the initial ruling. Yet by a landslide 15-2 vote, the court last Friday overturned the 2009 decision. The Vatican hailed the result as “historic,” asserting that it recognizes “at a highly authoritative and international juridical level, that the culture of human rights should not be opposed to the religious foundations of European civilization.”
Bottom line: The decision represents a victory for the view that when faced with what seems like incomprehension and hostility, the best response is to make arguments rather than to hurl anathemas. Especially at a time when Benedict XVI has called for a “New Evangelization” in the West -- which sort of presumes an “open door” psychology -- that’s no small thing.
Ecumenically, the most direct beneficiary is the relationship between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Scanning the list of nations which joined Italy in the appeal, they include Russia, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia -- basically, the major Orthodox nations of Europe plus the component pieces of the old Habsburg Empire. One way to look at the result, therefore, is as a victory for a Catholic/Orthodox alliance, beating back the continent’s most secularized societies.
Among other things, the result provides new ammunition for moderate Orthodox leaders to justify dialogue with the Catholic Church, against hard-liners who see ecumenism with Rome as an abomination.
Finally, there’s also an inter-religious dimension. For instance, the ruling has made some Turkish Muslims feel better about their prospects in the EU -- that Europe will perhaps be open to their expressions of Islamic identity too.
Beyond that broad point, the ruling has special implications for Catholic/Jewish relations, for reasons which are mostly biographical. As it happens, Weiler, the lawyer who successfully led the appeal, is an Orthodox Jew.
The sight of Weiler standing in the well of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in his kippah, passionately defending Italy’s right to keep the crucifix on the wall, has got to rank among the more remarkable bits of inter-faith imagery in recent memory. (By the way, video of his oral argument is available on YouTube, and it’s well worth a look.)
Weiler’s celebrated role in the crucifix case, combined with other recent positive developments -- such as Pope Benedict XVI’s statements that Jews are not to blame for the death of Christ, and that Christians shouldn’t be trying to convert them -- provide basis for hope that Catholic/Jewish relations may be entering an extended upswing.
In the abstract, a citadel of European secularism is about the last place most Catholics would expect a favor, yet that’s precisely what the church got last Friday. How big a favor it turns out to be will depend, among other things, on the extent to which Catholics take its lessons to heart.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. He can be reached at jallen@ncronline.org.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time John Allen's column, "All Things Catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow the directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "All Things Catholic" to your list.
perceptions that the church
perceptions that the church has become a scapegoat for a much broader social problem with sexual abuse
Still don't get it, do they?
Pardon me, John, if I don't
Pardon me, John, if I don't share your enthusiasm for the crumbs that fall of da' Massa's table (now known officially, and characteristically humbly, as the "Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights" - WOO de WOO!).
Nor do I see your concept that the "constructive engagement" -- that concept worked well in South Africa, didn't it? -- you euphemistically refer to as "open door" Catholicism would beany more fruitful than the tepid responses to governmental purging of religion from the public place that has produced the de-Christianization of Europe over the last century.
To quote Jalen Rose, you sound like an "Uncle Tom," John. One doesn't not "constructively engage" a persecutor. One overcomes a persecutor (as MLK and Gandhi both demonstrated) by refusing to submit to persecution.
ok, so, like, you know?, and
ok, so, like, you know?, and let me follow your logic here, Truthslayer, like, for you, this ruling, which some find a victory in some strange way, for Berlosconi, you find persecution?
you prefer dissolving the European union for a "cultural artifact?"
interesting harangue, TT.
Editors: I am including the
Editors: I am including the new civilized discourse program being initiated by Huffington Post. They are requiring that posters actually identify themselves! This, for the purpose of ending the nastiness of anonymous postings. I hope that NCR will do likewise.
"In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around." (Huffington Post)
John Larrere
Mr. Larrere, the point of
Mr. Larrere, the point of such a policy is not to encourage debate, but rather to discourage debate and to encourage censorship. It is designed to limit the freedom of speech of individual posters who, for a variety of reasons, are not free to identify themselves.
At NCR, the freedom to post anonymously allows those who are in the public eye and/or who work for the Church in some capacity to voice their opinion without fear of retribution. While I may personally disagree with some of the thoughts and opinions expressed, I certainly would never seek to limit or deny a person's right and freedom to express those opinions.
This push to "civilize" discourse, while not necessarily a bad idea, stinks of attempts to suppress discourse and opinions with which the powers that be disagree. "Personal attacks" could be construed to mean comments that express the Church's teaching on homosexuality; "comments that are not productive additions" could be interpreted to be any comment that is counter to the thoughts expressed in the article or the positions held by the editors.
While I often disagree with many of the authors at NCR, I have great respect for NCR's editors in permitting the type of open debate that goes on here. I would certainly hate to lose that. While we may disagree at times, I have little doubt that the vast majority of people who post at NCR are individuals seeking truth and working their salvation out, which is what makes this website and newspaper so very different from the Huffington Post or Wall Street Journal.
the discerning reader will
the discerning reader will note that CW refuses to identify herself, as these very reasonable and civilized comment suggestions require, and that CW most frequently violently offends civility in this conversation, condemning all that dearly beloved by the average ncr reader, a reason she clings cowardly to her anonymity and eschews this heroic move towards civilogue.
Thanks, John. Quite
Thanks, John. Quite interesting. But as a Germanic expat from Charlemagne's capital, Aachen, please allow me to quibble with the "last Western Emperor" phrase. "Last Roman Emperor" would be more like it. ;-)
Sorry Mr Scherer-Emunds, the
Sorry Mr Scherer-Emunds, the last Roman Emperor before the final exile, was Constantine XI Palaiologos, whose reign ended on 29 May 1453. Reading history through the jaded lenses of Mr Gibbons and others must give way to the truth that there was no "Dark Age". I might suggest you eximine the recent contributions of historians such as James Hannam, Thomas E. Woods, Judith Herrin, John Julius Norwich, Peter S. Wells, Chris Wikham ,and Lars Brownworth (among others).
How unfair to Gibbon! Of the
How unfair to Gibbon! Of the six volumes of Gibbon's history three cover the period from the fall of the western half of the empire to the fall of the empire in the east in 1453.
As for the last emperor in the west--that's almost more of an emotional question than a factual one. Certainly, the Austro-Hungarian emperors saw themselves as spiritual heirs of the western Roman Empire, just as the Czars saw themselves as spiritual heirs of the emperors in Constantinople. So a generous sort could allow that although the specifically "Roman" empire ended in the West in the fifth century and in the East in the 15th, its heirs and standard-bearers further north in the Germanic and Slavic lands both lasted until around the First World War. A less generous sort would probably still give the laurel to Czars right up until the Bolsheviks slew the last, but might say that any claim even to a reinstated western empire ended when Napoleon forced the Holy Roman Emperors to rename themselves Austrian emperors.
Either way, those empires are gone now, yet the Eastern and Western "lungs" of the Church have survived. Empires are houses built on sand. The Church, to the contrary, will stand forever, thanks be to God.
Did Jesus wear a crucifix?
Did Jesus wear a crucifix?
Or make real Good News to the poor?
This is a victory of political and cultural oppression and of putting up walls, not of practicing our Christianity.
This is a victory for the Empire, not of Christ.
Dude died on a cross, and so was silenced, and we now do not hear, "Feed the hungry. Love the unloved."
Heal the sick.
"Did Jesus wear a Crucifix?"
"Did Jesus wear a Crucifix?" What a foolish question! "Dude died on a cross, and so was silenced, and we now do not hear, "Feed the hungry. Love the unloved." The only reason one doesn't hear 'Feed the Hungry - Love the unloved' is more a case of stubborn self-imposed personal deafness than that the message is not there; a self-mutilation in fact. That 'dude' will be one's final Judge! Good plan to try to influence the sentence while there is still time! His justice is as great as His Mercy. One gets to choose which one suits one best and live one's life accordingly.
Dear Charles, No, Jesus
Dear Charles,
No, Jesus did not wear a crucifix. That would not make sense at the time. He was an observant Jew, who steeped himself in the rituals and (dare I say it?) laws of his Jewish faith, which was likewise marginalized by the Roman empire. Your claims that actions speak louder than words is well taken. He had a special love for the poor, but He is not reducible to these, or any other, of His words or subsequent Christological claims. This "dude [who] died on a cross" was not just a silenced political dissident; He was the God-man Who came to save us and seek our internal conversion. That this message, reflected by a crucifix, should offend modern western sensibilities, is nothing new. It's in keeping with how Jesus and His Jewish faith were likewise rejected and scorned by the 'Empire'of His day.
Peace,
Fintic
Please, give it a rest, will
Please, give it a rest, will you? What exactly have you been doing for the precious poor lately? Why would Jesus wear a crucifix before the Crucifixion anyway? And no matter how much anyone does for the poor, it doesn't matter a tinker's dam if they die in the state of mortal sin. Their destiny will still be hell!
I try to make our destiny at
I try to make our destiny at least a bean burrito for that day, if little else.
And you?
et tu, paulte?
Are you the monk in the
Are you the monk in the desert (Frere Jacques) posting under a new pseudonym? I thought we were rid of you at last!
Christ's death on the Cross
Christ's death on the Cross won for us salvation and victory over death. Without His death and resurrection, His commandments mean nothing.
Without our actually, really
Without our actually, really and truly, right now feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, freeing those imprisoned, receiving the illegal immigrant, sheltering the homeless, love the unloved and all that Jesus commands of us, as emerging sign and sacrament of our Love, the rest "mean nothing."
What does a cross on the wall do to make me love the unlovable any better?
Cool . . .
Yeah . . .
Your litany is interesting:
Your litany is interesting: "Feed the hungry, heal the sick..."
You use it a lot, which is nice. But you usually use them as a debating point against those you disagree with, which isn't. Moreover, I'm not sure how repeating words at a blog helps feed anyone, though. James 2:15.
against? No way? I write it
against? No way?
I write it as a reminder to my own weak and forgetful self, with whom I so often disagree . . .
may the words of my lips and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in thy sight . . .
meditation implies repetition
recollection
I am so slow and so simple I cannot grasp the fullness of our other formulaic prayer and hope that by repeating these few I may come to fulfill them more frequently
of course, the Dominical Prayer contains it all, as Jesus says.
may I be forgiven by the same measure I forgive others . . .
either a blessing or a condemnation, or faint praise
no debate here, simply thinking together . . .
a "civilogue"
Mr. Scanlon, is it really
Mr. Scanlon, is it really necessary to refer to Our Lord with such disrespect?
"Dude died on a cross", is that really how you see, how you refer to, Our Lord's redemptive sacrifice?
As a Christian you should be more than abundantly aware that Our Lord was not silenced on the Cross, that His message is not lost. Rather, the reverse, His Passion, Death and Resurrection have motivated and encouraged hundreds of millions, billions, of followers over the last 2000 years.
There is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees, and if this post reflects your actual beliefs regarding Our Lord and His message, which was SO much more than simply feeding the hungry and healing the sick, then you truly have missed the forest for the trees.
well, and dig, cw, dude died
well, and dig, cw, dude died on a cross, and now we got to display them, the same empire that killed him, on a cross?
wwjd?
tell us to love our enemies, not to strip his body naked and stick it up on the wall to scare uncomprehending little kids . . .
the guy who said of such are the Reign of God wants us to scare them with a bloody body hanging there?
and then wonder why they make the brief step from that to Chucky? Saw III?
cw, dude, just asking, ok?
Jesus taught us to pray. Do we?
Jesus taught us to feed the hungry.
Do we?
Jesus taught us to love the unloved,even the Samaritan woman.
Do we?
Let the teacher stand there practicing what Jesus says, and loving those without love, and passing out the croissants (oh wait, Italy, right? Panini?).
A lesson which lasts much longer, and more profitably for all, than leaving this sign of the victory of the Empire upon the empire's classroom walls.
" . . .SO much more than
" . . .SO much more than simply feeding the hungry and healing the sick, then you truly have missed the forest for the trees."
o, m, g . . .
ok, dude, so like, you take it up with the big guy, ok? I'm just seeing what He said, ok?
are you?
show me, too!
"simply feeding the hungry and healing the sick . . .??!!"
SIMPLY?
o,m,g . . .
hey got ten thousand to feed here on this shore
ready?
simple, right?
they just got a couple of loaves, some old fish . . .
Be careful what you wish for
Be careful what you wish for and stand-by for the next chapter when members of another religion argue for public display of their religious symbol(s)!
I had the same concern. With
I had the same concern. With these kinds of rulings I tend to see down that road a "war of the symbols", as I so often see issues of freedom of religion as, at best, freedom for my religion and, at worst, dominance of my religion. I truly hope that I am wrong, but yes, I am worried that, while this may seem to be a victory for the display of a crucifix in the guise of religious freedom, it is a pandora's box that will lead to many, many tensions.
is our religion the
is our religion the cross?
just askin, ok?
such reductionism is the death of religion, though convenient to the empire.
So? A public square purged
So? A public square purged of religious symbolism is worse than the disease you fear. Especially since members of other religions are already arguing for public display of those symbols.
a public square purged of
a public square purged of religious practice (folks feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, healing the sick, registering the voters, striking for collective bargaining, higher wages and health care benefits) is worse than the disease you fear. The rest is irrelevant and hollow.
There was a crucifix in each
There was a crucifix in each room in our apartment in Germany, which as a child I found somewhat oppressive. I can't honestly remember whether there was a crucifix in my German classroom. I can imagine what a black eye it would have been for the Pope and the Vatican to have this ruling (not to allow crucifixes in public schools) stand in Italy, right in the Vatican's backyard. I'm equally certain that the Vatican was more than just vocal in its support to change the ruling. Whatever good comes from this reversal remains to be seen, but probably has no impact on most Americans. My opinion is that it's more important for each of us to "take up our cross and follow Jesus' way" than whether or not we hang a crucifix or where we hang it.
Simply bravo!
Simply bravo!
How is the YOutube video
How is the YOutube video found? I can't find it.
I can't find the youtube
I can't find the youtube video of Joseph Weiler before the Court of Human Rights.
I rejoice at the decision
I rejoice at the decision made in Europe! It is a contrast to the U. S. experience of being told that no religious symbols should be displayed in publicly owned areas. Acceptance of this norm implies that the belief of some that there is no God or moral imperative should be the common American approach. Isn't that a conclusion about something that can't be proved either?
Let's keep engaging in sensitive dialogue!
Anonymous, you say
Anonymous, you say "acceptance of this norm implies that the belief of some that there is no God or moral imperative should be the common American approach". I have a different view that I hope you will consider. I see that not have religious symbols displayed in publicly own areas as an awareness that we are a diverse society which gives equal respect to all law abiding citizens (one of the truly honorable characteristics of our great nation). I also see it as being sensitive to the tensions that can arise as to when others of another faith would like to have their religious symbols displayed in public areas. I tend to think that many of those who would support the right of Christian symbols to be displayed would be very intolerant of American Muslims or Americans of many other faiths wanting the same rights of displaying their symbols in public places.
Again, the proposed cure is
Again, the proposed cure is worse than the disease. What purging civil society of public religious expression does is itself a form of indoctrination, one that suggests religious observance is akin to a public health hazard. Worse, actually, than some genuinely hazardous and dehumanizing wares hawked on billboards nationwide. No wonder that we've seen the rise of the "New Atheists" in the wake of those who have striven to separate religion from the public life, for good motives and bad.
Mature people can find a balance and respect diverse public religious expression.
DRPrice, thank you for
DRPrice, thank you for sharing your thoughts, yet I think you are reading much more into the situation that is there (indoctrination? akin to "a public health hazard"?). Perhaps you're correct, as I would love to believe that there can, indeed, be a balance. Yet, I am wondering if your balance would allow Islamic symbols during the Muslim holiday or those of Native American. The list is pretty long as to how many different symbols we would need in order to honor the diversity of our society.
public religious expression
public religious expression is sheltering a homeless guy and getting him some coffee and doughnuts, and getting that illegal family to sanctuary
Public religious expression is NOT your choice of jewelry and its geometric make-up, whether a pair of rays, or a pair of triangles, or an arc
your anonymous contrast to
your anonymous contrast to the US experience raises an interesting point.
How much of this otherwise inexplicable decision against all the EU stood for lies in tweaking a nose at the alleged US symbol-neutral practice?
I'm not so sure that this is
I'm not so sure that this is a great victory for Christianity. As I heard it reported on NPR, one of the reasons given in the court's decision was that the cross is simply a cultural artifact.
The points made in this
The points made in this article are important, and welcomed from my perspective as a Catholic who believes that the Truth of Christ is as true in a secular society, muslim society or any other society as it is in a Christian society. If Christ brought us the Truth, then it must be an open and therefore our Catholicism has to be open door. Adopting a closed door Catholicism is tantamount to ceding that it is just a cultural tradition.
"What is Truth?" upper or
"What is Truth?"
upper or lower case.
Love thy enemy!
Christ is Truth.
Christ is Truth.
and Jesus says: "Love thy
and Jesus says: "Love thy enemy."
where's the love, anonymous dude?
Brilliant, John Allen!
Brilliant, John Allen! ---Absolutely brilliant!
Where else could we enjoy an accurately reported historical moment and a true intellectual reflection on the poignant interface of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and the new post-Christian Europe!
We do not take you for granted. I hope you are training a cadre of new reporters in your tradition of excellence.
This is an Austin Powers
This is an Austin Powers joke, right?
for me it is a sincere plea.
for me it is a sincere plea. I see much promise in Ms. Manson and in Ms. Sotelo, and much anguish at the looming Winters. The keen journalistic skills of Mr. Allen in objective reporting and careful analysis, and refreshingly witty expression claim a torch which must be passed on to a new generation, for us to continue in the Light.
Thank goodness John is so young, and so vital.
couldn't find the oral
couldn't find the oral argument on you tube.... anybody help with a link....
John Allen shows much more
John Allen shows much more excitement and emotion over this issue than he has ever shown over any court decision that brought any justice to the victims of sexual abuse. Every time there is a revelation that shows that the guilt of church hierarchy in relation to sexual abuse, he rushes in to explain that it is not that big of a deal. But this, for him, is huge. Those are not Christian priorities, and John Allen is not a credible voice on these issues.
Mr. Allen remains our most
Mr. Allen remains our most credible voice (who ya gonna read, Winters?)
Also delightful and always well written even in the most grim and unpleasant topics you mention
You want more enthusiasm in reporting the most horrible underbelly of our clerical establishment?
Wow - I can't believe, then,
Wow - I can't believe, then, that you and I have been reading the same columns! John Allen, in my experience, HAS indeed been quite vocal about the abuse scandal in/of Catholicism, and has always taken a non-hysterical approach to reporting on it. For many of us, there is no question about his credibility, and he has never, ever portrayed it as "not that big of a deal."
That's the point, he does not
That's the point, he does not take a hysterical approach. Mr. Allen is always balanced in his writing, and, it seems to me, one of the few people who maintains perspective on matters confronting the Church. I suspect that balance come from spending time in Rome, a place where the Church understands that time is not about minutes or days or even weeks, but centuries and millennia.
He seems to appreciate the import and significance of the abuse issue without overstating it.
Seems to me a more broadly
Seems to me a more broadly ecumenical decision would have been to allow
the cross, but not the crucifix as we now have it(which imagery evolved only after real crucifixions were abolished in the Roman Empire). After all, it is now the the risen Christ that we celebrate.
Amen.
Amen.
Important to note that it was
Important to note that it was not the cross that saved you but tather the One who was nailed to it!
But the crucifix helps us to
But the crucifix helps us to understand and remember that suffering that He endured.
"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14)
"The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18)
"I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2)
Is having the deck chairs
Is having the deck chairs nicely set out on the Promenade Deck of the Titanic a good thing? Maybe if they float. Symbols can be ignored or attacked as easily as they can be acknowledged and honored. Awareness of the Christ within is more important than a crucifix on the wall. Catholics in the United States would appear to survive well without them.
If the Court of Human Rights' decision makes the Curia less defensive that is good. If the decision makes them conclude that "See? If we hold fast to Tradition as we see it, if we continue to purify the faith and excommunicate all the heretics we will prevail." That does not look very good to me.
Please...a link to the you
Please...a link to the you tube video...i cannot find it
I put "Joseph Weiler" in the
I put "Joseph Weiler" in the search at YouTube and easily found his arguments. It seems this takes place not before the court but before another gathering. Nonetheless his argumentation is thereH
Go to
Go to http://dotsub.com/view/65bc5332-aa10-4b8c-bc50-d051e8f4fcc7
Dear John L Allen Jr.,
Dear John L Allen Jr., Interesting that you should choose this particular situation to essay. There is a Benedictine Convent in the Eastern United States which built a new chapel and it does not include a crucifix nor any other significant reminder that it is indeed a Catholic Chapel. If we Catholics choose not to display the Rock of our Faith how do we expect others to do so?
where is this Tom? not that
where is this Tom?
not that I doubt your word, tom, when speaking upon your own authority in this way, but, where is this tom?
I'd like to pay a visit next time I am out east . . .
When will we realize that we
When will we realize that we aren't the only religion in the world. If the crucifix is allowed, what about symbols of other student's religions. Will they be allowed in the classrooms too? How would Catholics feel if we had symbols of the Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish religions but not the crucifix? The world is getting smaller and we need to respect other people's faith. There are many paths to God. We are just one of them!
Dear Dianne 1942, The reason
Dear Dianne 1942, The reason that the Judge is allowing the Crucifix is ambigious at best. Perhaps he is allowing the crucifixes to remain as Jesus Christ did live and as an historical figure Italy is allowed to recognize the manner in which HE died. Just a thought.
tom, what objectively
tom, what objectively corroborating historical documents from the carefully, even obsessively self-documenting Roman Empire of that time do you find supporting our evidence of this execution, or even of the life of Jesus Christ in itself?
Your answer could resolve much debate among our academic historians.
Or, not . . .
love thy enemy, dude
Interesting point, Dianne. I
Interesting point, Dianne.
I am wondering whether Buddhism defines itself as a religion and by what symbol
Very interesting development
Very interesting development at this time when the Church seems beleaguered in many fronts (for instance in the Philippines, it is fighting tooth and nail to stand in the way of an RH bill. I looked in Youtube for the video of Weiler's oral argument. Couldn't find it. Can you post a link to it, please.
http://dotsub.com/view/65bc53
http://dotsub.com/view/65bc5332-aa10-4b8c-bc50-d051e8f4fcc7
link for video
If at all possible people
If at all possible people should read the thoughts of the Maltese judge on this decision. It says it all really. I think its about page 25 of the judgement. Superb.
oh. a Maltese judge? That's
oh. a Maltese judge?
That's who found this?
Explains much . . .
They also consider themselves a country . . .
Sorry, folks, but I can't
Sorry, folks, but I can't share your enthusiasm for this decision. I can easily accept some public religious displays (and my local Catholic community hospital has a lighted cross on its roof) but a crucifix in a child's classroom? I've been an American Catholic for 72 years and find the thinking expressed above astonishing!
I put "Joseph Weiler" in the
I put "Joseph Weiler" in the search at YouTube. I easily found his arguments. It seems this takes place not before the court but at another gathering. Nonetheless his argumentation is given.
Post new comment