World Youth Day and Religious Freedom
August 18, 2011
Charles J. Chaput
I want to start by sharing a story.
Once upon a time, a student at one of the world’s oldest universities took a break from her studies to visit the Catholic chapel on campus. As she sat there in silence—praying for a sick relative or trying to settle her nerves before a test—the chapel suddenly filled with noise. A mob of about seventy fellow students charged in chanting anti-Christian slogans. They shouted obscenities against the Church and insults about the Pope.
Two females in the mob climbed on top of the altar. Then, according to the student who was trying to pray, the women stripped off their shirts and boasted about their homosexual tendencies. The young Catholic student, and several others, left the chapel in fear.
People tend to think of Spain as a Catholic country. But this example of anti-Catholic bigotry happened right here, in this beautiful city, at the Complutense University of Madrid. And it didn’t happen in the 1930s, or even in the 1960s. It happened earlier this year—in March 2011. So today is a good time to talk about religious freedom. And Madrid is a good place to do it.
Religious freedom means being able to worship as we choose. It’s also the liberty to preach, teach, and practice our faith openly and without fear. But it involves even more than that. Religious freedom includes the right of religious believers, leaders, and communities to take part vigorously in a nation’s public life.
Freedom of religion presumes two things.
First, “freedom of religion” presumes that people have free will as part of their basic human dignity. And because they can freely reason and choose, people will often disagree about the nature of God and the best path to knowing him. Some people will choose to not believe in God at all—and they have a right to their unbelief.
Second, “freedom of religion” presumes that questions about God, eternity and the purpose of human life really do have vital importance for human happiness. And therefore people should have the freedom to pursue and to live out the answers they find to those basic questions without government interference.
Freedom of religion cannot coexist with freedom from religion. Forcing religious faith out of a nation’s public square and out of a country’s public debates does not serve democracy. It doesn’t serve real tolerance or pluralism. What it does do is impose a kind of unofficial state atheism. To put it another way, if we ban Christian Churches or other religious communities from taking an active role in our nation’s civic life, we’re really just enforcing a new kind of state-sponsored intolerance—a religion without God.
The degree of religious freedom people enjoy depends on where they live. About 70 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with severe restrictions on the practice of religion. This ugly reality has only been getting worse.
The so-called “Arab Spring” that happened this year has received a good deal of media coverage. But very little of that coverage has mentioned that the turmoil in Muslim countries has also created a very dangerous situation for Christians and other religious minorities across North Africa and the Middle East. In Egypt, angry mobs have attacked Christian churches and monasteries, burning them to the ground and murdering the people inside. Christians have fled in large numbers from anti-Christian violence in Iraq, Syria, and Tunisia. In Saudi Arabia, it’s illegal to own a Bible or wear a crucifix. In Pakistan, Christians face frequent discrimination, slander, beatings, and even murder.
We also need to remember that religious freedom is not only under siege in places like China, North Korea, and many Muslim countries. It’s also at risk even in traditionally free environments like the United States and the European Union. The mob of young bullies who violated the chapel at Complutense University are not alone in their hatred of the Catholic Church and their contempt for religious believers.
In the United States, our battles over abortion, family life, same-sex “marriage”, and other sensitive issues have led to ferocious public smears and legal threats not only against Catholics, but also against Mormons, evangelicals, and other religious believers. And with relatively few exceptions, the mass media tend to cover these disputed issues with a combination of ignorance, laziness, and bias against traditional Christian belief.
This is the reality you will inherit as adults. You need to understand that the Church is your family of faith; and the Church—as Blessed Pope John Paul II once said—is engaged in a struggle for the soul of the world. Each of you, and every other young woman and man who belongs to Jesus Christ, will face opposition, resentment, and even persecution from the contemporary world. And that means you need to prepare yourselves to be good apologists—capable defenders of your faith.
We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.
So whom can you trust? Where can you go for reliable news and intelligent discussion about your Catholic faith?
Well, you can come to World Youth Day—but you’ve already done that. Luckily, you live in an age of radically new kinds of information media. You have more media choices, and more ways to access those choices, than I ever could have imagined at your age.
Many of those choices include outstanding Catholic media like Catholic News Agency, EWTN, the National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor; Salt and Light and Catholic News Service; plus Catholic blogs, websites, and Catholic satellite radio stations. Support these media and encourage their great work for the Church. Visit their websites. “Like” them on Facebook. Follow their Twitter feeds. These excellent media sources will nourish and deepen your faith in ways that the mainstream public media can never provide.
I’ll close with one final thought: We can’t change the direction of the world by ourselves or on our own. But that’s not our job. Our job—and especially your job as young leaders—is to let God change us, and then through us, God will change others and the world. We win the world by winning one soul at a time for Jesus Christ and his Church, starting with ourselves. We win the future by beginning right here, right now, in this time we have together.
Ignorance of the world is a luxury we can’t afford. Being uninformed about the world and its problems and issues is a sin against our vocation as disciples. Love Jesus Christ as your brother and Lord. Love the Church as your mother. Know your faith, know the world and its struggles—and then open your hearts. Let God use you to bring others to the salvation that God intends for all of us.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Roman Catholic Archbishop-designate of Philadelphia, is the former Archbishop of Denver and the author of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life. This text is adapted from Archbishop's Chaput's special World Youth Day session for young pilgrims on the the theme of religious freedom, cosponsored by the Knights of Columbus and Catholic News Agency.
RESOURCES
Anti-Catholic Protest at Spanish University
Catholic News Agency
EWTN
National Catholic Register
Our Sunday Visitor
Salt + Light
Catholic News Service
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.18.2011 | 8:36am
Joe DeVet says:
What a fine thing that Abp Chaput is available to the young (and many not-so-young such as me during the previous 3 WYD's) pilgrims in Madrid. I hope they listen closely to his wisdom, which runs deep and wide.
About 20 years ago a friend remarked that it isn't true that we don't have a state religion in the USA. Our state religion is atheism. It was true then, and one can see that this situation is even more severe now.
About 20 years ago a friend remarked that it isn't true that we don't have a state religion in the USA. Our state religion is atheism. It was true then, and one can see that this situation is even more severe now.
8.18.2011 | 10:30am
Randy says:
In a hedonistic world like ours, witnessing is hard, it's risky, so too many otherwise faithful Christians took a few decades off from witnessing, took a vacation. But the "evil one" doesn't take any vacations. Never does. I'm glad that a lot of Christians are getting back to work. There's a lot of catch-up to do.
8.18.2011 | 11:02am
Peter Leavitt says:
Archbishop Chaput is right to use the example of militant homosexuals at work in a Catholic chapel in Spain. The homosexual militants are among the most egregious of the forces working against religious freedom.
8.18.2011 | 12:41pm
pentamom says:
The Spain example is necessary because Spain is a traditionally Christian country. Christians facing threats in Arab countries is absolutely significant, but a Christian facing a threat *inside a chapel* in a historically Christian country is a different kind of significant that adds complexity to the thing under consideration.
8.18.2011 | 12:52pm
David Nickol says:
Peter Leavitt,
Note the following:
SANTA ANA, Calif., Aug. 3, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- In more than 60 countries around the world, more than 100 million Christians face persecution simply because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Seventy percent of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high restrictions on religion, according to a study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion & Public Life. The persecution and lack of freedom often leave believers feeling like they suffer alone. . . .
http://www.christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=17502
I would guess that in most of the places Christians are persecuted, "militant homosexuals" would not dare identify themselves. Anyone who thinks that "homosexual militants are among the most egregious of the forces working against religious freedom" is no doubt living in a country like the United States, Canada, or the UK where claims of religious "persecution" are laughable compared to what Christians in China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., suffer.
Note the following:
SANTA ANA, Calif., Aug. 3, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- In more than 60 countries around the world, more than 100 million Christians face persecution simply because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Seventy percent of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high restrictions on religion, according to a study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion & Public Life. The persecution and lack of freedom often leave believers feeling like they suffer alone. . . .
http://www.christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=17502
I would guess that in most of the places Christians are persecuted, "militant homosexuals" would not dare identify themselves. Anyone who thinks that "homosexual militants are among the most egregious of the forces working against religious freedom" is no doubt living in a country like the United States, Canada, or the UK where claims of religious "persecution" are laughable compared to what Christians in China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., suffer.
8.18.2011 | 1:04pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
While I deplore anything even resembling the incident in Madrid (the invasion of a chapel), it scarcely counts as an abridgment of religious freedom. If it had taken in another location, it would have been a perfectly legitimate exercise in freedom of speech. Religious freedom, it seems to me, includes the freedom to vigorously criticize religions you disagree with. Religious freedom includes the right to be anti-Catholic. But it does not include the right to invade a chapel and harass worshippers or interfere in the right of others to practice their religion in lawful ways. I rather doubt that Archbishop Chaput would have found the incident worth opening his speech with if it had not included people proclaiming their "homosexual tendencies."
While I deplore anything even resembling the incident in Madrid (the invasion of a chapel), it scarcely counts as an abridgment of religious freedom. If it had taken in another location, it would have been a perfectly legitimate exercise in freedom of speech. Religious freedom, it seems to me, includes the freedom to vigorously criticize religions you disagree with. Religious freedom includes the right to be anti-Catholic. But it does not include the right to invade a chapel and harass worshippers or interfere in the right of others to practice their religion in lawful ways. I rather doubt that Archbishop Chaput would have found the incident worth opening his speech with if it had not included people proclaiming their "homosexual tendencies."
8.18.2011 | 1:33pm
Richard M says:
Hello David,
No question that Christians face much greater trials in parts of the developing world, particularly the Muslim world and the surviving communist autocracies. It is on the level of Diocletian and worse.
But it's hard to shake the feeling that you simply dismiss the growing hostility to Christianity in the public square that is developing in the West. Just because Christians are not being shot or imprisoned yet does not mean there are not causes for concern. This is precisely Chaput's point: Persecution is terrible in Burma and Saudi Arabia, but it is not just confined to such places. The Western world that most of these young Catholics will grow old in will be considerably less amenable to the practice of the faith than it was for their grandparents. The invasion of a chapel by such hooligans...most certainly *is* an abridgment of religious freedom, especially if authorities continue to turn a blind eye to it.
And the reality is that the majority of WYD participants are from the North, not the South.
Ultimately - let me perfectly candid here - I can't help but think that your disagreement with the Church's teaching on homosexual acts is what really lies at the base of your complaint.
No question that Christians face much greater trials in parts of the developing world, particularly the Muslim world and the surviving communist autocracies. It is on the level of Diocletian and worse.
But it's hard to shake the feeling that you simply dismiss the growing hostility to Christianity in the public square that is developing in the West. Just because Christians are not being shot or imprisoned yet does not mean there are not causes for concern. This is precisely Chaput's point: Persecution is terrible in Burma and Saudi Arabia, but it is not just confined to such places. The Western world that most of these young Catholics will grow old in will be considerably less amenable to the practice of the faith than it was for their grandparents. The invasion of a chapel by such hooligans...most certainly *is* an abridgment of religious freedom, especially if authorities continue to turn a blind eye to it.
And the reality is that the majority of WYD participants are from the North, not the South.
Ultimately - let me perfectly candid here - I can't help but think that your disagreement with the Church's teaching on homosexual acts is what really lies at the base of your complaint.
8.18.2011 | 1:54pm
Jimbo says:
No doubt, religious services should not be interrupted.
But, given the record of oppression by the Church itself - in the Inquisition, in religious-based wars, in the execution as heretics, of those who disagree with the Church?
Perhaps the Church might well understand and tolerate a little shouting, in response?
But, given the record of oppression by the Church itself - in the Inquisition, in religious-based wars, in the execution as heretics, of those who disagree with the Church?
Perhaps the Church might well understand and tolerate a little shouting, in response?
8.18.2011 | 2:51pm
Georges says:
Archbishop Chaput, with all due respect, you seem to have substituted the Church's understanding of "religious freedom" (Dignitatis Humanae read in the light of Tradition) with that expressed in the US Constitution. In the Catholic tradition, an individual has a certain right to pratice error, but within just limits, with a view to the common good, the latter, again, being defined by the Church.
Error, strictly speaking, has no rights, and for example, blasphemy is definitely against the common good and cannot in good conscience be allowed by the state.
I hope this all gets cleared up in the doctrinal talks involving the SSPX, because through its secular liberal reading of Dignitatis Humanae the church is more than flirting with religious indifference; the salt is losing its flavour -- real fast.
Error, strictly speaking, has no rights, and for example, blasphemy is definitely against the common good and cannot in good conscience be allowed by the state.
I hope this all gets cleared up in the doctrinal talks involving the SSPX, because through its secular liberal reading of Dignitatis Humanae the church is more than flirting with religious indifference; the salt is losing its flavour -- real fast.
8.18.2011 | 2:53pm
CKG says:
Thank you, Jimbo. . .
Can't have a reasonable discussion of religious freedom and the threats thereunto without the good ol' cliche, 'You guys started it!' making an appearance. . .
'Cuz, you know, all those heretics that got executed last week are really poisoning the discussion. . .
Can't have a reasonable discussion of religious freedom and the threats thereunto without the good ol' cliche, 'You guys started it!' making an appearance. . .
'Cuz, you know, all those heretics that got executed last week are really poisoning the discussion. . .
8.18.2011 | 3:16pm
Randy says:
Jimbo,
The nastiest Inquisition was run by the Spanish government--not the Holy See. And for the King of Spain, the motives were more political than religious, because political loyalties often ran strictly along religious lines. For the times, and they were some nasty times, the judicial representatives of the Pope had a reputation for fairness and restraint by comparison. In England, Catholic "traitors" were tortured and killed in great numbers at one time too, by Protestants. They just didn't call it an inquisition. During most of Europe's history, life was cheap. The Church has been the antidote to that--not the cause.
The nastiest Inquisition was run by the Spanish government--not the Holy See. And for the King of Spain, the motives were more political than religious, because political loyalties often ran strictly along religious lines. For the times, and they were some nasty times, the judicial representatives of the Pope had a reputation for fairness and restraint by comparison. In England, Catholic "traitors" were tortured and killed in great numbers at one time too, by Protestants. They just didn't call it an inquisition. During most of Europe's history, life was cheap. The Church has been the antidote to that--not the cause.
8.18.2011 | 3:46pm
David Nickol says:
Richard M,
You say, "Ultimately - let me perfectly candid here - I can't help but think that your disagreement with the Church's teaching on homosexual acts is what really lies at the base of your complaint."
I definitely do disagree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality, and no doubt my opinion here is influenced by that and by the fact that many (including me) consider Archbishop Chaput to be a combatant in the "culture wars." I will not mention the most noteworthy incident lest we get going on that and get sidetracked.
But I really do hope I would feel, no matter what my opinion on the Church's teachings regarding homosexuality, that featuring the admittedly deplorable incident in Madrid in a column about religious freedom is off base. Let me take a comment from someone on another site, who happens to be a priest: "Marriage is between a man and a woman, there is no such thing as 'same sex marriage.' That statement will get me persecuted judicially. The fact is that there will, in the end, be no exemptions for religious liberty. There haven't been anywhere else where this has been adjudicated in favor of the homosexual lobby." I hear a lot of similar talk on other blogs about how same-sex marriage is really all about getting a legal weapon to use against the Church, and that soon people in the United States who speak out against homosexuality will be put in re-education camps. This is just pure nonsense. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
*****
The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
*****
There are Catholic priests claiming they will be legally prosecuted for speaking against homosexuality in the United States, and yet we just had an 8-1 Supreme Court decision declaring the First Amendment right to scream "God Hates F@gs" at military funerals!
The decline in religious faith and lessening respect for Catholicism and other religions is not persecution. Anti-Catholic demonstrations that do not invade private spaces are not persecution. Those who disagree with Catholics have the same First Amendment rights as Catholics. Someone said in a blog comment I recall that he didn't dare tell his co-workers that he opposed homosexuality, otherwise they might not include him in office lunches and the like. That is not religious persecution. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not guarantee you the right to be liked when you take an unpopular position.
I do happen to think that anti-Catholicism is boorish, but people have a right to have boorish opinions and express them. That is not religious persecution. And of course the earliest Christians welcomed persecution and even martyrdom. I don't really expect modern-day Christians living in free countries to welcome persecution, but really, how easy is it supposed to be to live a fully Christian life?
You say, "Ultimately - let me perfectly candid here - I can't help but think that your disagreement with the Church's teaching on homosexual acts is what really lies at the base of your complaint."
I definitely do disagree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality, and no doubt my opinion here is influenced by that and by the fact that many (including me) consider Archbishop Chaput to be a combatant in the "culture wars." I will not mention the most noteworthy incident lest we get going on that and get sidetracked.
But I really do hope I would feel, no matter what my opinion on the Church's teachings regarding homosexuality, that featuring the admittedly deplorable incident in Madrid in a column about religious freedom is off base. Let me take a comment from someone on another site, who happens to be a priest: "Marriage is between a man and a woman, there is no such thing as 'same sex marriage.' That statement will get me persecuted judicially. The fact is that there will, in the end, be no exemptions for religious liberty. There haven't been anywhere else where this has been adjudicated in favor of the homosexual lobby." I hear a lot of similar talk on other blogs about how same-sex marriage is really all about getting a legal weapon to use against the Church, and that soon people in the United States who speak out against homosexuality will be put in re-education camps. This is just pure nonsense. I would just like to remind everyone of the following:
*****
The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
*****
There are Catholic priests claiming they will be legally prosecuted for speaking against homosexuality in the United States, and yet we just had an 8-1 Supreme Court decision declaring the First Amendment right to scream "God Hates F@gs" at military funerals!
The decline in religious faith and lessening respect for Catholicism and other religions is not persecution. Anti-Catholic demonstrations that do not invade private spaces are not persecution. Those who disagree with Catholics have the same First Amendment rights as Catholics. Someone said in a blog comment I recall that he didn't dare tell his co-workers that he opposed homosexuality, otherwise they might not include him in office lunches and the like. That is not religious persecution. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not guarantee you the right to be liked when you take an unpopular position.
I do happen to think that anti-Catholicism is boorish, but people have a right to have boorish opinions and express them. That is not religious persecution. And of course the earliest Christians welcomed persecution and even martyrdom. I don't really expect modern-day Christians living in free countries to welcome persecution, but really, how easy is it supposed to be to live a fully Christian life?
8.18.2011 | 4:26pm
bierce says:
Archbishop Chaput's story about the protest at the Complutense University of Madrid did not include the fact that Spanish police arrested and questioned four student activists from Madrid's Complutense University in connection with the incident.
Further, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reports that "Police are investigating whether the protest constitutes a crime against religious sentiments, which can carry up to six years in prison, but which in practice, according to experts, is usually punished with a fine. The students have since been released."
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Police/arrest/four/students/over/semi-nude/chapel/protest/elpepueng/20110320elpeng_6/Ten
As disturbing as the chapel incident is for my Catholic sensibilities, I am more disturbed that the Spanish Criminal Code apparently includes "a crime against religious sentiments, which can carry up to six years in prison."
Further, the Spanish newspaper El Pais reports that "Police are investigating whether the protest constitutes a crime against religious sentiments, which can carry up to six years in prison, but which in practice, according to experts, is usually punished with a fine. The students have since been released."
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Police/arrest/four/students/over/semi-nude/chapel/protest/elpepueng/20110320elpeng_6/Ten
As disturbing as the chapel incident is for my Catholic sensibilities, I am more disturbed that the Spanish Criminal Code apparently includes "a crime against religious sentiments, which can carry up to six years in prison."
8.18.2011 | 4:41pm
Jpac says:
Wow, guys. My take on the opening anecdote's relevance to "freedom of religion" was more about the innocent student and her freedom to just sit before the Blessed Sacrament and pray without being overtly offended by non-believers, who were grossly offensive. That Chaput was displaying for us that physical threats to worshippers inside the sanctuary of their faith are becoming more commonplace once again and that it is a real threat that should not be taken lightly. And of course, as he is addressing the youths gathered in Spain it is perfectly appropriate to use a local incident to help "bring it home".
8.18.2011 | 4:50pm
Patricia Cornell says:
To be honest, during the inquisition, people accused of acting against the Church were given a choice and they almost always chose to go under the ruling of the Church inquisition as those people were much more lenient than the secular government inquisition.
The accused admitted their guilt was were let free. However, with the secular government, admitting their guilt meant enduring some torture anyway! Being Catholic has never been for wimps!
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
The accused admitted their guilt was were let free. However, with the secular government, admitting their guilt meant enduring some torture anyway! Being Catholic has never been for wimps!
Patricia in St. Louis, MO
8.18.2011 | 5:05pm
Patrick says:
David, do you feel that religion is a purely private matter? Does anyone have a right be be free from religion? If you you don't think that it the case, then I'm not sure what your motivation or strategy is in minimizing the dangers the Catholic Church faces and apologizing for her detractors.
It's true that the situation in the US is not as bad as in Europe, and that the situation in Europe is not as bad as in the Middle East. But saying "it could always be worse" is vacuously true and does not, in my opinion, contribute to the discussion.
In the United States, it's still quite socially acceptable to outwardly express your Christian faith, but we must always be on our guard. In Europe, it is considered more controversial, and there are many who feel they have a right to "freedom from religion." For more information, check out this site.
It's true that the situation in the US is not as bad as in Europe, and that the situation in Europe is not as bad as in the Middle East. But saying "it could always be worse" is vacuously true and does not, in my opinion, contribute to the discussion.
In the United States, it's still quite socially acceptable to outwardly express your Christian faith, but we must always be on our guard. In Europe, it is considered more controversial, and there are many who feel they have a right to "freedom from religion." For more information, check out this site.
8.18.2011 | 5:11pm
Patrick says:
Oops, here's the link: http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/
This sort of thing may not be necessary in the US now, but it may in the future.
This sort of thing may not be necessary in the US now, but it may in the future.
8.18.2011 | 5:15pm
pentamom says:
Wait, David, did you think the purpose of the description of the Madrid incident was to deplore religious freedom?
If you missed the point that badly, there's little point in pursuing this, I think.
If you missed the point that badly, there's little point in pursuing this, I think.
8.18.2011 | 5:45pm
Joanna says:
David Nickol,
I suggest you read "The Tyranny of Nice" How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights (and why it matters to Americans) by Kathy Shields & Pete Vere with an introduction by Mark Steyn. All I can say to you is wake up and smell the coffee!
I suggest you read "The Tyranny of Nice" How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights (and why it matters to Americans) by Kathy Shields & Pete Vere with an introduction by Mark Steyn. All I can say to you is wake up and smell the coffee!
8.18.2011 | 5:49pm
patricksarsfield says:
Based on the Inquisition (which ended some 200+ years ago), Jimbo claims Abp. Chaput should have said nothing about what went on in Madrid this Spring because:
"given the record of oppression by the Church itself ....perhaps the Church might well understand and tolerate a little shouting, in response?"
The Catholic Church has, however, been subjected to a lot more than "shouting" by anti-Catholic Spanish leftists, anfd this persecution occurred a lot more recently than during the years of the Inquisition. Murderous leftist oppression of the Church in Spain during the 1930s (both before and after the start of the Sp[anish Civil War) led to the slaughter of almost 7000 priests and religious. That is a death toll in five years that well may be larger than the death toll during the entire 250 years of the Inquisition.
Abp. Chaput therefore should be applauded for making clear that the leftist oppression that went on in Spain this year needs to be opposed. Despite D. Nickol's comments, it also was entirely appropriate for the Archbishop to mention the fact that avowed homosexuals joined in the efforts to impinge on the Church's sanctuaries while proclaiming their sexual preference. Minority status does not confer any right to disregard the freedom of others.
"given the record of oppression by the Church itself ....perhaps the Church might well understand and tolerate a little shouting, in response?"
The Catholic Church has, however, been subjected to a lot more than "shouting" by anti-Catholic Spanish leftists, anfd this persecution occurred a lot more recently than during the years of the Inquisition. Murderous leftist oppression of the Church in Spain during the 1930s (both before and after the start of the Sp[anish Civil War) led to the slaughter of almost 7000 priests and religious. That is a death toll in five years that well may be larger than the death toll during the entire 250 years of the Inquisition.
Abp. Chaput therefore should be applauded for making clear that the leftist oppression that went on in Spain this year needs to be opposed. Despite D. Nickol's comments, it also was entirely appropriate for the Archbishop to mention the fact that avowed homosexuals joined in the efforts to impinge on the Church's sanctuaries while proclaiming their sexual preference. Minority status does not confer any right to disregard the freedom of others.
8.18.2011 | 6:21pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom:
You say:"Wait, David, did you think the purpose of the description of the Madrid incident was to deplore religious freedom?"
I don't know where in the world you are getting that idea. People who object to various aspects of the Catholic Church have a right to speak out about it and to demonstrate in any legal manner they so choose. They do not have a right to invade a private chapel and harass worshippers.
You say:"Wait, David, did you think the purpose of the description of the Madrid incident was to deplore religious freedom?"
I don't know where in the world you are getting that idea. People who object to various aspects of the Catholic Church have a right to speak out about it and to demonstrate in any legal manner they so choose. They do not have a right to invade a private chapel and harass worshippers.
8.18.2011 | 6:54pm
David Nickol says:
Patrick,
I have taken a very quick look at this document on the site you recommended, and my initial impression is not one of alarm over the persecution of Christians in Europe.
http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Five-Year_Report_Intolerance_against_Christians_in_Europe_-_online_version.pdf
Let's take this one: "March 2009: Liberal Harvard scholar Edward Green was strongly attacked in public for agreeing with the Pope in saying that the distribution of condoms will not prevent the spread of HIV/Aids." Being "strongly attacked in public" (unless it is a physical attack, which it wasn't) is not persecution. It is what happens when people make controversial remarks. I read about the Edward Green statements at the time, although Green said the pope was correct, Green's position is actually quite different from the pope's, since Green does support the use of condoms where they are effective (as in the brothels of Thailand).
Or this one: "February 2010: A district judge has thrown out the case against another street preacher, Paul Shaw, who was arrested on February 19 in Colchester over comments he made about homosexual activity." There were actually a few cases where people were arrested when they shouldn't have been, and to the best of my knowledge, they were all released and apologies were made. When a policeman misinterprets the law and makes an unwarranted arrest, that is not persecution.
Or this one: "February 2010: Gay activists plan mass kissing provocation in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Counterdemonstrations led to new location while a few remained there." Are activists not allowed to demonstrate in public?
Or this one: "June 2010: English schools are failing to teach pupils about basic Christian beliefs in religious education lessons, according to a new report by education 'watchdog' Ofsted."
A lot of the complaints are really laments that Christianity does not have the power that it once had. I can understand why Christians are upset, but it is not a matter of persecution. Christianity is losing out to secularism. That is no doubt very painful for Christians, but it is not persecution. I do believe in the right of conscience, but it is a limited right, and as societies become less Christian, I think Christians deserve exactly the same level of rights of conscience as were afforded to non-Christians when Christianity was dominant.
I have taken a very quick look at this document on the site you recommended, and my initial impression is not one of alarm over the persecution of Christians in Europe.
http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Five-Year_Report_Intolerance_against_Christians_in_Europe_-_online_version.pdf
Let's take this one: "March 2009: Liberal Harvard scholar Edward Green was strongly attacked in public for agreeing with the Pope in saying that the distribution of condoms will not prevent the spread of HIV/Aids." Being "strongly attacked in public" (unless it is a physical attack, which it wasn't) is not persecution. It is what happens when people make controversial remarks. I read about the Edward Green statements at the time, although Green said the pope was correct, Green's position is actually quite different from the pope's, since Green does support the use of condoms where they are effective (as in the brothels of Thailand).
Or this one: "February 2010: A district judge has thrown out the case against another street preacher, Paul Shaw, who was arrested on February 19 in Colchester over comments he made about homosexual activity." There were actually a few cases where people were arrested when they shouldn't have been, and to the best of my knowledge, they were all released and apologies were made. When a policeman misinterprets the law and makes an unwarranted arrest, that is not persecution.
Or this one: "February 2010: Gay activists plan mass kissing provocation in front of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Counterdemonstrations led to new location while a few remained there." Are activists not allowed to demonstrate in public?
Or this one: "June 2010: English schools are failing to teach pupils about basic Christian beliefs in religious education lessons, according to a new report by education 'watchdog' Ofsted."
A lot of the complaints are really laments that Christianity does not have the power that it once had. I can understand why Christians are upset, but it is not a matter of persecution. Christianity is losing out to secularism. That is no doubt very painful for Christians, but it is not persecution. I do believe in the right of conscience, but it is a limited right, and as societies become less Christian, I think Christians deserve exactly the same level of rights of conscience as were afforded to non-Christians when Christianity was dominant.
8.18.2011 | 7:07pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
By the way, the Catholic Church's support for religious freedom as we understand it today dates only to 1965. Read about the silencing of the Jesuit Theologian John Courtney Murray for his ideas on church-state relations and freedom of conscience, and his "rehabilitation" during Vatican II. This is one of the "errors" Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors (1864): "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
By the way, the Catholic Church's support for religious freedom as we understand it today dates only to 1965. Read about the silencing of the Jesuit Theologian John Courtney Murray for his ideas on church-state relations and freedom of conscience, and his "rehabilitation" during Vatican II. This is one of the "errors" Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors (1864): "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
8.18.2011 | 8:05pm
David Nickol says:
Patrick,
You say: "In the United States, it's still quite socially acceptable to outwardly express your Christian faith, but we must always be on our guard."
Just checking, but I hope feel it should be safe to outwardly express *any* faith (or no faith) *anywhere*. Religious freedom should be for Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, Unitarians, and atheists, should it not? Are we worrying about religious freedom, or the decline of Christianity?
I believe we have no atheists in the US Senate, and one atheist in the House. (I have a feeling there are more, but they do not let it be known.) And we have six Catholics and three Jews on the Supreme Court. I think it was probably less of a first for a black man to be elected president than it will be for an atheist to be elected president.
Being a Christian in the United States is still far, far from being at a disadvantage. If the United States discriminated against Christians, do you think Perry would have held a big prayer meeting before announcing for president?
You say: "In the United States, it's still quite socially acceptable to outwardly express your Christian faith, but we must always be on our guard."
Just checking, but I hope feel it should be safe to outwardly express *any* faith (or no faith) *anywhere*. Religious freedom should be for Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, Unitarians, and atheists, should it not? Are we worrying about religious freedom, or the decline of Christianity?
I believe we have no atheists in the US Senate, and one atheist in the House. (I have a feeling there are more, but they do not let it be known.) And we have six Catholics and three Jews on the Supreme Court. I think it was probably less of a first for a black man to be elected president than it will be for an atheist to be elected president.
Being a Christian in the United States is still far, far from being at a disadvantage. If the United States discriminated against Christians, do you think Perry would have held a big prayer meeting before announcing for president?
8.18.2011 | 9:00pm
Constantine says:
When did the Archbishop cease being a Catholic?
His idea of “religious freedom” directly contradicts his own church's Magisterium.
Pope Leo XIII had this to say about “religious freedom”:
“it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.” (Longinqua: Encyclical of Pope Leo Xiii on Catholicism in the United States. (1895))
So the historical Catholic ideal is a government run by the church. That, of course, is what the Papal States were for seven hundred years. Anyone even casually familiar with that history has to laugh out loud at the prospect of an Archbishop of the same church crying “uncle” when his sect is impugned. Religious freedom in the Papal States was more difficult to find than ice on the sun! And, of course, Leo continued that tradition, as noted above.
One thing to be grateful for....at least the Archbishop abstained for once from illegitimately invoking the name of John Courtney Murray. The irony, though, is that Murray could have been used here as an example of championing just the sort of thing the Archbishop puts forth – religious freedom and toleration. But whereas Chaput is heralded as a hero for so doing, Murray was ridden out of town on a rail!
Oh, the very vicissitudes of Rome!
Peace.
His idea of “religious freedom” directly contradicts his own church's Magisterium.
Pope Leo XIII had this to say about “religious freedom”:
“it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.” (Longinqua: Encyclical of Pope Leo Xiii on Catholicism in the United States. (1895))
So the historical Catholic ideal is a government run by the church. That, of course, is what the Papal States were for seven hundred years. Anyone even casually familiar with that history has to laugh out loud at the prospect of an Archbishop of the same church crying “uncle” when his sect is impugned. Religious freedom in the Papal States was more difficult to find than ice on the sun! And, of course, Leo continued that tradition, as noted above.
One thing to be grateful for....at least the Archbishop abstained for once from illegitimately invoking the name of John Courtney Murray. The irony, though, is that Murray could have been used here as an example of championing just the sort of thing the Archbishop puts forth – religious freedom and toleration. But whereas Chaput is heralded as a hero for so doing, Murray was ridden out of town on a rail!
Oh, the very vicissitudes of Rome!
Peace.
8.18.2011 | 9:42pm
Patrick says:
Yes, David, I am concerned about the decline of Christianity. So, yes, guilty on that count. Since I believe in Christ, I would like to see Christianity flourish and try to work to achieve that as best I can. Do you have a problem with that?
8.18.2011 | 9:47pm
Joss Heywood says:
Before describing demonstrations against the Catholic Church as "bigotry", it is as well to be aware of the political context in which they take place. In many "traditional Catholic countries" the reality is that most of the bishops and priests have traditionally supported the most right-wing repressive politicians, often tacitly supporting torture (with some of the priests actively blessing it as police and military chaplains, as here in Argentina). The bishops in Argentina receive generous salaries from the government, which were granted them by the military dictatorship in the 1970s. It's no wonder that they are seen as compromised from the point of view of anyone who wants to improve the political status quo by shaking up the establishment.
8.18.2011 | 9:58pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Mr. Nickol, the point is that orthodox Christians who adhere to the Catechism that, according to Biblical and natural-law teaching that homosexual behavior is a natural disorder and a grave sin, are often regarded by aggressive secularists as homophobic bigots.
Archbishop Chaput quite well points out that the faithful young Spanish woman who sought solace in the Spanish Catholic chapel was forced to leave due to the vicious behavior of a bunch of militant homosexual thugs. No amount of your sugar coating of the issue obviates this.
Archbishop Chaput quite well points out that the faithful young Spanish woman who sought solace in the Spanish Catholic chapel was forced to leave due to the vicious behavior of a bunch of militant homosexual thugs. No amount of your sugar coating of the issue obviates this.
8.18.2011 | 10:16pm
Jay says:
Thank you Archbishop Chaput for your message and encouragement.
The persecution against Christians especially in the Middle East is being felt here in America as news of dwindling Christian numbers in Iraq has gone from a million to a few thousand because of violence. The rise of extreme secularism in Europe (we need only to look at the UK) is not comforting.
Pope Benedict XVI provides deep insight when he said that the Catholic Church and other religions will face stronger persecution both in the public and private spheres of life. The Church will decrease in size of believers and the remaining will be the "creative minority" as Benedict described.
I have hope in my generation; our direction is toward affirmative orthodoxy.
The persecution against Christians especially in the Middle East is being felt here in America as news of dwindling Christian numbers in Iraq has gone from a million to a few thousand because of violence. The rise of extreme secularism in Europe (we need only to look at the UK) is not comforting.
Pope Benedict XVI provides deep insight when he said that the Catholic Church and other religions will face stronger persecution both in the public and private spheres of life. The Church will decrease in size of believers and the remaining will be the "creative minority" as Benedict described.
I have hope in my generation; our direction is toward affirmative orthodoxy.
8.18.2011 | 10:39pm
bill bannon says:
I think Abp. Chaput's black and white dividing of the press into NY Times bad...CNA and EWTN good....was simplistic and fortress-y. During the sex abuse decades, most of the Catholic press was silent as to protecting our children, the secular press including the NY Times and the Boston Globe forced through shame and actual real non subservient reporting... forced the Bishops to meet in Dallas. I've read great complimentary pieces in the NY Times about the Church...one years ago was about one of our Bishops who fired a sex abusive priest which priest then had Rome overturn the firing. The Bishop then packed a suitcase with the evidence and flew to Rome and had his firing of the priest reinstated. I read that only in the NY Times and I believe it was about Wuerl when he was in P.A.
8.18.2011 | 11:44pm
edmond says:
I think the disruption by the anti-catholic mob in Spain would have been less efective had the church pews been filled. The point made is catholics need to step up to the plate and defend their faith. Sure the student was probably outnumbered and maybe the church was priestless like many churches in europe. But there are many places in asia where the churches are underground where the numbers are growing despite the consequences. So what else is new from the catacombs?
8.19.2011 | 1:48am
David Nickol says:
Peter Leavitt,
You say, ". . . forced to leave due to the vicious behavior of a bunch of militant homosexual thugs. No amount of your sugar coating of the issue obviates this."
The story, and we have only Archbishop Chaput's version of it, is of a "mob of about seventy fellow students," two of which "boasted about their homosexual tendencies." Were there seventy "militant homosexual thugs," or was this a group that happened to have two women who "boasted about their homosexual tendencies"? We don't know. Far from sugar coating the incident, I have a number of times now said that invading a place of worship is deplorable. But what I said at the outset is turning out to be true. " . . . [M]ost people who read this piece by Archbishop Chaput will remember topless young women proclaiming their 'homosexual tendencies' in a chapel in Madrid long after they forget, 'In Egypt, angry mobs have attacked Christian churches and monasteries, burning them to the ground and murdering the people inside.'"
You say, ". . . forced to leave due to the vicious behavior of a bunch of militant homosexual thugs. No amount of your sugar coating of the issue obviates this."
The story, and we have only Archbishop Chaput's version of it, is of a "mob of about seventy fellow students," two of which "boasted about their homosexual tendencies." Were there seventy "militant homosexual thugs," or was this a group that happened to have two women who "boasted about their homosexual tendencies"? We don't know. Far from sugar coating the incident, I have a number of times now said that invading a place of worship is deplorable. But what I said at the outset is turning out to be true. " . . . [M]ost people who read this piece by Archbishop Chaput will remember topless young women proclaiming their 'homosexual tendencies' in a chapel in Madrid long after they forget, 'In Egypt, angry mobs have attacked Christian churches and monasteries, burning them to the ground and murdering the people inside.'"
8.19.2011 | 1:58am
David Nickol says:
Patrick,
It is perfectly understandable that Christians would be distressed at the decline of Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe. I am just saying that concern about the waning influence of Christianity and concern about religious freedom are two different (although possibly overlapping) issues. Religious freedom as it is now understood by the Catholic Church since Vatican II is for everyone, not just Christians. This is a point Archbishop Chaput makes himself: "First, 'freedom of religion' presumes that people have free will as part of their basic human dignity. And because they can freely reason and choose, people will often disagree about the nature of God and the best path to knowing him. Some people will choose to not believe in God at all—and they have a right to their unbelief." Freedom of religion is for Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and everyone else who has an opinion about ultimate questions.
It is perfectly understandable that Christians would be distressed at the decline of Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe. I am just saying that concern about the waning influence of Christianity and concern about religious freedom are two different (although possibly overlapping) issues. Religious freedom as it is now understood by the Catholic Church since Vatican II is for everyone, not just Christians. This is a point Archbishop Chaput makes himself: "First, 'freedom of religion' presumes that people have free will as part of their basic human dignity. And because they can freely reason and choose, people will often disagree about the nature of God and the best path to knowing him. Some people will choose to not believe in God at all—and they have a right to their unbelief." Freedom of religion is for Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and everyone else who has an opinion about ultimate questions.
8.19.2011 | 8:58am
Richard says:
Thank you, your Excellency, for your timely warning and your pastoral patience in shepherding cats, not sheep. Times change. People still disappoint. You are one of the beacons of the contemporary Church. God bless.
I read some history and some current events. I look into my own soul, and survey my brothers and sister in the Church and the great mass of humanity outside of the Church. Time and again I am reduced to melancholy and all I can say is, "For this Jesus died?" This is a love that passes all understanding.
Richard
I read some history and some current events. I look into my own soul, and survey my brothers and sister in the Church and the great mass of humanity outside of the Church. Time and again I am reduced to melancholy and all I can say is, "For this Jesus died?" This is a love that passes all understanding.
Richard
8.19.2011 | 10:55am
patricksarsfield says:
D. Nickol claims (8-18; 10:48 PM) that we only have Abp. Chaput's version of the attack on the Chapel of the Complutense University. Actually, we have a number of accounts that have appeared in the press since the attack's occurrence on Mar. 11, 2011 including this from a Russian Orthodox Church source, which notes that a film of the attack exists: ( http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/45294.htm ):
"Gay students desecrate a university chapel in Madrid
Madrid, Spain, March 11, 2011
Some 70 college students stormed into the chapel of Madrid's Complutense University on March 10, shouting insults against the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI and priests.
Several females from the group stood on the altar, undressed from the waist up.
Another female student who was in the chapel praying at the time told the Spanish daily ABC that two of the young women on the altar ”boasted about their homosexual tendencies.”
The group of students stormed into the chapel with a megaphone and pushed the chaplain out of the way. They proceeded to shout insults against the Catholic Church and her teachings. The group also placed posters in the pews and on the bulletin board at the entrance to the chapel.
The entire incident was caught on film.
Another student interviewed by ABC asked, ”what would have happened had this taken place in a mosque? These people should know that Catholics will never respond to a provocation with another provocation just to defend themselves.”
”Nobody will silence us by acting with hostility, mockery, intimidation or any other illegitimate pressure that offends the religions sensibilities of everyone,” she continued. ”Moreover, acts like these are punishable by law. How easy and cowardly it is to do something like this anonymously!”
University administrators condemned the act and said an investigation will be carried to identity those responsible. They reiterated the university's commitment to respect for freedom of worship and belief and urged students to be tolerant of each other's religious sentiments. ”The neutrality of the government in religious matters means no specific belief can be imposed or subjected to persecution.
”Tolerance and respect are absolutely indispensable,” they said.
ABC reported it was not the first time the chapel has been the target of anti-Christian acts. Last week the doors and walls of the chapel were painted with anti-Catholic graffiti.
The Archdiocese of Madrid released a statement condemning the desecration of the chapel and filed a formal complaint with the university. ”These actions are an attack on freedom of worship and a profanation of a sacred place, which carries with it canonical penalties for any baptized parties who took part.”
The archdiocese called it ”shameful that in a democratic society where there is supposed to be respect for others, for religious institutions and for the right to celebrate one's faith in public,” a group of young people would tarnish the good name and hard work of the Complutense University. "
"Gay students desecrate a university chapel in Madrid
Madrid, Spain, March 11, 2011
Some 70 college students stormed into the chapel of Madrid's Complutense University on March 10, shouting insults against the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI and priests.
Several females from the group stood on the altar, undressed from the waist up.
Another female student who was in the chapel praying at the time told the Spanish daily ABC that two of the young women on the altar ”boasted about their homosexual tendencies.”
The group of students stormed into the chapel with a megaphone and pushed the chaplain out of the way. They proceeded to shout insults against the Catholic Church and her teachings. The group also placed posters in the pews and on the bulletin board at the entrance to the chapel.
The entire incident was caught on film.
Another student interviewed by ABC asked, ”what would have happened had this taken place in a mosque? These people should know that Catholics will never respond to a provocation with another provocation just to defend themselves.”
”Nobody will silence us by acting with hostility, mockery, intimidation or any other illegitimate pressure that offends the religions sensibilities of everyone,” she continued. ”Moreover, acts like these are punishable by law. How easy and cowardly it is to do something like this anonymously!”
University administrators condemned the act and said an investigation will be carried to identity those responsible. They reiterated the university's commitment to respect for freedom of worship and belief and urged students to be tolerant of each other's religious sentiments. ”The neutrality of the government in religious matters means no specific belief can be imposed or subjected to persecution.
”Tolerance and respect are absolutely indispensable,” they said.
ABC reported it was not the first time the chapel has been the target of anti-Christian acts. Last week the doors and walls of the chapel were painted with anti-Catholic graffiti.
The Archdiocese of Madrid released a statement condemning the desecration of the chapel and filed a formal complaint with the university. ”These actions are an attack on freedom of worship and a profanation of a sacred place, which carries with it canonical penalties for any baptized parties who took part.”
The archdiocese called it ”shameful that in a democratic society where there is supposed to be respect for others, for religious institutions and for the right to celebrate one's faith in public,” a group of young people would tarnish the good name and hard work of the Complutense University. "
8.19.2011 | 3:12pm
David Nickol says:
patricksarsfield,
Thank you for digging up further information. I had made somewhat of an effort myself and found nothing. Based on what you found, I have uncovered quite a bit. I was in the middle of writing an extensive response when I accidentally erased it, so what follows is a pared down summary. Anyone who wants to do further research can make a good beginning googling the words Somosaguas (the name of the chapel that was invaded) and Contrapoder, the name of the group that claimed responsibility.
Here is a link to the initial story in the Spanish newspaper that appears to be the account Archibishop Chaput is relying on, although many other stories also rely on this account, so he could have been relying on one of those secondary stories.
http://www.abc.es/20110311/madrid/abcp-desnudas-capilla-universidad-complutense-20110311.html
Note that the account doesn't characterize the group as homosexual, saying only what Archbishop Chaput said, that is, that two of the group "boasted" of "homosexual tendencies." (I don't speak Spanish, so I used Google Translate to translate the article, as will as other Spanish-language material that follows.)
Contrapoder ("against power") is the organization at Complutense University of Madrid that was responsible for the invasion of the chapel. Is a leftist organization, not a homosexual one. Here is one description:
**********
Contrapoder, filed in 2006, is a left-wing organization formed by students of the Faculty of Political Science, Sociology and Social Work anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist character, as defined themselves on their website.
Platform is part of the Unitary Left List (LUIS), which are among other groups to present the various elections of the faculty and the university.
His career since its inception has been very active with various information events and protest. Counter Members took part in protests in 2009 against the former Minister Josep Pique, who were dressed as Guantanamo prisoners, and the deputy UPyD, Rosa Díez, in October 2010.
They have also organized conferences and visits to the University of distinct personalities, as the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, last year. The last of these visits was the member of the National Council for the Protection of the Revolution of Tunisia and Professor of Geography at the Faculty of Arts of the Tunisian city of Manouba, Fathi Chamkhi, on 3 February.
**********
http://www.telemadrid.es/?q=noticias/noticia/un-movimiento-feminista-de-la-universidad-complutense-interrumpio-una-misa-en-el-ca
You can check out the web site of Contrapoder for yourself (although it is of course in Spanish):
http://aucontrapoder.blogspot.com/
It appears the individuals that actually participated in the demonstration were mostly women, radical feminists, and it is not surprising that among their numbers would be some lesbians.
Note that even in the story you reproduce, it is only the headline that characterizes the group as gay. The story itself does not, mentioning only two of the demonstrators who "boasted" of "homosexual tendencies."
It was irrelevant to my initial point whether the group was homosexual or not, and in fact I just assumed it was. But everything I have been able to find indicates that it was not a homosexual group, but a leftist group that had among its members feminists, and among the feminists were some lesbians.
My point, to reiterate, was the an invocation of the "homosexual threat" did not seem to me to be the best way to present a story about the persecution of Christians in light of the fact that Archbishop Chaput was including instances of authentic persecution and even murder. I was concerned that the invocation of the "homosexual threat" would overshadow everything else in the speech, and in fact in this thread it pretty much has, which is particularly unfortunate, since the group invading the chapel was not made up of "homosexual thugs."
Thank you for digging up further information. I had made somewhat of an effort myself and found nothing. Based on what you found, I have uncovered quite a bit. I was in the middle of writing an extensive response when I accidentally erased it, so what follows is a pared down summary. Anyone who wants to do further research can make a good beginning googling the words Somosaguas (the name of the chapel that was invaded) and Contrapoder, the name of the group that claimed responsibility.
Here is a link to the initial story in the Spanish newspaper that appears to be the account Archibishop Chaput is relying on, although many other stories also rely on this account, so he could have been relying on one of those secondary stories.
http://www.abc.es/20110311/madrid/abcp-desnudas-capilla-universidad-complutense-20110311.html
Note that the account doesn't characterize the group as homosexual, saying only what Archbishop Chaput said, that is, that two of the group "boasted" of "homosexual tendencies." (I don't speak Spanish, so I used Google Translate to translate the article, as will as other Spanish-language material that follows.)
Contrapoder ("against power") is the organization at Complutense University of Madrid that was responsible for the invasion of the chapel. Is a leftist organization, not a homosexual one. Here is one description:
**********
Contrapoder, filed in 2006, is a left-wing organization formed by students of the Faculty of Political Science, Sociology and Social Work anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist character, as defined themselves on their website.
Platform is part of the Unitary Left List (LUIS), which are among other groups to present the various elections of the faculty and the university.
His career since its inception has been very active with various information events and protest. Counter Members took part in protests in 2009 against the former Minister Josep Pique, who were dressed as Guantanamo prisoners, and the deputy UPyD, Rosa Díez, in October 2010.
They have also organized conferences and visits to the University of distinct personalities, as the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, last year. The last of these visits was the member of the National Council for the Protection of the Revolution of Tunisia and Professor of Geography at the Faculty of Arts of the Tunisian city of Manouba, Fathi Chamkhi, on 3 February.
**********
http://www.telemadrid.es/?q=noticias/noticia/un-movimiento-feminista-de-la-universidad-complutense-interrumpio-una-misa-en-el-ca
You can check out the web site of Contrapoder for yourself (although it is of course in Spanish):
http://aucontrapoder.blogspot.com/
It appears the individuals that actually participated in the demonstration were mostly women, radical feminists, and it is not surprising that among their numbers would be some lesbians.
Note that even in the story you reproduce, it is only the headline that characterizes the group as gay. The story itself does not, mentioning only two of the demonstrators who "boasted" of "homosexual tendencies."
It was irrelevant to my initial point whether the group was homosexual or not, and in fact I just assumed it was. But everything I have been able to find indicates that it was not a homosexual group, but a leftist group that had among its members feminists, and among the feminists were some lesbians.
My point, to reiterate, was the an invocation of the "homosexual threat" did not seem to me to be the best way to present a story about the persecution of Christians in light of the fact that Archbishop Chaput was including instances of authentic persecution and even murder. I was concerned that the invocation of the "homosexual threat" would overshadow everything else in the speech, and in fact in this thread it pretty much has, which is particularly unfortunate, since the group invading the chapel was not made up of "homosexual thugs."
8.19.2011 | 9:29pm
patricksarsfield says:
D. Nickols writes:
"My point, to reiterate, was the an invocation of the "homosexual threat" did not seem to me to be the best way to present a story about the persecution of Christians in light of the fact that Archbishop Chaput was including instances of authentic persecution and even murder. I was concerned that the invocation of the "homosexual threat" would overshadow everything else in the speech, and in fact in this thread it pretty much has, which is particularly unfortunate, since the group invading the chapel was not made up of "homosexual thugs." "
"Homosexual thugs" was not the Archbishop's term. Everything that Abp. Chaput presented is borne out by the press account I supplied. You don't like that he focused on the homosexual issue, but it should be noted that he was not the person who raised the issue. Rather, some of the invaders of the chapel made a point of their sexual preference and he merely repeated what they had said. You would not have repeated it. Noted, but that does not change the fact that the Archbishop's account was correct and the invasion of the Madrid chapel is not the only time homosexual activists have improperly demonstrated inside a Catholic sanctuary.
BTW, it is appropriate that the sources for a story on the Complutensian University are so polyglot, nu?
"My point, to reiterate, was the an invocation of the "homosexual threat" did not seem to me to be the best way to present a story about the persecution of Christians in light of the fact that Archbishop Chaput was including instances of authentic persecution and even murder. I was concerned that the invocation of the "homosexual threat" would overshadow everything else in the speech, and in fact in this thread it pretty much has, which is particularly unfortunate, since the group invading the chapel was not made up of "homosexual thugs." "
"Homosexual thugs" was not the Archbishop's term. Everything that Abp. Chaput presented is borne out by the press account I supplied. You don't like that he focused on the homosexual issue, but it should be noted that he was not the person who raised the issue. Rather, some of the invaders of the chapel made a point of their sexual preference and he merely repeated what they had said. You would not have repeated it. Noted, but that does not change the fact that the Archbishop's account was correct and the invasion of the Madrid chapel is not the only time homosexual activists have improperly demonstrated inside a Catholic sanctuary.
BTW, it is appropriate that the sources for a story on the Complutensian University are so polyglot, nu?
8.22.2011 | 2:38am
edmond says:
”Tolerance and respect are absolutely indispensable" How politically convenient.
To make a point, I will borrow from the "born again" movement's slogan, "WWJD". Or directly to the point, Mark 11:15-17 "and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;" Was He politically correct? Had Jesus been sitting in one of the pews of that church, would He not throw them all out for desecrating His Father's house?
To make a point, I will borrow from the "born again" movement's slogan, "WWJD". Or directly to the point, Mark 11:15-17 "and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;" Was He politically correct? Had Jesus been sitting in one of the pews of that church, would He not throw them all out for desecrating His Father's house?
8.22.2011 | 4:19am
Simple Catholic says:
I am from a country where Churches were burned.
I am from a country where Christians are being constantly harassed.
I know full well what the followers of anti-Christs are able to do.
Millions of Catholics like me are constantly challenged, but we will not be afraid.
Because we know that God is on our side. With Jesus Christ as our savior, what is there to fear, but fear itself?
I am from a country where Christians are being constantly harassed.
I know full well what the followers of anti-Christs are able to do.
Millions of Catholics like me are constantly challenged, but we will not be afraid.
Because we know that God is on our side. With Jesus Christ as our savior, what is there to fear, but fear itself?
9.17.2011 | 6:40am
Helga Garley says:
University administrators condemned the act and said an investigation will be carried to identity those responsible. They reiterated the university's commitment to respect for freedom of worship and belief and urged students to be tolerant of each other's religious sentiments. The neutrality of the government in religious matters means no specific belief can be imposed or subjected to persecution. Or this one: "June 2010: English schools are failing to teach pupils about basic Christian beliefs in religious education lessons, according to a new report by education 'watchdog' Ofsted."
**********
Moreover, by trying to banish religion from the public sphere, Mr. Perry’s critics end up cutting themselves out of the debate. When religion is viewed as a fundamentally private matter, the natural corollary is to think that it is inappropriate to criticize someone’s faith. Thus, when such critics lose the constitutional argument, they find themselves in the awkward position of not feeling entitled to directly criticize the religious view in question. . . .
Some people think we would be better off without religion in public life. In the long run, however, we would lose much more than we gain. Our debates may be more contentious if we allow religion in, but they will also be more committed and honest. Just as the Constitution allows Mr. Perry to stake his political future on “The Response,” it allows the rest of us to answer back.
**********
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/how-to-respond-to-rick-perrys-response.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=paul%20horwitz&st=cse
I can't help but wonder if yet another reminder of the "homosexual threat" was the best choice around which to build an article about religious freedom. Invading a chapel is deplorable, but I am sure most people who read this piece by Archbishop Chaput will remember topless young women proclaiming their "homosexual tendencies" in a chapel in Madrid long after they forget, "In Egypt, angry mobs have attacked Christian churches and monasteries, burning them to the ground and murdering the people inside."