Allah Takes Over Catholic Church

[dzheremi]

Allah Takes Over Catholic Church

I just stumbled upon this on a Coptic Orthodox board I sometimes read. What do you all think? Honestly I can’t say I’m surprised, given the (stereotypical) left-wing politics involved in rationalizing this desecration. Surely if the opposite were to happen…oh, wait, no. Nevermind. That would never happen because Muslims have some sense of what is holy and correct within their own religion. Why Belgian Catholics apparently do not, I don’t know. If this is supposed to make some kind of political point, I don’t know what it is (or rather, I do know what it is but this is an awful way of making it).

It is interesting…in the comments made about this story, the poster of the link laments that the church was handed over to Muslims to be used for prayer (among other things in their “protest”) while the local Coptic Orthodox do not have a church in Brussels, but Brussels has literally dozens of mosques already. Is this indicative of Roman Catholic priorities, or just a stupid decision on the part of a particular bishop? And if it’s just one bishop’s stupid decision, where is the appropriate reprimand? Why is this allowed to happen with no consequences?

 

[Ashurie]

I think you missed the whole point of it…and I will point it out…

The Belgian Bishops have opened their churches to illegal immigrants in order to pressurize the Belgian authorities to allow the immigrants to stay in the country.

Most of the immigrant squatters in the churches are Muslims.

They are assisting the Belgian authorities, by showing kindness to those who are in need…sure they shouldn’t have put the banner up. But I am sure those people have been through enough as it is…

 

[Kadaveri]

Only about 5% of Belgium’s Christians go to church once a week, so it’s not like they’re being used for much else.

 

[dzheremi]

They are assisting the Belgian authorities, by showing kindness to those who are in need…

How did you get that out of what you quoted? It says they allowed it to put pressure on the government. How is that assisting the authorities? Isn’t that the exact opposite of assisting the authorities?

sure they shouldn’t have put the banner up. But I am sure those people have been through enough as it is…

So because someone has been through a lot it gives them the right to use the church to pray according to their specifically anti-Christian religion which denies the Divinity that the same church has presumably been consecrated in the name of, and for the worship of? I did not chose the tags “pearls” and “swine” arbitrarily.

Kadaveri:

Your comment completely misses the point. Even if there is only the priest alone in the church, or nobody in the church at a particular time, it is still a cause for concern that a non-Christian group should use it in this manner. They have covered statues of the virgin and done other unholy things in accordance with THEIR religion in a building that is not consecrated for use by that religion, with the apparent compliance of the religious authority who should know better. It is not a numbers game. It is a matter of principle, no matter how unpopular having principles apparently is to some people.

 

[ChadS]

Is this banner even up anymore? The article linked to in the OP is 4 1/2 years old.

If this sort of thing is ongoing couldn’t a more recent article or example be found?

ChadS

 

[mardukm]

I don’t see any desecration taking place. Many Churches were turned to hospices during WW2. The bishops may be seeing the situation from that perspective.

I am wary about the report that the statue of the Virgin was veiled to accomodate the Muslims for several reasons. 1) Muslims have a healthy veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and perhaps the reporter did not know that; 2) I believe that in the Latin Rite, the veiling of Mary is normally done for a portion of Easter. The photographer may have been present during that time. 3) Covering of images is also done apart from the Lenten season to prevent desecration, accidental or otherwise.

It appears that the Muslim prayers are restricted to a side chapel?

in any case, the situation is mind-boggling, and I’m not qualified to comment on Belgium politics.

As far as the Coptic Orthodox are concerned, I am wondering if they requested the local bishop to use the Catholic Church for worship. Were they denied? Or was the CO just complaining without justification?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

It makes no difference to me if this happened 6 years or 6 minutes ago. It is absolutely vile.

 

[UnitedHearts]

Allah Takes Over Catholic Church

I just stumbled upon this on a Coptic Orthodox board I sometimes read. What do you all think? Honestly I can’t say I’m surprised, given the (stereotypical) left-wing politics involved in rationalizing this desecration. Surely if the opposite were to happen…oh, wait, no. Nevermind. That would never happen because Muslims have some sense of what is holy and correct within their own religion. Why Belgian Catholics apparently do not, I don’t know. If this is supposed to make some kind of political point, I don’t know what it is (or rather, I do know what it is but this is an awful way of making it).

It is interesting…in the comments made about this story, the poster of the link laments that the church was handed over to Muslims to be used for prayer (among other things in their “protest”) while the local Coptic Orthodox do not have a church in Brussels, but Brussels has literally dozens of mosques already. Is this indicative of Roman Catholic priorities, or just a stupid decision on the part of a particular bishop? And if it’s just one bishop’s stupid decision, where is the appropriate reprimand? Why is this allowed to happen with no consequences?

Helping those in need is all very well and good… But that does mean “bend-over backwards” !!! IMO, it’s a load of BS!!! Since the Cardinal Godfried Danneels was the man in charge at that time… and as many of us know that the wheels of justice move very slowly. This article might be of interest to you…
huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/godfried-danneels-belgian_n_698134.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

You have to always. always remember that Christ chose his destiny. He didn’t chose to have his followers fight for him. Its just that simple.

Our Cross in not one of violence but to spread the Word of Our Lord and make it known that there is no Salvation without Jesus Christ. Then, to continue to Pray for all Sinners and those whose Hope grows thin.

What did Christ say? “Don’t cry for me, cry for yourself and your children. For if they do this in the Greenwood, what will they do in the Dry?”

Now you know what they will do in the Dry. 45-million Christians killed last Century. Over half of all Christians. And this century is yet worse to date by statistic.

God Bless, GT

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see any desecration taking place. Many Churches were turned to hospices during WW2. The bishops may be seeing the situation from that perspective.

I am wary about the report that the statue of the Virgin was veiled to accomodate the Muslims for several reasons. 1) Muslims have a healthy veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and perhaps the reporter did not know that; 2) I believe that in the Latin Rite, the veiling of Mary is normally done for a portion of Easter. The photographer may have been present during that time. 3) Covering of images is also done apart from the Lenten season to prevent desecration, accidental or otherwise.

It appears that the Muslim prayers are restricted to a side chapel?

in any case, the situation is mind-boggling, and I’m not qualified to comment on Belgium politics.

As far as the Coptic Orthodox are concerned, I am wondering if they requested the local bishop to use the Catholic Church for worship. Were they denied? Or was the CO just complaining without justification?

Blessings,
Marduk

The statues are veiled (covered) from Holy Thursday to Easter Vigil. Also, they are to be veiled if the Church is to be used for non-worship, non-Catholic purposes, such as what is described

 

[dzheremi]

The statues are veiled (covered) from Holy Thursday to Easter Vigil. Also, they are to be veiled if the Church is to be used for non-worship, non-Catholic purposes, such as what is described

Ah. The bolded portion I did not know. That could explain it. I guess it was foolish of me to parrot the Coptic Orthodox criticism of that particular action when there could be a perfectly understandable reason for it, from a Catholic perspective.

UnitedHearts: Yes, I found that article myself while trying to get to the bottom of just who was responsible for OK’ing this use at that time. It is…well…I don’t have words for it. It saddens, angers, and confuses me greatly that such people are in leadership roles within the Catholic Church to begin with.

Mardukm: I am not sure what the Coptic Christians in Brussels have done about their situation. Elsewhere in the thread on the CO forum, it was mentioned that the nearest CO Church is about a half an hour away by train, so it is possible that requests to use the church in Brussels were denied on the grounds that there already is one nearby, but I don’t know. In any case, am I being unreasonable by assuming that it is common sense to offer use of the church to other Christians first, particularly when Brussels is home to 21 mosques already? This is, after all, a political demonstration, which does not need to involve the occupation of a church in order to make its point. The fact that it is encouraged by the church leadership of the area, apparently backed by Rome (or at least tacitly supported, from what i can tell), is unbelievably discouraging to me.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Why is the Church in Brussels supporting illegal activities? Doesn’t the Church allow each state to make its own civil laws and enjoins Catholics to obey them? I can’t see any reason why the Church wouldn’t apply this in Belgium. One could hardly say that Belgium is a totalitarian state. It is interesting that these peoples are described as illegal immigrants. Now, if they were genuine asylum seekers I could accept the Church taking some stance in their favour. Doesn’t the Catholic Church in Belgium have other properties where these people could be housed? Perhaps the Cardinal could have them in his house. I do not think the church should be turned over to this profane use. If there is a Muslim community and mosques in Brussels why isn’t this community assisting these people?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why is the Church in Brussels supporting illegal activities? Doesn’t the Church allow each state to make its own civil laws and enjoins Catholics to obey them? I can’t see any reason why the Church wouldn’t apply this in Belgium. One could hardly say that Belgium is a totalitarian state. It is interesting that these peoples are described as illegal immigrants. Now, if they were genuine asylum seekers I could accept the Church taking some stance in their favour. Doesn’t the Catholic Church in Belgium have other properties where these people could be housed? Perhaps the Cardinal could have them in his house. I do not think the church should be turned over to this profane use. If there is a Muslim community and mosques in Brussels why isn’t this community assisting these people?

Even in the US, the Church’s position on migration is different from that of the government. Remember that the Church doesn’t bend to the civil laws if it involves a greater good. The Church sees most illegal immigrants as people who are fleeing persecution or poverty from their native lands. Its more of an act of charity rather than breaking the law.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ah. The bolded portion I did not know. That could explain it. I guess it was foolish of me to parrot the Coptic Orthodox criticism of that particular action when there could be a perfectly understandable reason for it, from a Catholic perspective.

I’ve read this in the instructions in the past. Part of it of course is that the Sanctuary should be inaccessible and the tabernacle must be empty. Then all statues and icons including the Stations of the Cross should be veiled or hidden.

 

[UnitedHearts]

Helping those in need is all very well and good… But that does mean “bend-over backwards” !!! IMO, it’s a load of BS!!! Since the Cardinal Godfried Danneels was the man in charge at that time… and as many of us know that the wheels of justice move very slowly. This article might be of interest to you…
huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/godfried-danneels-belgian_n_698134.html

****** correction of typo error *******

“… but that doesn’t mean “bend over backwards”…”

In continuation of the discussion…

I fail to see how nor why some posters are kindov soft-soaping the whole incident even though it was in the past. Like I said, doing good is really good and very Christian like. But here we have TVs, computers, fire(s) alighting, and God alone knows what else went on there. etc. etc. etc. To me… it appears that these muslims were taking “kindness for weakness”. And because sin weakens the will and the intellect, the authorities were unable to react or see anything wrong in what went on here.

I am fed up with this sluggish and disgusting behaviour of our very own leaders! I root for a cleansing… inside-out! The outward show of pomp and glamour, the greed that is now-a-days a done thing… is deplorable! I just wanna vent - vent at our own priests/ bishops and cardinals. Thankfully not ALL of them are tarred with the same brush.

 

[malphono]

Ah. The bolded portion I did not know. That could explain it. I guess it was foolish of me to parrot the Coptic Orthodox criticism of that particular action when there could be a perfectly understandable reason for it, from a Catholic perspective.

No, I don’t think it was foolish at all. Seems to me the Coptic criticism is correct. Whether the statues were veiled or not is rather immaterial. Heaven knows I’m not a rightist, (far from it, in fact), but if the bishops in Belgium are all that concerned about illegal aliens who adhere to a false religion, (and apparently the local leaders of their own false religion aren’t being particularly helpful), there are other things that could be done. One of which is the option to provide them with one-way tickets back to their homelands. Some of a more “inclusive” bent might see that as a bit harsh, but I don’t: it beats profaning a consecrated church for the benefit of members of a false religion.

 

[UnitedHearts]

Why is the Church in Brussels supporting illegal activities? Doesn’t the Church allow each state to make its own civil laws and enjoins Catholics to obey them? I can’t see any reason why the Church wouldn’t apply this in Belgium. One could hardly say that Belgium is a totalitarian state. It is interesting that these peoples are described as illegal immigrants. Now, if they were genuine asylum seekers I could accept the Church taking some stance in their favour. Doesn’t the Catholic Church in Belgium have other properties where these people could be housed? Perhaps the Cardinal could have them in his house. I do not think the church should be turned over to this profane use. If there is a Muslim community and mosques in Brussels why isn’t this community assisting these people?

Yea… Matthew! The Cardinal should have kept them in his house or some other property owned by the Church. Why use our blessed and consecrated building to encourage these …?

Let’s see if any muslim will allow such activity to go on in their mosques? Other than using it for terrorism and a place to stash away weaponry… tuff luck I say

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, I don’t think it was foolish at all. Seems to me the Coptic criticism is correct. Whether the statues were veiled or not is rather immaterial. Heaven knows I’m not a rightist, (far from it, in fact), but if the bishops in Belgium are all that concerned about illegal aliens who adhere to a false religion, (and apparently the local leaders of their own false religion aren’t being particularly helpful), there are other things that could be done. One of which is the option to provide them with one-way tickets back to their homelands. Some of a more “inclusive” bent might see that as a bit harsh, but I don’t: it beats profaning a consecrated church for the benefit of members of a false religion.

Isn’t this a bit harsh. Reminds me of yesterday’s reading at Divine Liturgy, The Good Samaritan. We’re just being good neighbors to the Muslims despite of religious differences, as the Samaritan was to the Jew.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yea… Matthew! The Cardinal should have kept them in his house or some other property owned by the Church. Why use our blessed and consecrated building to encourage these …?

Let’s see if any muslim will allow such activity to go on in their mosques? Other than using it for terrorism and a place to stash away weaponry… tuff luck I say

As Catholics we should live by a higher standard, not by their standard
If they wish to make their mosques exclusive and bases for such activity, so be it. We shouldn’t use it as a yardstick to compare what is charity for us.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Would the Muslims ever allow the Christians to pray in their mosques? Absolutely not. They exploit our pliability, while being resolute and firm themselves. Europe is giving itself up. Slow and steady wins the race.