Anti blasphemous demonstration in Paris

[Tenofovir]

o.0

So this past spring, when feminist and gay students stormed into a Catholic chapel, interrupting Mass at a Madrid university, that was acceptable to you?

There is a subtle difference.

No, because the disruptions weren’t equivalent. The LGBT students I gather want the Church to bless same-sex intercourse and allow female priests (because they find the Church views offensive). The students themselves should recognise that the mass is sacred (for the attendees, i.e. innocent fellow human beings) and more importantly the mass itself is not an expression of Church anti-gay sex teaching or male only priesthood.
They are hurting innocent human beings who have no ability to change Church teachings in any way while involved in an activity which is itself not offensive to reasonable LGBT folks.

On the other hand the performance is not sacred (and so does not hurt bystanders, beyond taking their time or being a nuisance/inconvenience) and is itself is performing the offensive deed. The offensive deed itself is what’s being petitioned. The act of throwing excrement at a Christian symbol is the bad deed (and is most likely a provocation). The Mass itself is not the offensive deed the LBGTs are upset about. They’re just upset that the priest does not bless them actively or that the priest is not a woman. If the LGBTs wanted to ban all masses and ban all male priests and found all masses per se to be bad, it would be appropriate then, but that would be like Christians protesting all theatrical performances per se or all performances of LGBT plays. I think few people actually have problems with LGBT plays and masses per se themselves.

It would be OK for anti-capital punishment demonstrators to peacefully demonstrate (and disrupt) against death penalty outside a place where the actual death sentence is being carried out. It would not be OK to disrupt all (murder) cases in states/countries which have capital sentences.

The LGBT should be allowed to peacefully disrupt the bishop conferences, councils, think tanks etc where offensive views are being formulated and maintained. Of course the authorities should have the right to remove them non-violently. This goes for Christians protesting offensive plays too.

At the end of the day all protests are disruptive in some way to be effective. Religion and gay rights/feminism are issues people feel very strongly about. If one group is permitted to protest/disrupt for its ‘human rights’ then all other groups should be permitted this too, after all its about equality. The protests should be targeted appropriately though.

 

[Tenofovir]

If I may point some issues with this.

Firstly, the reason they are storming the play is because it is inherently and deeply offensive to them. Is mass inherently offensive to feminests and gay people? I think not. In fact I would love to see arguments that it was, purely because they’d be utterly absurd.

Secondly, the french newspaper which decided to make the ‘prophet’ muhameed its editor as a joke was destroyed by a petrol bomb, perhaps thats why its a play blaspheming Our Lord rather than Islam? Because Christians are seen as easy targets, well not anymore

Thirdly, on any analysis a religious service is infinitely more important than a crude and offensive form of entertainment which does not purport nor indeed could it purport to help those who watch it either spiritually or psychologically or indeed frankly in any way. The mass has claim to being able to do all these things, further as the Mass is the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice on calvary disrespecting it is never acceptable and is in fact the gravest of sins.

Fourthly, Christians are not called to tolerate blasphemy of Our Lord. Tolerance is not even mentioned as a virtue and most certainly is nowhere near an absolute virtue, one is not called to tolerate wrong or sin. If it is prudent to do so one must charitably correct someone who is in a state of sin or commiting sin, one has a duty to do so, it is in fact a a sin against charity not to. As regards blasphemy and certainly blasphemy of their kind one has an absolute duty as a catholic to protest it and even if necessary disrupt and prevent it for the honour and glory of God and the good of those who are calling Gods judgement upon themselves by allowing it to continue or participating.

Good arguments but some of them presuppose a belief in God. For arguments to work in this case however, they have to apply to believers and non-believers. A non believer will not recognise the Christian protesters’ motive in saving the souls of the performers/audience of the offensive show. I personally agree with all your points.

 

[jmj1984]

Good arguments but some of them presuppose a belief in God. For arguments to work in this case however, they have to apply to believers and non-believers. A non believer will not recognise the Christian protesters’ motive in saving the souls of the performers/audience of the offensive show. I personally agree with all your points.

I know they do, but thats kind of the point. I’m not entirely bothered about justifying the actions to non-christians or even non-catholics, only the truth which people can take or leave.

 

[Tenofovir]

I know they do, but thats kind of the point. I’m not entirely bothered about justifying the actions to non-christians or even non-catholics, only the truth which people can take or leave.

Yes but sometimes it helps to beat them at their own game first. This can help open peoples’ eyes to the Truth.

 

[jmj1984]

Yes but sometimes it helps to beat them at their own game first. This can help open peoples’ eyes to the Truth.

True Enough, I just thought someone should give an ‘internal view’ of why the people were demonstrating, from that point of view everything they’ve done is justified, from any point of view the protests are.

Anyway I’ll always give some arguments that presuppose faith.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Well, it could be said that if the play disagrees with you, do not attend. Similarly with religious services you disagree with or political rallies you find offensive.

To disrupt an event, whether a play or a Mass or a political event, is a display of intolerance. And such actions should not be tolerated.

Blasphemy should not be tolerated. We should not tolerate blasphemy. We love sinners but hate their sins. Hurrah to the Catholic Youth of France!

 

[Dale_M]

Well a mass in a Church tends not to make fun of others while this play was offending people’s beliefs. I know you can not go see it and I would not but still, why is there such a need to make fun of the beliefs of others? I mean does it make someone feel better if they know they have mocked Christianity?

I don’t understand it, either. But you don’t even need to leave CAF to see Christians mocking the faith of others.

I guess it is one of the baser impulses in human nature.

 

[Dale_M]

If I may point some issues with this.

Firstly, the reason they are storming the play is because it is inherently and deeply offensive to them. Is mass inherently offensive to feminests and gay people? I think not. In fact I would love to see arguments that it was, purely because they’d be utterly absurd.

I think the reasons given for the disruption of Mass at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid is that the students objected to the teachings of the Catholic Church, its political influence and the impending World Youth Day. They would have liked to see the university’s Catholic chapel permanently closed.

Secondly, the french newspaper which decided to make the ‘prophet’ muhameed its editor as a joke was destroyed by a petrol bomb, perhaps thats why its a play blaspheming Our Lord rather than Islam? Because Christians are seen as easy targets,
That doesn’t seem likely. It assumes that the playwright was looking for any ol’ religion to attack, and he though Christianity was an easier target. Heck, if that is the case, why not attack Buddhism?

I don’t understand the work, and I am not going to defend it. The playwright recently issued a public statement, however it is written in French. I will link to the entire statement, but here is a Google Translate version of one paragraph:

This show is a reflection on the decay of beauty, the mystery of the end. Feces with the old man immediately be filthy are the metaphor of human martyrdom as the ultimate and real condition. The face of Christ shines upon all this by the power of her gaze and asked each viewer in depth. It is this look that disturbs and exposes, certainly not the brown color is evident that the artificial feces. At the same time - and I must say clearly - it is completely false that stain the face of Christ with the faeces in the show.

Indeed. Change does not come without protest. But such protest needs to be non-violent. When the rules of civil discourse are violated, as with the disruption of the Mass and the disruption of the play, freedom and order are diminished. The rule of vigilantism is triumphant. And with it comes the break down of law and order.

 

[jmj1984]

I think the reasons given for the disruption of Mass at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid is that the students objected to the teachings of the Catholic Church, its political influence and the impending World Youth Day. They would have liked to see the university’s Catholic chapel permanently closed.

So it had nothing to do with the mass.

That doesn’t seem likely. It assumes that the playwright was looking for any ol’ religion to attack, and he though Christianity was an easier target. Heck, if that is the case, why not attack Buddhism?

Probably because it wouldn’t be controversial enough and thus not sell enough tickets…

I don’t understand the work, and I am not going to defend it. The playwright recently issued a public statement, however it is written in French. I will link to the entire statement, but here is a Google Translate version of one paragraph:

blog.lefigaro.fr/theatre/2011/10/romeo-castellucci-adresse-aux.html

Sounds like he needs to plan his plays better, as everyone who’s seen it is in no doubt regarding what its about.

Indeed. Change does not come without protest. But such protest needs to be non-violent. When the rules of civil discourse are violated, as with the disruption of the Mass and the disruption of the play, freedom and order are diminished. The rule of vigilantism is triumphant. And with it comes the break down of law and order.

You pre-suppose that law and order are an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. I consider them a means to an end, namely eternal bliss in heaven, when they cease to be subjected to this end they are not to be followed but can be set aside. As for freedom you presuppose that it is an absolute good when it is in fact a relative good, as such in some cases, in many cases it can be bad and this is a case of where it is bad.

If I may explain.

The supreme good is God, all other ‘goods’ are only good insofar as they tend towards this good, that is towards God and as Mans last end is to be with God and see him face to face, a thing can only be ‘good’ if it leads man towards God. Anything which impedes this progress towards God or leads away from it is Bad and must be avoided as an evil.

 

[jmj1984]

Blasphemy should not be tolerated. We should not tolerate blasphemy. We love sinners but hate their sins. Hurrah to the Catholic Youth of France!

 

[Dale_M]

The supreme good is God, all other ‘goods’ are only good insofar as they tend towards this good, that is towards God and as Mans last end is to be with God and see him face to face, a thing can only be ‘good’ if it leads man towards God. Anything which impedes this progress towards God or leads away from it is Bad and must be avoided as an evil.

Yes, but the problem is that human reason, unlike divine reason, is limited. Our understandings are often imperfect and flawed. We do not know God’s specific will regarding how to respond to this play. To assume that we do, is to lay claim to a level of authority and understanding that we do not possess.

It is fine to guide one’s own life by one’s personal understanding of God’s absolute values. After all, any errors are self-imposed and limited in effect to oneself. However, it is quite another story when individuals claim to know Divine Will in specific matters such the need to disrupt this play. We are not God. We do not see what he sees. We do no have his level of understanding.

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, but the problem is that human reason, unlike divine reason, is limited. Our understandings are often imperfect and flawed. We do not know God’s specific will regarding how to respond to this play. To assume that we do, is to lay claim to a level of authority and understanding that we do not possess.

It is fine to guide one’s own life by one’s personal understanding of God’s absolute values. After all, any errors are self-imposed and limited in effect to oneself. However, it is quite another story when individuals claim to know Divine Will in specific matters such the need to disrupt this play. We are not God. We do not see what he sees. We do no have his level of understanding.

Luckily for us we have the Holy Spirit to strengthen us and lead us to the truth, he has spoken through the church and the saints on this matter, blasphemy isn’t to be tolerated.

 

[livnlern]

The world gets crazier every day. How much longer will God abide with the evils in this world?
For me, this song quoted in the comments section of the article sums up the depth of Jesus’ sacrifice for us:
“O sacred head, surrounded
by crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding head, so wounded,
reviled and put to scorn!
Our sins have marred the glory
of thy most holy face,
yet angel hosts adore thee
and tremble as they gaze”

This is worth defending. It’s encouraging to know about the young French Catholics that are speaking out for our Lord. Catholics everywhere should come out of the shadows.