Posted on 12/19/2006 8:49:11 PM PST by lightman
'Not a pretty sight' A Virgin Mary statue was found hanging at Stewartstown Presbyterian Church. By BRENT BURKEY Daily Record/Sunday News Article Launched: 12/19/2006 06:04:14 AM
rd/Sunday News Article Launched: 12/19/2006 06:04:14 AM EST
Dec 19, 2006 — Lori Adams went to work early Monday morning and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.
But someone else did and told the church secretary that a Virgin Mary lawn ornament was hanging by the neck in the parking lot of Stewartstown Presbyterian Church.
"It was not a pretty sight when I came into work this morning," said Adams, who added that vandalism had not struck the church in about a year. She called the display that was placed overnight Sunday into Monday "sick."
According to the church and local police, the nearly 2½-foot-tall Virgin Mary figurine was bound by the neck with a rope and tied to a light post hanging from the southeast corner of the church building on College Avenue in Stewartstown.
Someone must have climbed onto the church's roof to commit the crime that the Rev. Bob LaForce called "pretty sick."
A motive for the crime is unknown.
Stewartstown Police Chief George Cunningham said the department wants to talk with whoever might have had a lawn ornament depicting the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus stolen recently.
Any other help would also be appreciated, Cunningham said.
The hanging was the first case of vandalism at the church since LaForce became pastor less than a year ago.
Adams said a few months prior to his appointment, someone had bent handicapped parking signs and shot out a few windows.
"Blasphemous," LaForce said.
IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION
Stewartstown Police are asking anyone with information about a Virgin Mary lawn ornament that was stolen in the past few days or about the hanging of the ornament at Stewartstown Presbyterian Church Sunday into Monday to contact the department at 717-993-5308.
Neither side really deserves such a ridiculous comparison.
As you so well put it, the era of the religious wars was marked by the overthrow of regimes, the squelching of opposition, imposition of new and unheard of laws, etc. The actions you describe were also done by the 20th Century totalitarians. If there was a difference, it was one of degree, not intent.
The Protestants overthrew regimes, squelched opposition, seized property, books, imposed new and unheard of laws, slaughtered their enemies in many cases, suppressed languages and cultures while raising up and championing others, etc. All of this is indisputable.
True, but the Catholics did the same things, sometimes on a grander scale, e.g., Latin America. Does that make the Catholics revolutionaries as well? As far as it goes, the term "Protestant Revolution" is not currently used in mainstream Catholic apologetics, but remains popular among Feeneyites, sedevacantists, and other fringe traditionalist types.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1756328/posts
Let's keep the Reformation/CounterReformation debate here.
You wrote: "The crime in question involved an act of vandalism on a creche at a Presbyterian church by persons of unknown motive. You decided to drag in the red herring of Presbyterian overreaction to Catholic church art that occured 300-450 years ago. At that time, freedom of speech and religion was largely nonexistent anywhere in Europe (with partial exceptions in France and Holland), most nations were mercantilist in economy, suspected witches were often burned at the stake, and monarchs were essentially dictators with little popular input into government decisions. "L'etat, c'est moi" was the motto of the days for monarchs from Portugal to Prussia."
And none of that changes the facts of what I said.
"As you so well put it, the era of the religious wars was marked by the overthrow of regimes, the squelching of opposition, imposition of new and unheard of laws, etc. The actions you describe were also done by the 20th Century totalitarians. If there was a difference, it was one of degree, not intent."
Yes, the intent was different. If you think the intent of Communists, Nazis an Christians was not different then you don't understand any of those groups.
"True, but the Catholics did the same things, sometimes on a grander scale, e.g., Latin America."
No. The Protestants did what they did for power and it had the official sanction of their sects. The Catholic Church did not do those things, and when Catholics did so, it was often in opposition to what the Church actually taught.
"Does that make the Catholics revolutionaries as well? As far as it goes, the term "Protestant Revolution" is not currently used in mainstream Catholic apologetics, but remains popular among Feeneyites, sedevacantists, and other fringe traditionalist types."
Incorrect. In fact, there's much you don't know, or haven't thought through on this. First, the term "Protestant Revolt" and even "Protestant Revolution" are used by mainstream apologists. Here's Dave Armstrong: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ407.HTM And EWTN sure seems mainstream orthodox to me: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9FZ7gp0f-y4J:www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm+Protestant+Revolution+karl+keating&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&ie=UTF-8
Secular scholars from the Ivy League, meaning all Protestants at that time, have been familiar with the term "Protestant Revolution" since at least 1915 (there's a book on Questia from 1915 with that as part of the title). The term Protestant Revolt is much older.
Even Germans sometimes use the term (scroll til you see it in yellow and green): http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:dSmpl4nGgPMJ:www.bi-on.de/mixed/pdf/r2_text.pdf+protestantische+revolution&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=38&ie=UTF-8
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:sycjIUkzVXEJ:www.fraenkisch-crumbach.de/index.php%3Fid%3D133+protestantische+revolution&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=43&ie=UTF-8
And, of course, the term "religious revolt" is also quite old: De Haller, Histoire de la revolution religieuse ou de la reforme protestante dans la Suisse occidentale, 1837.
Whoever did it got the effect they wanted, a rise out of the Christian community-over a plastic Virgin Mary.
Look at the bickering which has degenerated into serious mud slinging on this thread.
What is it? a PLASTIC virgin Mary. Does it have any saving power? No more than a molten or graven image.
Jdg 17:3 And when he had restored the eleven hundred [shekels] of silver to his mother, his mother said, I had wholly dedicated the silver unto the LORD from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image: now therefore I will restore it unto thee.
Any Catholic should by now have the veneration of Mary firmly implanted in their hearts and not have to greve over plastic statues. the plastic has no life. No soul.
In a few years it will crack and then be thrown in the garbage. Quite an end for a plastic saint.
You need to separate the truly divine things from temporal things as plastic.
A few years ago Serrano made an atrocious piece of dreck called the "Pi$$ Christ". Many people in the protestant church where I went became angry about it. Even I waxed indignant, for about ten seconds, then I realized this is exactly what the "artist" wanted to do. I turned my indignation off and separated the religious from the irrelivant.
Look, I said to them. "All this is a piece of cast brass submerged in urine. That is all it is. Is your faith so shallow that you worry over a piece of shaped brass? Christ lives in YOU, not in the brass." They then began to cool down.
And all of us need to cool down also, remember, it is only shaped plastic.
Now being stolen private property is another matter...
The only statues worth worrying over are those such as Michaelangelo's Pieta. When it was smashed with a sledgehammer several years ago the whole world was aghast!Not because it is "religious" It also is solid stone and has no saving power or soul. But it is a true masterpiece of beautiful art.
Rant/off
-A8
***Do you think there is nothing wrong with burning the US flag, or dragging it on the ground, or spitting or urinating or defecating on it? Would you just stand by and fold your arms if that was going on in front of you?**
It depends on if it is private property or not. If it is MY property or US Government property tore from a pole YES I would do something about it.
But if it is the fool's own personal property he is burning I might even squirt gas on it to make it burn better. Of course, my aim might be off just a bit and the fool might get soaked in fuel also.
Murder is murder. If one middle class Jew were killed by the Nazis for being Jewish and another middle class Jew was killed for being bourgeois, both men were just as dead, irrespective of the ideology. Thomas More and Edward Campion were murdered by government courts as much as were Thomas Cramner and Nicholas Ridley. The fact remains that neither Catholics nor Protestants acted in a Christian manner toward one another or toward non-believers, e.g., the persecution of Jews and Muslims in Spain and Luther's anti-Semitic rants. Most governments of this era were authoritarian in any case, more like modern day dictatorships than representative governments.
Blah, blah, blah... should we Catholics counter with all of the nuns, monks, priests, etc, etc that were killed by Protestants back then?
You wrote:
"Murder is murder."
And you know that the intent of every execution performed after an inquisition trial was murderous? You have a source for this?
"If one middle class Jew were killed by the Nazis for being Jewish and another middle class Jew was killed for being bourgeois, both men were just as dead, irrespective of the ideology."
And that would certainly be murder. Now, if a man was executed for spreading heresy, even after being tried for that already, is that murder? No.
"Thomas More and Edward Campion were murdered by government courts as much as were Thomas Cramner and Nicholas Ridley."
Incorrect. The courts that tried Campion and More were manifestly corrupted by the monarch's power. The two Protestants you mentioned were not tried in the same way, same manner, with the same intent. Queen Mary also did not corrupt the court that tried them. Were they tortured as Campion was? I doubt it. Were they denied counsel as Campion was? No. Were they forced to participate in debates as Campion was? No. Campion had always wanted the debates, but never expected to get them only after being tortured and deprived of books, pens and paper. Campion won anyway.
"The fact remains that neither Catholics nor Protestants acted in a Christian manner toward one another or toward non-believers, e.g., the persecution of Jews and Muslims in Spain and Luther's anti-Semitic rants."
It is true that both Catholics and Protestants failed to be what they should be. The difference is that the Catholic Church was started by Christ, and was still holy no matter what the failing of its members. The Protestant sects were started by men, and were often created with the very needs of persecution in them. Is it not true that anti-Catholicism was at the very heart of some of the creeds, confessional and statements of Protestantism?
"Most governments of this era were authoritarian in any case, more like modern day dictatorships than representative governments."
In some ways that is true.
Executing your religious opponents for heretical opinions is murder, irrespective of the coloring of the law. It is of the same order as Stalin killing Old Bolsheviks, kulaks, and religious adherents. As the 19th Century Anglican Bishop J.K. Ryle put it, it was a barbarous age.
you wrote:
"I stand by my statement, murder is murder."
Does anyone here doubt that murder is murder?
"The primary definition of murder, given by Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." The statutes permitting the government of England to execute heretics upon conviction were established in positive law, but so were the statutes permitting the Soviet government to execute dissidents during Stalin's purges of the military and the Communist Party, for example."
Heresy is an error. Wanting freedom from Communist oppression is not. You equate the two as if they were the same.
"As for intent, when the English government was in the hands of Catholics, Protestant doctrine was heretical and subject to the death penalty, as was the case in the reverse. Of course, More, Campion, Cranmer, and Ridley were guilty under the laws of England under Protestant and Catholic interpretation, respectively. Whether the Catholics were nicer to Cranmer than the Protestants were to Campion is irrelevant. At least More was beheaded rather than barbecued."
You make several errors. 1) Protestant heresy is always heresy no matter who is in charge. 2) More was not executed for heresy. He was executed after a sham trial for treason for refusing to commit the sin of apostacy or schism. 3) Neither Cramner nor Ridley were tried in a sham trial. 4) Cramner and Ridley knew the Catholic faith in their youth and abandoned it. More did not abandon his faith and was murderer for it. Campion joined the faith his forefathers held for nearly 1,000 years and was murdered for it.
"Executing your religious opponents for heretical opinions is murder, irrespective of the coloring of the law."
So say you. The difference is that only the Protestants were heretics.
"It is of the same order as Stalin killing Old Bolsheviks, kulaks, and religious adherents. As the 19th Century Anglican Bishop J.K. Ryle put it, it was a barbarous age."
All ages are barbaric.
Yes it does as always, and that's one reason why I usually avoid religion threads. But judging by the title and by the good will usually engendered by the Christmas season I didn't think that this thread would degenerate into another Catholic vs Protestant mudslinging contest over atrocities that were committed 4 or 5 hundred years ago by both sides, and in more instances than not, for political reasons rather than for strictly theological differences. Apparently I gave some FReepers credit for more common courtesy than they are willing to demonstrate.
Thank God my salvation doesn't depend on things that were said, written, or done by mortal men and women 4 or 5 centuries ago. It depends on what the sinless, perfect, Holy Son of God did for me on the cross almost 20 centuries ago.
You are arguing technicalities here, unless you really believe that Catholics may justly punish non-Catholics for their beliefs by prison, seizure of property, and even execution as long as it is done by men in judicial or clerical robes. The fact is that, in 16th Century England, two Catholic men were murdered by Protestants and two Protestant men were murdered by Catholics, all under color of law. The state actors in these and other cases did not act in a Christian manner.
It is true that all ages have barbarities, but the era of the religious wars was particularly so, as was the 20th Century with the Communist and Nazi regimes.
You wrote: "The victims of Stalin's purges in the Red Army and the Communist Party were as much advocates of Marxism as he was. They were hardly advocates of freedom."
I never mentioned those people. I was thinking about those who were clearly and irrefutably murdered: common people, not those who worked for Stalin and then were cruely betrayed as they had betrayed others.
"You are arguing technicalities here, unless you really believe that Catholics may justly punish non-Catholics for their beliefs by prison, seizure of property, and even execution as long as it is done by men in judicial or clerical robes. The fact is that, in 16th Century England, two Catholic men were murdered by Protestants and two Protestant men were murdered by Catholics, all under color of law. The state actors in these and other cases did not act in a Christian manner."
The fact is that two Catholics (and many thousands more) were murdered by Protestants, and three hundred Protestants were put to death (but not murdered) according to the law.
"It is true that all ages have barbarities, but the era of the religious wars was particularly so, as was the 20th Century with the Communist and Nazi regimes."
No. The 20th century was more barbaric than the 16th. The 20th was also the step-child of the 16th. As Pius X predicted, Protestantism had inexorably led to atheism.
Stalin had both Marxists who opposed him and non-Marxists (kulaks, religious believers, ethnic minorities) killed. There may have been a degree of poetic justice in the imprisonment and execution of the Marxists, but both groups were persecuted or murdered under color of law. There is no essential difference between the actions of Stalin and those of Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth I, other than the scale of murder. If the premises for a trial are based on unjust law, then the trial is therefore unjust and those sentenced are murdered.
As to your presumption that Protestantism leads to atheism, history indicates its falsehood. The first major outburst of atheism occurred in the French Revolution, in a nation where the Protestant influence was effectively removed following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the emigration of the Huguenots to America and the Protestant nations of Europe. A major seedbed of atheism was Germany, a nation divided between Protestants and Catholics and where the devastation of the Thirty Years War caused many Germans to reject religion altogether. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, regimes in Italy, Mexico, and Spain, where Protestantism never established more than a toehold and where the government and Catholic Church effectively suppressed religious dissent, were extremely anticlerical. The anticlerical parties in those countries were influenced by atheistic, Grand Orient Masonry, based in France, and severely persecuted the Catholic Church and the clergy. As you are probably aware, the unified Italian republic, led by Grand Orient Masons, stole the Papal States and forced several Popes into exile in the Vatican. The first successful Communist revolution was in Russia, a nation historically neither Catholic nor Protestant, but Orthodox. The most powerful foe of Communism during the Cold War era was the United States, a nation mainly founded by Protestants and with a Protestant majority (at least until recently).
you wrote:
"Please consider that the late Pope John Paul II apologized for what happened to Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and others under the Inquisition. The devout Catholics, Franco and Salazar, permitted non-Catholic worship and did not punish Protestant or other non-Catholic clergy during their rule of their respective countries."
You know less than you think. Just to give you but one example: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,772711,00.html
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about.
"In fact, Franco permitted the return of the Jews to Spain after 450 years of exile. Even in the 16th Century, there were Catholic voices that opposed the abuses of regimes that acted in the name of the Catholic Church: Bartolomeo de Casas and the School of Salamanca. Your rationalization of the murder of Protestants in England, and presumably elsewhere, is certainly out of step with your church's current leadership and the actions of Catholic civil rulers and clergy."
I made no rationalization of murder whatsoever. Cramner and Ridley were not murdered. I am also not at all out of step with the pope or my Church. You simply have no idea of what you're talking about.
"Stalin had both Marxists who opposed him and non-Marxists (kulaks, religious believers, ethnic minorities) killed. There may have been a degree of poetic justice in the imprisonment and execution of the Marxists, but both groups were persecuted or murdered under color of law."
True. I was in no way thinking about them, however. I, like most people, first consider the simple, innocent people of Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere when I put the words "Communist" and "murder" together.
"There is no essential difference between the actions of Stalin and those of Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth I, other than the scale of murder. If the premises for a trial are based on unjust law, then the trial is therefore unjust and those sentenced are murdered."
Nonsense. Stalin murdered for personal glee as much for his stupid five year plans. Mary never murdered anyone. About 300 prominent Protestants were tried under English law and executed while she was queen. Mary did not relish these executions. That is known. Elizabeth did urge on the killing and brought the killing to Ireland as well. Mary also convinced the Church to not pursue any claims to old properties stolen under Henry VIII. She did not want civil strife or discord, but she also believed in protecting souls from ruinous doctrine (she, like just about every other monarch in the early sixteenth century swore a coronation oath to protect the faith and the faithful from heresy). Elizabeth was different. She made no decision that might weaken her power or endanger her throne. Mary did so out of sincere belief in principle.
"As to your presumption that Protestantism leads to atheism, history indicates its falsehood."
It is not my presumption. It is a fact. All Protestant nations, save the USA, have become essentially atheist.
"The first major outburst of atheism occurred in the French Revolution, in a nation where the Protestant influence was effectively removed following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the emigration of the Huguenots to America and the Protestant nations of Europe. A major seedbed of atheism was Germany, a nation divided between Protestants and Catholics and where the devastation of the Thirty Years War caused many Germans to reject religion altogether. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, regimes in Italy, Mexico, and Spain, where Protestantism never established more than a toehold and where the government and Catholic Church effectively suppressed religious dissent, were extremely anticlerical. The anticlerical parties in those countries were influenced by atheistic, Grand Orient Masonry, based in France, and severely persecuted the Catholic Church and the clergy. As you are probably aware, the unified Italian republic, led by Grand Orient Masons, stole the Papal States and forced several Popes into exile in the Vatican. The first successful Communist revolution was in Russia, a nation historically neither Catholic nor Protestant, but Orthodox. The most powerful foe of Communism during the Cold War era was the United States, a nation mainly founded by Protestants and with a Protestant majority (at least until recently)."
You only have the picture half right. Protestantism was grounded in rationalism. The development of Protestantism along rationalistic lines meant that it would inevitably lead to atheism through modernism and liberalism. You forget just how Protestant and rationalistic the French Revolution was. Masonry was founded by Protestants in England in 1725. Its beliefs never fit in with Catholicism. It is, in fact, a Protestant/rationalistic parody of orthodox Christianity.
You cited an article from Time magazine that showed that Protestantism was proscribed at the beginning of Franco's regime. However, by 1967, his government granted Protestants, Muslims, and Jews freedom to worship, as this Time story indicates: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,843451,00.html.
From the text of the article, it is apparent that the Spanish government actually followed a policy of de facto tolerance from 1945 afterward, as Protestant numbers, though small, had increased sixfold in a little over two decades and Moroccan Jews were permitted to emigrate to Spain in 1956. In Portugal, there were restrictions on freedom of religion under Salazar, but Protestants and, from the 1960s onward, Jews and Muslims were tolerated.
With respect to the regimes of Franco and Salazar, my statement was too sweeping, but not entirely incorrect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.