Greek [Orthodox] Church Acts on Crucifix Ban

BBC ^ | 12/13/09 | Malcolm Brabant

[marshmallow]

The Greek Orthodox Church is urging Christians across Europe to unite in an appeal against a ban on crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled last week that the presence of crucifixes violated a child's right to freedom of religion.

Greece's Orthodox Church fears the Italian case will set a precedent.

It has called an emergency Holy Synod meeting for next week to devise an action plan.

Although the Greek Orthodox Church has been at odds with Roman Catholicism for 1,000 years, the judicial threat to Christian symbols has acted as a unifying force.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the compulsory display of crucifixes violated parents' rights to educate their children as they saw fit and restricted the right of children to believe or not to believe.

'Worthy symbols'

The head of the Greek Church, Archbishop Ieronymos, shares Catholic complaints that the court is ignoring the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity.

It is not only minorities that have rights but majorities as well, said the archbishop.

One of his subordinates, Bishop Nicholas from central Greece, lamented that at this rate youngsters will not have any worthy symbols at all to inspire and protect them.

Football and pop idols are very poor substitutes, he said.

The Greek Church has ostensibly intervened in this case in response to an appeal by a Greek mother whose son is studying in Italy.

But without doubt it is concerned that its omnipotence in Greece is under threa

[MarkBsnr]

“I believe that with the evolving relationship between the Church and Italy, and with the jettisoning of Catholicism as state religion, the Vatican is for all means and purposes a fully independent nation with no strings attached in terms of international relations.”

The treaty seems to say otherwise though

The original one; the latest? I think that they have arrived at an understanding both written and unwritten.

I would agree and this explains that a Pope could speak out against Nazi Germany although it is was an alley of Italy

Note the language, though. Very polite and pleading.

[stfassisi]

This does not extend to the Church condemning any state for refusing to install crucifixes in public classrooms.

I'm thinking more of the state taking down of crosses from classrooms they were once in.

Do you believe this is against the will of God and we should be willing to not obey a state and keep placing them back regardless of what the state says?

[MarkBsnr]

This does not extend to the Church condemning any state for refusing to install crucifixes in public classrooms.

I'm thinking more of the state taking down of crosses from classrooms they were once in.

This is a government institution. Drab grey bureaucrats. Can you see them instituting something like this? Decree across the board. Either they're all up or they're all down. No difference from here.

Do you believe this is against the will of God and we should be willing to not obey a state and keep placing them back regardless of what the state says?

That's an interesting proposal. Let me put my answer this way:

I prefer to have an orthodox (Latin or East) society. I believe that as a society, it is far better for the souls and well being of all individuals within it. The Crucifix is a great religious symbol - perhaps the greatest that I have ever considered.

Now, who is the 'we'? Who specifically is going to put them back? Who specifically is going to buy them, and replace them? The better solution, in my estimation, is to have Catholic institutions and then the problem does not exist. That way, the constitution, and the laws of the land support the Christian viewpont and not oppose them.

[stfassisi]

"Now, who is the 'we'?""

Me included.

Don't feel I'm aiming anything at you,dear brother,it was not my intention.

I just look at the lives of some of the early church fathers and wonder what they would think of our weakness.

I was reading some Saint Ignatius today and was at awe of his brilliance and faith,yet he thought nothing of his own life and gave everything for Our Lord and His Church regardless of knowing that opposition to a pagan state would mean brutal torture for him.

If we could only have this type of faith-May God have mercy on me and all of us!

Saint Iganatius in pictures..

;

[annalex]

The law regulates what the state can do with respect to the Catholic religion and the Catholic religion can do with repsect to the state. But the law cannot, for example, tell the Italians what color shoes to wear. If the magority of the Italians show up on the street wearing black shoes, that’s it - they wear black shoes. So long as other color shoes are not forbidden, Italy wears black shoes, with exceptions. The cretins in the Hague have mo more business telling Italians to remove crucifixes than to tell them to go in bare feet.

The error here is fundamental , and it is left wing-inculcated slavishness. The law simply does not reach to this level. It sure tries, — in America it is enslaving us at great pace — but it is still not law, it is tyranny.

[annalex]

killing of unborn children "legal" makes our government what? Satanic?

In short, yes.

When the government does something in accordance with Divine law, we are to obey it, because insofar that it is a friend to "good works", and accords with the Ten Commandments, its power is legitimate (see Romans 13). When it kills babies, it is illegitimate and that part of the law is to be disobeyed. The government is not a person, so it is possible for the goverment to be satanic in some respects and benign in others. This is what our government is like, and most others. "Legalization" of abortion set most of the modern governments on the road to complete illegitimacy. Some went farther than others.

[annalex]

We are not to obey the state when it is at variance with the will of God

It is as simple as that. The state draws its legitimacy from religion.

[MarkBsnr]

The error here is fundamental

It sure is. Wearing specific shoes to school is not the same as mandating crucifixes on schoolroom walls. You keep skipping around the idea that Italian law as it pertains to Italy is somehow irrelevant. Start here at home and put crucifixes on the walls of the schools in your own city before you meddle in other countries' affairs. Why is it that Americans are so quick to tell everyone else in the world what to do when the US morally is heading straight to hell in a handbasket?

[MarkBsnr]

It is as simple as that. The state draws its legitimacy from religion.

What is your evaluation of the current US government, in that respect, and the logical outcome and course of action of its citizens?

[annalex]

My understanding is that it is some fake pan-European entity that imposed itself on the Italian practice — that has been legal in Italy all along.

But be it as it may, so long as a school in Italy is free to hang a Star of David or something else on its wall, I don’t see a problem with all public schools ending up with crucifixes and not Stars of David. It is a decision that is best left to the school principal (who is accountable to the parents in the district), and not dictated by some komissars from Brussels.

[annalex]

evaluation of the current US government

Why, it is consonant with Romans 13. Insofar as the current US government protects justice as expressed in the Ten Commandments and similar precepts of moral theology, and is not a "terror to good works" it is legitimate. When the US government becomes "terror to good works" as for example, when it prohibits expression of religion or, most grievously, allows for the killing of the unborn or the infirm, then that governmental activity is not to be obeyed or facilitated and is illegitimate.

[kosta50]

In short, yes. Not according to +Paul. He states unequivocally "whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God." (Rom 13:2). No exceptions.

[annalex]

Exception is implied with the condition “not a trerror to good work”, which most governments violate. If you want prooftexting, find a Protestant to talk to, and ask him to explain to you since when our elected clowns are “princes”.

[kosta50]

Alex, you are cherry picking out of a KJV version. Romans 13:3 reads:

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; " (Catholic NAB)

The good and the evil has to do with the subjects, not the authority.

[annalex]

Whatever the paraphrase, the passage describes a “prince” who is correctly distinguishing good from evil; what is good and what is evil is explained in terms of the Ten commandments later in the chapter. So, the implication is that if perchance a prince does not correctly differentiate good works from evil works (for example, legalizes murder), then that is not the prince St. Paul is talking about and naturally he is not to be obeyed.

Recall, for example, that Sts Peter and John refused to obey the Sanhedrin (Acts 4).

[kosta50]

if perchance a prince does not correctly differentiate good works from evil works (for example, legalizes murder), then that is not the prince St. Paul is talking about and naturally he is not to be obeyed

Alex, you have it all backwards. In that case the prince would have no authority. Since all authority is given by God, authority cannot be evil; what is evil, according to +Paul, is disobeying any authority. Otherwise, we would admit that the devil has authority and that he is competing with God.

Recall, for example, that Sts Peter and John refused to obey the Sanhedrin (Acts 4).

+Paul was preaching his gospel, remember? What does that have to do with +Peter and +John?

[annalex]

In that case the prince would have no authority

Right. That is what I am saying. Such prince would be an usurper without authority. Such is our government and its Row v. Wade regime.

[MarkBsnr]

My understanding is that it is some fake pan-European entity that imposed itself on the Italian practice — that has been legal in Italy all along.

That is not legal in Italy. You have the Italian and Lateran Treaty which shows it.

But be it as it may, so long as a school in Italy is free to hang a Star of David or something else on its wall, I don’t see a problem with all public schools ending up with crucifixes and not Stars of David.

It's not legal and they are not free to do it.

It is a decision that is best left to the school principal (who is accountable to the parents in the district), and not dictated by some komissars from Brussels.

Alex, think. Who says that the school principal is accountable to the parents in the district? Investigate before you assume that Italians run their schools like the midwest Americans do.

[MarkBsnr]

evaluation of the current US government

Why, it is consonant with Romans 13. Insofar as the current US government protects justice as expressed in the Ten Commandments and similar precepts of moral theology, and is not a "terror to good works" it is legitimate.

The US government is not consonant with Romans 13. It does not protect justice as expressed in the Ten Commandments, it is not consistent with similar precepts of moral theology and increasingly so, is a terror to good works.

Now give us your judgement.

[annalex]

Even assuming that crucifixes in schools were somehow illegal in Italy, it was the job of the Italian legal system — not of the Hague cretins — to address the issue and promptly realize that it is not subject to legal restrictions what is and is not on the school walls.

Whoever the school principal is accountable for, it sure is not any European kangaroo court. That is called subsidiarity, a perfectly Catholic natural law principle.