Comments on: Pumpkins 1; Crucifixes 0

By: Stephen J. Haessler

Stephen J. Haessler — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:32:22 +0000

There is a hint of relativism in the observation that pictures of Mohammed would be found just as objectionable and another example of religious coercion in a different form. Muslims do not allow such direct imagery of the prophet. It is regarded as idolatrous. The equivalence of Christian and Muslim symbols is the cross and the crescent moon and star. But there is not an equivalence between the cross and moon crescent and star. One is the symbol of salvation, the other is not. True, Christ respects free will and does not force himself. His invitation is sometimes an emphatic one, however, as in the temple when he declared the mixing of religious and commercial activities as inappropriate. Why regard public school students as captive? Aren’t all students part of a captive audience. All schooling involves some amount of coercion at the student level. Less so at the parental, educational decision-maker level. The issue is the degree of validity of the mother’s complaint that displaying the cross in the school prevented her from raising her child with the values she believes in, a position the court agreed with and with which I disagree. And to correct a presumption, I would not find a picture of Mohammed objectionable. He is depicted in the Divine Comedy as one of the schismatics. He is depicted in textbooks and encyclopedias. If he were depicted on a school wall I would exercise my parental right to not send my children to that school because symbols matter to me. Finally, are children of atheists in Catholic schools coerced like their counterparts in the public school in question? If they are not, why not? But if they are, it seems the implication of this position is the state has an obligation to re-create the symbolic landscape of Europe in the image and likeness of the loudest complainer. This is not my understanding of the proper role of the state.

By: bill bannon

bill bannon — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:40:26 +0000

I think from the signals in both your posts that you both simply already have your answer and you want to debate and then come out victorious. It’s simple. Within a classroom the student is captive and must look in that direction. Neither of you would want a picture of Mohammed up there at the front of the class and neither would I. Our obligation to preach presumes a non captive audience. Christ did not force Himself on people. I go out and pass out Aquinas and Augustine quotes in Manhattan but each person is free to place it in the next garbage can and some do and some take it onto the train.
But that is the point: they are not a captive audience as in the school room case.

By: Stephen J. Haessler

Stephen J. Haessler — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:46:08 +0000

Thank you Bill for your comment. It is always great to hear from folks with interesting insights. You raise an interesting point about religious coercion. Maybe you can help me think it through. When you write that steeples can be avoided freely by simply averting one’s eyes, does this mean that atheists and those following other religious traditions can re-direct their glance away from Christian symbols? If so, is this practical or even safe? I foresee many traffic accidents in Europe, Italy in particular, though they drive pretty crazy there even without people averting their glances. But this averting glances could pose more problems. Wouldn’t the coercion come in in the likely re-shaping of the Italian skyline to take down the innumerable Christian symbolic distractions that permeate that country? Finally, does it work both ways? In other words, is it religious coercion in the sense you describe for Catholic parents to have pagan symbols like jackolanterns displayed in public school settings where their children attend, or does it only work the other way, for non-Catholic parents to feel coerced by the presence of Christian symbols?

By: Tiara Zarcone

Tiara Zarcone — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:33:03 +0000

Mr. Bannon, your comments caught my attention and I think they are worth discussing further. You point out that the Church has “the fullness of the means of salvation”, by which I think you mean that the Church is called always and everywhere to evangelize and announce the Gospel, which declares the good news that man can be saved through (and only through) Jesus Christ, and that salvation through Jesus Christ can only occur through the Church as His Body and Bride (see documents such as Dominus Iesus and Evangelii Nuntiandi). If we acknowledge that the Church is called to help bring all men to Jesus Christ, and if we further acknowledge that Christ has commanded the Church to do so, does the Church not have a moral obligation to announce the Gospel? What I found interesting is that you later state that the display of crucifixes qualifies as “religious coercion”. I’m curious as to what your logic is and hope that you will reply with a clarification. I would argue that the display of a crucifix does not necessarily mean one is being coerced into becoming Christian. The point of a crucifix is meditation. For an atheist, they may think about who the man was; for a Christian, the Incarnate Word; for a Jew or Muslim, the message of the prophet. To claim that the display of a crucifix is religious coercion is akin to claiming that the display of the Star of David is the same. Yet no one would claim this.

By: bill bannon

bill bannon — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:21:30 +0000

I believe the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation and does not need to coerce others like manipulating their looking at the cross above the teacher’s head for 16 years…. which can only have the opposite effect in the long run.
The Church steeples in Europe can be avoided with one’s free glance. In classrooms the children are captive by law and must face the teacher and the crucifix is generally over his head. It is religious coercion of those who do not believe. Cardinal Bertone is thinking of we and does not mention the dilemna of the parents that feel their non Catholic children are being brain washed slowly.
Why do we justify virtually anything untoward that we do either now or long ago?