I am ashamed


#1

This is horrible
cathcon.blogspot.com/2005/04/muslim-group-transforms-chapel-in.html

We need measures to prevent this, it´s very hard to see this, it´s a profantion, the Cardinal Daniels have to do something


#2

Perhaps all that time spent in a Catholic Church will bring about some conversions. God brings good out of everything.


#3

I am surprised they covered the statue of our Lady. Muslims honor and venerate Mary and believe in the virgin birth.


#4

[quote=Franze]This is horrible
cathcon.blogspot.com/2005/04/muslim-group-transforms-chapel-in.html

We need measures to prevent this, it´s very hard to see this, it´s a profantion, the Cardinal Daniels have to do something
[/quote]

Insofar as I can tell, no acts of desecration have been committed in this case. So I don’t see what the problem is. Here is the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The word desecration is commonly used in regard to churches, altars, chalices, etc.

“(1) A church loses its consecration or blessing when the building is destroyed either wholly or in greater part, or when an addition is made to it of larger extent than the original edifice. **It does not become desecrated: **
[list]
*](a) if a portion of the walls and roof falls in, provided the main portion stands, or
*](b) if all the interior plastering becomes detached, or
*]© if all the crosses disappear, or
*](d) if all the walls are gradually renewed, provided on each occasion the old part is greater than the new, or
*](e) if converted for a while to profane uses, provided it is not polluted (cf. Many, De Locis Sacris).”
[/list]This is me again. I bolded the passage I thought most relevant (“pollution” involves the shedding of blood). Movement of an altar, covering icons, and hanging of a banner to “Allah” (which simply means “God” in Arabic as any Maronite, Chaldean or Arabic-speaking Latin Catholic can testify) are not acts of desecration.

In fact, the acts described in the blog so scrupulously respect the rules of sacrality that I can only conclude that the Kurds are there with the ordinary’s concent and have agreed to respect the rules he has set in conformity with canon law. I would also point out that no images are allowed in a mosque, and if the Kurds had appropriated the building to themselves they would have white washed the frescoes on the walls.

Rather than being ashamed at this act of “desecration”, you should take pride in the Catholic Church’s tact, generosity and charity in making the chapel temporarily available to others.

This practice is also by no means exceptional. I recently visited a church in southern Maryland which had served as a synagogue on Saturdays for an Orthodox Jewish congregation until the completion of its own building. The baptismal found was slightly modified so it could serve as a ritual bath, and the main crucifix over the alter was veiled for the Jewish services.

Irenicist


#5

In Spain, we had closings of immigrants, and they did their necesities in churches, in another ocasion a muslim immigrant was asked for, why can you lock for in mosques and not in churches? his answer was clear, because It´s a holy place.


#6

The Catholic Encyclopedia article mostly discusses accidental rather than deliberate desecration, which this is. It is not just a temporary conversion to profane use; it is a profanation. One is reminded of the French Revolution; no doubt all sorts of excuses were made then as well. A non-Catholic church by definition cannot be profaned or desecrated.

Was a Catholic Church used as a synagogue or did the church belong to some other group?


#7

[quote=Gillibrand]The Catholic Encyclopedia article mostly discusses accidental rather than deliberate desecration, which this is. It is not just a temporary conversion to profane use; it is a profanation. One is reminded of the French Revolution; no doubt all sorts of excuses were made then as well. A non-Catholic church by definition cannot be profaned or desecrated.

Was a Catholic Church used as a synagogue or did the church belong to some other group?
[/quote]


#8

[quote=Gillibrand]The Catholic Encyclopedia article mostly discusses accidental rather than deliberate desecration, which this is. It is not just a temporary conversion to profane use; it is a profanation. One is reminded of the French Revolution; no doubt all sorts of excuses were made then as well. A non-Catholic church by definition cannot be profaned or desecrated.

Was a Catholic Church used as a synagogue or did the church belong to some other group?
[/quote]

What specific acts of desecration are involved in this Belgian case?

What makes you think the profanation is intended as permaent?

In what way is this case remind you of the French revolution?

On what basis are you claiming that a non-Catholic church can’t be desecrated?

And yes, the church that served as a part-time synagogue was Catholic.

Irenicist


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.