Topless protest against PQ values charter inside legislature


#1

“Crucifix, décalisse,” they repeated, a crude, sacrilegious Québécois expression loosely translatable as, “Crucifix, get the hell out of here.”…

The PQ’s proposal would leave the Christian symbol looming above the chamber where Quebec’s laws are passed; Christmas trees would remain in public offices; and the giant cross would stay on the public land above Montreal’s Mount Royal. However, lower-level employees of the state would be forced to remove their hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and larger-than-average Christian necklaces…

[Protest group Femen] noted that the crucifix was only placed there under the Duplessis regime after 1936, as a symbol of the pact between his now defunct Union Nationale party and the church.

“[This] crucifix stems from the Great Darkness,” the group said, employing a term commonly used to describe Maurice Duplessis’s pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec.
Source

Quebec seems to illustrate both extremes, an over-identification of the state with the Church, and later the antireligious overreaction in response to it.


#2

[quote="Digitonomy, post:1, topic:340999"]
Quebec seems to illustrate both extremes, an over-identification of the state with the Church, and later the antireligious overreaction in response to it.

[/quote]

I don't think having a pact between Church and State is inherently opposed to the separation of Church and State. The pact might just say that the Church will handle marriage licenses and the State will recognize them, for example, and I don't think that would be objectionable. I don't know what Quebec's pact was; it may have been opposed to the Church's teaching that Church and State operate in separate spheres; but all the quoted text said was that there was a pact of some kind, without specifying what it said. There were lots of pacts between Church and State in the middle ages, i.e. the various concordats signed by cardinals and bishops, and not all of them were bad, in fact many of them are still held in high regard.


#3

[quote="Digitonomy, post:1, topic:340999"]
Quebec seems to illustrate both extremes, an over-identification of the state with the Church, and later the antireligious overreaction in response to it.

[/quote]

During the last Conclave, a religious commentator/expert on CNN, talking about Cardinal Ouelette' s years as Archbishop of Quebec City (capital of Quebec, one of Canada's 10 provinces), said that it (Quebec) was North America's most secularized society. The anticlericalism is vehement here.

«Crucifix, décalice», "calice" is French for chalice, so chalice is here used as a verb with "de" as a prefix, it essentially means "get the f*** out". Lovely, right?


#4

"[This] crucifix stems from the Great Darkness," the group said, employing a term commonly used to describe Maurice Duplessis's pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec.
Source

I read this in the Ottawa Citizen the other day. My first reaction was "you silly people, you are in a much greater darkness ... one where evil reigns."

Ave Maria ...
%between%


#5

[quote="dmar198, post:2, topic:340999"]
I don't think having a pact between Church and State is inherently opposed to the separation of Church and State. The pact might just say that the Church will handle marriage licenses and the State will recognize them, for example, and I don't think that would be objectionable. I don't know what Quebec's pact weas; it may have been opposed to the Church's teaching that Church and State operate in separate spheres; but all the quoted text said was that there was a pact of some kind, without specifying what it said. There were lots of pacts between Church and State in the middle ages, i.e. the various concordats signed by cardinals and bishops, and not all of them were bad, in fact many of them are still held in high regard.

[/quote]

I don't think there was a single written pact. It sounds to me that there was a long lasting period where the provincial government deferred to the Church on a lot of issues, gave the Church the power to run the educational system and some other services to the public, and in return the Church gave its support to the government of that party. I also don't know that you can fairly compare middle ages Europe and 20th century Canada on this issue. Expectations about freedom of religion and the state's responsibility to educate its citizens were considerably narrower in the middle ages.

Here's a Wiki article discussing changes to the educational system during the Quiet Revolution.


#6

As is common in many western countries, it' s not an easy thing to draw the line when it comes to religious accomodations. Are you gonna allow a Sikh to wear a turban in the RCMP, are you gonna let a YMCA director tint the windows of a room where women train, which overlooks a synagogue, are you gonna let a schoolboy from a different religious background bring his kirpan to school, are you gonn a let a woman wearing a burka vote? So for the sake of harmony, let's rule that religion is a private matter. Of course it's imperative and almost a God-given mission that we keep speaking French (sic), as French is an integral part of our past,and of who we are, but this nation would have never survived had it not been for the Catholic Church, but who needs religion? This is yet another attempt, under the guise of civil harmony , to push the Church into a dark corner, hoping it will eventually disappear.This is like getting rid of money to solve the problem of social inequality. You don,t know how to distribute a box of candies to a group of children, why not get rid of the candies and be done with it? This is the "logic" at work. Never mind the fact that most Quebecers still identify as Christians or Catholics*. The clergy may have been perceived as oppressive up to the 1960s, but that was 50 years ago. I think anticlericalism is more a French phenomenon, furthermore our language is a barrier to really understand the rest of North America, otherwise the religious freedom and tolerance from the US could have crossed our borders. Just the simple "God bless America" that closes many politicians' speeches, not a politician here could do that without literally becoming a martyr. You'd have all kinds of indignant militant groups (feminists, secularists, likely homosexual pressure groups) demanding his immediate resignation and saying that we are at long last out of the dark ages etc.

So the world that I see looming looks like this: religion is tolerated as long as it's talked about and praticed in one's home or at Church, a crucifix is offensive, abortion and euthanasia are inalienable birthrights, gay "marriage" is different from but equal to heterosexual marriage, mention of sin=impardonable sin of intolerance.

  • "In Rome do as the Romans do" becomes "In Rome teach Romans about being inclusive".

#7

[quote="Robertanthony, post:3, topic:340999"]
During the last Conclave, a religious commentator/expert on CNN, talking about Cardinal Ouelette' s years as Archbishop of Quebec City (capital of Quebec, one of Canada's 10 provinces), said that it (Quebec) was North America's most secularized society. The anticlericalism is vehement here.?

[/quote]

You are quite correct. My wife is from Drummondville. When we are there visiting relatives, my wife and I would be the youngest ones at Mass if it were not for our children.

It is really somewhat weird. Everyone expects to have their children Baptized, and they make such a big deal of it. But that is often the last time the child will see the inside of a church. :(


#8

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.