March 24, 2008

Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War

" . . . disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium." Ok, they're not actually schoolgirls; that's just what the activists call themselves.

"Speaking after the service, [Cardinal] George said, 'We should all work for peace, but not by interrupting the worship of God.'" (More here.)

I was under the impression that actions such as working for peace actually are the worship of god (as opposed to, e.g., mere words unaccompanied by actions)? (Assuming the sermon interrupted did even actually address any of the great evils of our times?)

Guess Cardinal George's god isn't as evolved as mine? -- scary, 'cause I don't even have one.

One attendee complained about the possible effect on children present. I concur; but I'd like to know what he's done about the deaths of over a million Iraqis, likely including at least tens of thousands of Iraqi children.

6 comments:

  1. And tell me exactly how this advances the cause for peace? It really doesn't and was a childish, stupid act that does nothing to end the war in Iraq. The Church has been a leading voice in opposition to the war in Iraq, so I fail to see the point in protesting during a mass.

    One a secondary note I find it quite hypocritical to ask what anyone has done about humanitarian disaster in Iraq when, quite frankly, I highly doubt you even have the moral high ground.


    I can promise you that, other than bitching about it, you really haven't done anything at all. Honestly, no one has. I am sure you feel otherwise. Maybe you would tell me how you went to anti-war protests or that you post on this blog documenting the tragedy that continues to happen in Iraq, but that isn't much. In fact, the Church has done more to oppose this war then you ever have. I find it ironic that an agnostic, such as myself, is defending the church against hypocrites inside it and against fellow secularist from out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. what could the cardinal do? nothing, this country could care less on what he has to say. What happened on sunday was disrespectful and the wrong place to protest. It is one thing to disprespect the cardinal for supposedly not making an effort and its another to disrespect the worship time of the others whom had nothing to do with his actions. A protest should have been kept outside the church and not durring the worship. Dousing people with fake blood was totally uncalled for. I am highly against the war myself but I would never disrespect the religous services of others. Those people are not against the war, they are sick and looking for attention. I categorize them along with those fools that go to funerals and disrupt the greiving process.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where are these girls, can't find them on the web and I'm horny... Catholic Schoolgirls are the best I hear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How smug of you to assume that person quoted hasn't been doing anything in their power to help bring the war to a peaceful conclusion.

    I rarely, if ever agree with the Catholic Church. However I also have the sense to protest when it's appropriate, in a venue that will spark the most difference - hitting some churchgoers on what THEY would consider one of the holiest days of the year will do nothing for your cause, and will more than likely turn them against such things. I also have the decency to respect their beliefs - I have no interest in them, but last time I checked, you can't just pick and chose who to censor and who to allow - you let it all through and filter it YOURSELF. The moment it crosses the line and someone actually tells me what to do is when I'll go all up in arms - if I had been in the congregation and one of those protesters had gotten me in the face with whatever the hell that liquid they were tossing around was, that's it, a line has been crossed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok everybody. First, I agree with those of you who feel this protest action was inappropriate and possibly ineffectual.

    However, the bigger evil in my view is not the fake blood; it's the real blood; and I am very concerned that so many U.S. citizens remain uninformed and quiescent about the war, among other issues.

    I'd also like to defend myself so far as to say that, although I'd rather not go into the details here, since before the Iraq invasion, I have been more active and I hope more effectual in my efforts against the war than ryan seems to imagine.

    Finally, for everyone's information, here's what I just found regarding the Catholic Church's opposition to the Iraq war (from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_against_war_on_Iraq ), something I admit I'm not knowledgeable about: "The Holy See took a firm stance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Pope John Paul II's special envoy, Pío Cardinal Laghi, was sent by the Church to talk with George W. Bush to express opposition to the war on Iraq. The Catholic Church said that it was up to the United Nations to solve the international conflict through diplomacy. According to the Church, the Iraq war, and indeed most modern wars, did not satisfy the just war requirements set by St. Augustine of Hippo and other theologians. The method of total war (i.e. any non accidental attacks on non combatants, or civilian infrastructure), which has been used in most modern wars since the American Civil War and which was used in Iraq, are not permitted. The Church was also worried of [sic] the fate of the Chaldean Catholics of Iraq. The Vatican worried that they might see the same destruction as happened to the Churches and Monasteries after the war in Kosovo. The Secretary for Relations with States, Archbishop Jean Louis Tauran, said that only the UN can decide on a military attack against Iraq, because a unilateral war would be a 'crime against peace and a crime against international law'. The Cardinal Secretary of State of the Vatican, Angelo Cardinal Sodano, indicated that only the United Nations Security Council had the power to approve an attack in self-defense, and only in case of a previous aggression. His opinion was that the attack on Iraq did not fall into this category and that a unilateral aggression would be a 'crime against peace and a violation of the Geneva Convention'."

    ReplyDelete
  6. May I point out that Wikipedia is not a valid resource for information and that more liable proof would be necessary to prove that point.
    Besides that fact, the Catholic Church has been strongly opposed to the war since it started. I think that what these six people did was highly inappropriate and that if they wanted to make a point, they did not choose the right place to do it. Easter is one of the holiest days of the year for Catholics and this was so highly incongruous that it disgusts me.

    ReplyDelete