This picture is of Archbishop Nichols of Westminster. Visiting the leader of the Hindus,His Holiness Pramukh Swami Mahara, Archbishop Nichols..; well let”s let Archbishop Nichols own (original and now hastily amended) press release say it so that you don’t think I am misreporting it.
Yogvivek Swami guided the Archbishop around the Mandir complex, including the sanctum sanctorum where the Archbishop offered flowers at the altar to the deities. He then moved to the deity of Shri Nilkanth Varni (Bhagwan Swaminarayan) where he joined Yogvivek Swami in praying for world peace and harmony.
Oh dear. I will stipulate that the Archbishop probably does not believe in these pagan gods, but how dumb can you be? Damian Thompson says, “The offer of the candle and the words accompanying it imply that Hindus worship the same God as Christians, which I would have thought even a primary-school textbook would make clear is not the case.” Yes, even a schoolgirl would know better.
So why would someone like Archbishop Nichols, who should and presumably does know better, do something like this? The short answer is that someone forgot to tell the good Archbishop that this old school Jurassic ecumenism is dead. This old school ecumenism,ya know the kind that says that it doesn’t really matter what I believe or what you believe had been very sickly since 2005, finally died last month. One can forgive poor ol’ +Vin, so caught up with the surprise Anglican Apostolic Constitution, he may not have heard the news.
So please, if any of our readers are in the UK, somebody run over and tell +Vin that his old buddy passed away. Maybe we can then avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future.
Oh, and by the way, would somebody be kind enough to let Cardinal Kasper know? I don’t think he has heard the news either.
November 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Are there any canonical penalties associated with publicly violating the first commandment and worshiping other deities? I'm not not necessarily saying that's what Archbishop did (although the situation appears scandalous regardless of his intent), I'm just wondering if there's anything in canon law about it.
November 25, 2009 at 2:52 pm
As I recall some GREAT passed Pope is being considered for beatification, ahem, and he was a BIG proponent of this particular "school" of ecumenism.
God help us.
November 25, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It is not ecumenism!!!! It, by definition cannot be so. We can only be ecumenical with other Christians (even when we have more in common with other faiths than other Christian bodies of worshipers). It was an interreligious dialogue or an interfaith encounter. (Pedantic moment ended).
November 25, 2009 at 5:42 pm
What's the canonical penalty for failing to hold the perps in The Irish Sisters of Mercy and the Irish Christian Brothers scandal to account?
November 25, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What is with the assault of liberal commentators on this site. Patrick and Matthew: please clean house.
November 25, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Chris, this wouldn't be a blog if it didn't have a resident dissenter. Craig's just doing his job…
November 26, 2009 at 6:37 am
The colors are kind of psychedelic – maybe they are both under the influence ….. hmm, of what, I wonder?
Mum 26
November 26, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Re: Craig,
In the eyes of God, complicity in sin is the same as the sin itself if done with full knowledge about a grave matter with malice aforethought. And idolatry is a grave matter since it's a direct violation of the First Commandment; worship to idols is a direct "in your face" insult to the Lord and to the many Martyrs who shed their blood rather than defile themselves that way.
All sin offends an infinite God infinitely. As the Venerable Louis of Granada points out in "The Sinner's Guide":
For this reason David cried out, "Against thee only, O God, have I sinned" (Ps 51:6), though he had sinned against Uriah, whom he murdered; against the wife of Uriah, whom he dishonored; and against his subject, whom he scandalized. The penitent king that his offenses against creatures, notwithstanding the different degrees of deformity, could not equal the enormity of his revolt against God. For God, being infinite, our obligations toward Him and our offenses against Him are, in a measure, infinite. [Sinner's Guide, Pg 10]
How come, then, you are particular about one offense and rail against those who would show grief about another type of scandal when God sees no such particularity? And, I would further add, the one offense seems to come from the same mindset that lead to this one, and it is one that is foreign to the Christian, and one we should rightly pray a bishop is a stranger to.
November 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm
John Paul II kissed the koran and recieved the red dot when he went to India so you can't knock this bishop too hard. He's just doing what was the SOP for decades.
November 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm
My eight year old, standing behind me at the computer, is rolling her eyes at this nonsense. What a shame she has to grow up in a world where these clowns make regular and scandalizing appearances in the theatre of the absurd. You know why they crave these photo ops? It is because the beauty and symbolism of their own faith has grown as weary as an old shoe to them. They don't take it seriously. It has lost all pull on their souls.
In a phrase, they've lost the faith.
November 27, 2009 at 7:50 am
From all the fiasco behind the Archbishop's gesture of goodwill to all, it looks as though Christians are not prepared to accept peole of other faiths. He was probably just wanting to pay respect – NOT Worship! Putting flowers in front of the Hindu deities is a form of respect. So I understand the true Christian belief is do not accept the religion or culture of others. Was Jesus Christ himself not a compassionate divine being?
November 27, 2009 at 7:58 am
Got to agree with Dymphna, Pope John Paul the second kissed the Koran and applied the red dot on his forehead – God rest his soul. He was the leader of the Catholic Church. Why is this not being shamed? Because it is the Christian way! Respect people of all backgrounds!
November 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm
And why is this soooooo bad, when I know MANY spouses who have been unjustly abandoned by their validly married husband or wife and yet
AT THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
The Catholic Church, intentionally, welcomes openly public and permanent adulterers to be present, IN PUBLIC REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, as long a no one knows it and their communion is not a scandal.
Too bad that THEIR CHILDREN KNOW IT, THEIR FRIENDS KNOW IT, THE ABANDONED SPOUSE KNOWS IT, MANY TIMES THE PRIEST WHO GIVES THEM COMMUNION KNOWS IT AS DOES THEIR BISHOP! NO SCANDAL? HOW? What is the MAGIC Number for scandal?
But the Church says all of this is fine and dandy as long as there is no scandal. Confession covers it all, even when there remains no justification for the abandonment AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH KNOWS IT! EVEN IN THE FACE OF DENIED ANNULMENTS! How can the sin of marital abandonment be forgiven when the abandoner remains with their lover and does not repent and seek reconciliation?
You people are so naive and doing so much harm to marriage by your blind acceptance of the violation of marriage that is ENSCONCED IN CATHOLICISM SINCE VATICAN II!
Stop blaming the abandoned spouses as DESERVING their situation and START BLAMING YOURSELVES AND YOUR BISHOPS FOR NOT STANDING UP FOR MARRIAGE AND REJECTING MALICIOUS ABANDONERS FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND REFUSE TO STOP!
REJECT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TELLING YOU TO WELCOME THEM. IT IS A LIE AND DOES NOT LEAD TO
REPENTANCE. IT ENCOURAGES THEM.
If all of you do not do this, SHUT UP about Archbishop Nichols. he is merely another example of duplicity that all of you accept WHEN IT IS WEARING OTHER CLOTHES.
November 27, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I suggest deleting the above comment (Anonymous 1:57 PM, = Karl, I think) as not relevant to this thread. There is a significant issue to talk about here. This is not the place to talk about the abuse scandals OR annulments granted on (what some believe are) inadequate grounds.(or granted and then reversed.) Both subjects are worthy of discussion, but not on this thread.
I would really like to hear more discussion of what a Catholic can and can't do when he finds himself at a ceremony of another religion. (I know the answer to my own satisfaction with relation to Protestant worship.) But what happens if your child decides to be married at a Pagan ceremony, with four tables in a circle representing Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, and a Pillar table in the middle, and a pagan "priest" decked out in what looks like a copy of cassock and biretta? What level of participation is acceptable? I bet some people here would say you shouldn't even attend even though that means estrangement from your child perhaps for years. I recently attended such a wedding, showed my discomfort by making snarky remarks to the pagan "priest" and then felt guilty both about the snark and about lighting a candle as asked during the ceremony.
Of course the situation is different with a prominent cleric such as Archbishop Nichols. I am sure these were gestures of respect towards the Hindu priest and religion. However, considering that Christians were sent to the arena or otherwise tortured and killed because they would not burn a pinch of incense to the Emperor, putting flowers on a Hindu altar…or lighting a candle in a "pagan" ceremony, is questionable. I know we have to consider what the act is considered as meaning in context. (In my situation the pagan trappings just seemed like nonsense to me and the candle bit was just a gesture of hope for my daughter's happiness. I was thinking "light of Christ" to myself as I lit it.) For prominent clerics where public perception of Catholicism is involved, a policy ought to be worked out, well grounded theologically, and that policy ought to be made public, so that eminent clerics will know what the church says they ought to do, and be able to articulate why.
Susan Peterson
November 27, 2009 at 11:31 pm
"Saul, Saul.. you are persecuting Me."
November 27, 2009 at 11:56 pm
So am I reading this correctly? Christians are superior to all other religions. Christians should not or pay respect to people of other faiths. Is that the teaching of Christ? I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with placing flowers as a form of respect? Oh by the way, Hindus also join their hands in prayer and so do I at night when I pray to the Lord. Does that mean I am not a Christian, but what you all call a Pagan??
November 28, 2009 at 2:09 am
What a shame that all the martyrs of the Faith died for nothing. All they had to do when offered the opportunity to live just by making a small offering to the Roman deities was behave like Bishop Nichols. After all they didn't really have to believe in the pagan gods.
And yes anonymous, Catholicism is superior to all other religions. It is the one True Faith that my fathers died defending and even if it isn't politically correct to say so these days I am glad to say it.
November 28, 2009 at 3:19 am
Re: Anonymous Coward,
To the Catholic faith, the Faith of our Fathers, which they died defending? It is the true faith.
Or to put in a famous way to what Cavaliere said: ditto!
November 28, 2009 at 4:36 am
Anonymous,
Christians should respect, and pay respect to, people of other faiths. We should not imitate or participate in their worship.
Placing flowers as a show of respect is not wrong. But placing flowers on an altar dedicated to their gods is wrong. It doesn't show respect to the people, it is bowing to their gods.
I can respect someone while disagreeing with them. I can't be a Christian and worship at someone else's altar.
November 28, 2009 at 10:50 pm
As someone who has studied Eastern religions, I'll make a comment about what the Hindu just said. Hinduism is not so much a religion, but an ethnic identity. They can pretty much believe whatever they want; in one main Deity or in many thousands of sub-deities. There is no cohesion in belief, tradition or practice of which there are as many variants as there are villages throughout the Indian sub-continent. So, since they are so accepting and tollerant of belief within their own "religion" (like Anglicans), they don't see how one religion could possibly believe they are superior to others. To them, all Indians should be Hindus (regardless of what they believe), all Europeans should be whatever their particular "tribe" believes etc.
That being said, I honestly can't believe JP II is still being considered for beatification. What he did was scandalous to any standard. I can only hope he was senile when he did it. Even the Borgias never kissed a Qur'an.