Yesterday, I posted the above European Court of Human Rights ruling in the ISSUES thread, remarking it was a landmark event in the de jure secularization of Europe, which will be consolidated with the impending ratification of the so-called Lisbon Treaty by all European Union member states, after the last holdout - ironically, the Czech Republic - gave in, having received assurances that its juridical decisions within the nation would be recognized as valid.
But how does that square with the above ruling which would override the unanimous decision of successive Italian courts - all the way to its Constitutional Court - about the display of the crucifix in Italian public shcools?
The terrifying and inevitable question is: What next will these Eurocrats - all secularized to the point of mindlessness - target next? They are no better than the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which has been filing court suits right and left against any and all expressions of Christianity - oral, visual or written - in the public place. Except that so far, the US Supreme Court has so far struck down lower court decisions in favor of the ACLU.
The Vatican and many commentators in the Italian media have now reacted to the crucifix ruling.
Vatican denounces European ruling
against crucifixes in schools
By Cindy Wooden
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 4 (CNS) -- The Vatican said it experienced "surprise and sorrow" when a European court ruled that the crucifixes hanging in Italian public schools violate religious freedom.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Nov. 3 that the crucifixes hanging in every public classroom in Italy were "a violation of the freedom of parents to educate their children according to their own convictions and of the religious freedom of the students."
Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, reacted to the decision saying, "The crucifix has always been a sign of God's offer of love and a sign of union and welcome for all humanity. It is sad that it is being considered a sign of division, exclusion or limitation of freedom. That is not what it is and that is not the common feeling of our people."
In his statement Nov. 3, Father Lombardi said, "It also is surprising that a European court is intervening so heavily in a matter that is deeply tied to the historic, cultural and spiritual identity of the Italian people."
The case was brought to the court by a Finnish-born Italian citizen who had been trying since 2002 to get the crucifixes removed from the school her children attended in Abano Terme, Italy.
Italy's minister of public education, Mariastella Gelmini, announced the government would appeal the decision, saying the presence of the crucifixes "does not mean adhesion to Catholicism, but is a symbol of our tradition. The history of Italy includes symbols and removing them would be to remove a part of ourselves."
Father Lombardi said it was particularly serious that the European court wants to remove from educational institutions "a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture."
Religion, he said, contributes to the moral education and growth of individuals and is "an essential part of our civilization."
Father Lombardi said it appeared that the court was trying to deny "the role of Christianity in the formation of European identity, which has been and remains essential."
The Italian bishops' conference issued a statement Nov. 3 saying the court was looking at the crucifix with "a partial and ideological vision" that ignored the fact that it is not only a symbol of faith, but also a symbol of one of the major influences on Italian culture.
In addition, the bishops said, the decision did not take into account the fact that as recently as 1984 the Italian government formally approved a treaty with the Vatican defining the principles of Catholic faith as "part of the historic patrimony of the Italian people."
[In an administrative updating of the 1929 Lateran Pacts reiterating a historical fact mentioned in the original pacts.]
The ruling risks promoting "hostility to any form of religion's political and cultural relevance" in public life, the bishops' statement said.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, was asked about the court decision Nov. 4 during a visit to a Rome pediatric hospital. The cardinal said, "This Europe of the third millennium has left us only the pumpkins of the recent holiday and has taken away our most precious symbols."
"This is really a loss," he said, adding, "we must try with all our strength to preserve the signs of our faith."
So the Italian Ministry of Education will appeal the Strasbourg court's decision. What chance does an appeal have against the unanimous decision of the judges who made the original ruling - one of them being Italian himself?
In many ways, this is a dire harbinger of the growing tendency to invest itnernational institutions with the right to regulate the internal affairs of single nations. I hope experts in international law can weigh in on this right away - though their opinions may not count for anything in practice if they do not sit on these supranational courts themselves.
THE IRONY OF THE STRASBOURG DECISION
Perhaps the most original reaction I have read so far to the Strasbourg decision comes from Massimo Introvigne, not where he says that the judgment is "the sign that Christianophobia has passed from the indirect to the direct phase" - which is certainly true - but in this:
Why does not Mrs. Lautsi [the Finnish woman who filed the lawsuit against the crucifix] ask her country to change its national flag, which features a cross? People like her ought to understand that the cross in school or on a flag is not a tool of religious proselytism but the symbol of a multi-century history.
I looked it up and found the following:
Left photo, flag of Finland. In fact, the Nordic cross is the characteristic of all five Scandinavian flags.
Right photo, from left: Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark.
Other European flags with the cross: From left, Greece, the UK, Georgia, Slovakia, and Switzerland.
And what if some nut now lodges a suit with the Strasbourg court to question the crosses on all these flags? Will that court then compel them to revoke part of their national history and replace their flags???? This is absolute lunacy.
What the Strasbourg court demonstrates - besides its anti-Christian bigotry and bookish literalness in interpreting human rights - is ignorance of human history, in which after the circle, the cross has been one of the most universal signs even in pre-Christian cultures. Just consider the Egyptian ankh or even the Celtic cross!
NB: I will post further discussions of the Cross ruling in the ISSUES thread.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/11/2009 20:56]