Intimidation prompts cancellation of weekly Mass on Spanish campus

Xizors Palace

The University of Barcelona has decided to stop scheduling a Mass on campus every Wednesday until security measures can be adopted to protect Catholic worshipers from a small but aggressive group of "secular progressive" protesters.

The protests, organized by a group of about 40 anti-Catholic students and faculty members, are termed "boycotts," but actually have involved assaults on the students attending the weekly Mass. University officials had been screening those who entered the chapel, asking them to identify themselves as Catholics, but the aggressive protests continued, forcing the school to take stronger measures.

A comment left by 'Lisa' below that story is telling:

Sounds like Spain is right back where it was in the 1930s, when "secular progressives" (a.k.a. Communists) physically attacked Christians in public, with impunity.

Manach

Offhand, if these events occurred within Church property then one possible legal solution would be file a trespass tort against them. (I'm not sure how far the saying "forgive us our trespasses" would apply in that case.)

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The University of Barcelona has decided to stop scheduling a Mass on campus every Wednesday until security measures can be adopted to protect Catholic worshipers from a small but aggressive group of "secular progressive" protesters.

The protests, organized by a group of about 40 anti-Catholic students and faculty members, are termed "boycotts," but actually have involved assaults on the students attending the weekly Mass. University officials had been screening those who entered the chapel, asking them to identify themselves as Catholics, but the aggressive protests continued, forcing the school to take stronger measures.

A comment left by 'Lisa' below that story is telling:

While I think this is terrible and the protestors should be arrested, I'm not quite sure they are being classified as "secular progressives"

Is that their chosen designation or one the newspaper is giving them? Their actions are quite contrary to the notions of secularism.

[EDIT]It seems they are proclaiming themselves "secular progressives", in which case they are even stupider than I thought they were[/EDIT]

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

While I think this is terrible and the protestors should be arrested, I'm not quite sure they are being classified as "secular progressives"

Is that their chosen designation or one the newspaper is giving them? Their actions are quite contrary to the notions of secularism.

[EDIT]It seems they are proclaiming themselves "secular progressives", in which case they are even stupider than I thought they were[/EDIT]

Assuming the article is accurate, it seems to be a perfect example of how varied the meaning of the word "secular" can be.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems they are proclaiming themselves "secular progressives", in which case they are even stupider than I thought they were

Does this permit us in turn, to dissassociate ourselves from the likes of Fredo Phelps and Benny Hinn?

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does this permit us in turn, to dissassociate ourselves from the likes of Fredo Phelps and Benny Hinn?

Good question!

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does this permit us in turn, to dissassociate ourselves from the likes of Fredo Phelps and Benny Hinn?

You already do, I thought? I've never seen a poster here agree with Fred Phelps.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does this permit us in turn, to dissassociate ourselves from the likes of Fredo Phelps and Benny Hinn?

Ehmmm.......of course you can.......

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

You already do, I thought? I've never seen a poster here agree with Fred Phelps.

God hates Wick?






Just kidding, he think you're super.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

You already do, I thought? I've never seen a poster here agree with Fred Phelps.

I think it was more of an acknowledgement that the human race is full of cranks.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think it was more of an acknowledgement that the human race is full of cranks.

Ok ...

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

While I think this is terrible and the protestors should be arrested

The article is regrettably short on details -- is it verbal "assault" (if so, then what kind?) or physical? And if the latter, then how come they're talking to the university authorities, rather than the local police who certainly should be involved if people are getting clobbered? And again, if physical, who started getting physical? If it something that's been happening as regularly as described, then then I'd have thought that there might have been at least one or two amateur videos or photos of what's going on.

This is not to rubbish the report, but simply to find the truth of it.

hoorsmelt

What exactly where the protests about? The article didn't specify, therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

The article is regrettably short on details -- is it verbal "assault" (if so, then what kind?) or physical? And if the latter, then how come they're talking to the university authorities, rather than the local police who certainly should be involved if people are getting clobbered? And again, if physical, who started getting physical? If it something that's been happening as regularly as described, then then I'd have thought that there might have been at least one or two amateur videos or photos of what's going on.

This is not to rubbish the report, but simply to find the truth of it.

True, I can't find any report about this except the original one from the Catholic new agency.

Having said that it is plausible that some nutty atheists are taking out their anger and frustration on Catholics. There is nothing inherient about being an atheist that means you should be a sensible non-violent person, so while it would be good to get different sources for this, I wouldn't assume just because they are claiming to support what I support, they aren't nut jobs

Manach

hoorsmelt wrote: »

What exactly where the protests about? The article didn't specify, therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

There does seem to be more details on google news from Spain.
eg http://www.abc.es/20110120/comunidad-catalunya/abcp-universidad-barcelona-impide-rezar-20110120.html
Unfortunately I'm a non-Spanish speaker and the google translator seems a tad iffy in its functionality.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Having said that it is plausible that some nutty atheists are taking out their anger and frustration on Catholics.

The linky above refers to a news item on the Spanish newspaper ABC, and a quick search there produces the following two further articles:

http://www.abc.es/20110119/comunidad-catalunya/abcp-llama-anticlerical-universidad-20110119.html (google translation here)
http://www.abcdesevilla.es/20110114/sociedad/sevp-boicot-misa-miercoles-universidad-20110114.html (google translation here)

Only the first article describes what seems to have happened -- a bunch of students showed up with some placards (images of burning churches, bibles in bins) while people were going into a room in the Department of Economics which is set aside for the religious needs of the catholic church and its believers.

And that seems to have been about it. From the two reports above, claims that Fascistic secularists "assaulted" religious believers are wildly exaggerated, to say the very least.

Reading further, it's not clear why an Economics Department actually needs to supply a room to a religious group for their exclusive use. Apparently, there's some agreement in place from 1988, but why?

Manach

Why there are Church services, could be that given the state of the economy any help, esp. Divine is welcome.
For the substantive issue of the protesters, if they were non-peaceful with respect to the mass-goers sufficent to warrant an assault ie "cause the apprehension of immediate personal violence" as per the English criminal law, then this would be offence. Cancellation of the Mass should not have been an option.

Xizors Palace

robindch wrote: »

The linky above refers to a news item on the Spanish newspaper ABC, and a quick search there produces the following two further articles:

http://www.abc.es/20110119/comunidad-catalunya/abcp-llama-anticlerical-universidad-20110119.html (google translation here)
http://www.abcdesevilla.es/20110114/sociedad/sevp-boicot-misa-miercoles-universidad-20110114.html (google translation here)

Only the first article describes what seems to have happened -- a bunch of students showed up with some placards (images of burning churches, bibles in bins) (pretty hateful, btw) while people were going into a room in the Department of Economics which is set aside for the religious needs of the catholic church and its believers.

And that seems to have been about it. From the two reports above, claims that Fascistic secularists "assaulted" religious believers are wildly exaggerated, to say the very least.

Reading further, it's not clear why an Economics Department actually needs to supply a room to a religious group for their exclusive use. Apparently, there's some agreement in place from 1988, but why?

I think Catholics are perfectly entitled to a room just as any other group would have and not to be abused whilst going about their business from rabid secularists who wish to deny people their rights. Additionally, universities use their rooms and facilities for different purposes. That is common knowledge. You wouldn't be seeking to deny them their right to come together for prayer and worship, would you?

Xizors Palace

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You wouldn't be seeking to deny them their right to come together for prayer and worship, would you?

You wouldn't be trying to put words in robin's mouth there, would you?
He asked why, it's a simple question.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Reading further, it's not clear why an Economics Department actually needs to supply a room to a religious group for their exclusive use. Apparently, there's some agreement in place from 1988, but why?

Perhaps I missed the refernce, but I didn't see anything that said that the Economics Department needs to supply a room.

In my experience, and I'm going back to my UCD days, there are quite a few class rooms that lie fallow for part of each day. The question isn't why these students should be granted access to campus facilities. Rather, why should they not be allowed to meet in a room that nobody is using?

Xizors Palace

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I missed the refernce, but I didn't see anything that said that the Economics Department needs to supply a room.

In my experience, and I'm going back to my UCD days, there are quite a few class rooms that lie fallow for part of each day. The question isn't why these students should be granted access to campus facilities. Rather, why should they not be allowed to meet in a room that nobody is using?

That would be the reasonable, but the tolerant, diverse ''liberals'' at the NSS and those who think as they do, would have it that such meetings would be banned.

robindch

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think Catholics are perfectly entitled to a room just as any other group would have and not to be abused whilst going about their business from rabid secularists who wish to deny people their rights. Additionally, universities use their rooms and facilities for different purposes. That is common knowledge. You wouldn't be seeking to deny them their right to come together for prayer and worship, would you?

Jamón. And lots of it, I say!

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I missed the refernce, but I didn't see anything that said that the Economics Department needs to supply a room.

Third last para of this article. Apparently, there's some agreement going back 20 years or so, under which the catholic church has access to facilities which equal or supersede the rights of the department that's providing them.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rather, why should they not be allowed to meet in a room that nobody is using?

Perhaps some people in the Department of Economics feel that the purpose of the department is to provide facilities to study economics?

And why not meet in a church anyway, rather than a presumably rather miserable fluorescent-tube-lit meeting room in an economics department? It's not like Barcelona is short of fairly empty churches.

I'd have no problem if, say, Sagrada Familia reciprocated and allowed the Department of Economics to hold lectures there.

Xizors Palace

robindch wrote: »

Third last para of this article. Apparently, there's some agreement going back 20 years or so, under which the catholic church has access to facilities which equal or supersede the rights of the department that's providing them.Perhaps some people in the Department of Economics feel that the purpose of the department is to provide facilities to study economics?

And why not meet in a church anyway, rather than a presumably rather miserable fluorescent-tube-lit meeting room in an economics department? It's not like Barcelona is short of fairly empty churches.

I'd have no problem if, say, Sagrada Familia reciprocated and allowed the Department of Economics to hold lectures there.

You've not been to university, have you? If you'd been, you'd have a basic understanding of how things work in the real world.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Third last para of this article. Apparently, there's some agreement going back 20 years or so, under which the catholic church has access to facilities which equal or supersede the access rights of the department that's providing them.

I don't see anything about access rights of RC taking primacy over the department. The translation seems inadequate though.

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps some people in the Department of Economics feel that the purpose of the department is to provide facilities to study economics?

And that would be just fine if education was somehow being obstructed. Is this the case?

I don't think that either the juggling society or the staff golf society are particularly relevant to any subject. Nevertheless, UCD seem happy to facilitate them. Am I to believe that this same courtesy isn't to be repeated across many other universities? There is more to college than book smarts.

robindch wrote: »

Any why not meet in a church anyway, rather than a presumably rather miserable fluorescent-tube-lit meeting room in an economics department? It's not like Barcelona is short of churches.

Assuming they have been granted access, it is really up to them where and when they want to meet up. Your aesthetic grumbles aside, I don't see the problem with their choice.

robindch wrote: »

I'd have no problem if, say, Sagrada Familia reciprocated and allowed the Department of Economics to hold lectures there.

Well, given that Sagrada Familia isn't involved in this dispute, I see no valid reason for mentioning it.

robindch

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You've not been to university, have you? If you'd been, you'd have a basic understanding of how things work in the real world.

Fun to see somebody linking to something like concernedcatholics grumble about other people being unreal!

Do drop by A+A if you feel up to a real discussion

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You've not been to university, have you? If you'd been, you'd have a basic understanding of how things work in the real world.

Dime to a dollar you wouldn't make a sig out of that..

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see anything about access rights of RC taking primacy over the department. The translation seems inadequate though.

Yes, it is, but the original text is slightly clearer (or it seems to be, to my crappy Spanish). Seems that some people objected to the use of the room, and the head of department had to make a decision whether to prefer the church or his department, and he chose the latter, possibly in violation of some agreement from twenty years previously. The priest declared a violation of his rights and those of his flock, some of whom, he claimed, had been "assaulted".

I don't really any evidence to support this fairly dramatic conclusion from the less twitchy reports in the mainstream media.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And that would be just fine if education was somehow being obstructed. Is this the case?

The articles don't make clear, but I would assume that the thing wouldn't have blown up without some clash about who had the first right of access, or hymn-singing or some other mild breach of the general departmental peace.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, given that Sagrada Familia isn't involved in this dispute, I see no valid reason for mentioning it.

Other than stretching a point to its logical conclusion for dramatic effect?

There must be hundreds of churches in Barcelona, most of which will be fairly empty most of the time. And I'm sure there are some churches on campus too, while there are only a handful of places which teach economics to university level.

If the church will not reciprocate, then why not leave the economics department do economics, and the churches do church stuff?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

I don't really any evidence to support this fairly dramatic conclusion from the less twitchy reports in the mainstream media.

Sure! That may well be the case.

robindch wrote: »

There must be hundreds of churches in Barcelona, most of which will be fairly empty most of the time. And I'm sure there are some churches on campus too, while there are only a handful of places which teach economics to university level.

If the church will not reciprocate, then why not leave the economics department do economics, and the churches do church stuff?

Acknowledging that we are arguing from a degree of ignorance, I really can't see your overall point. Indeed, you seem to have skipped past what seems to be the logical assumption that rooms in the economic department are sometime *shock horror* not used to discuss economics! It might be that yesterday two students went into room 205 to eat their lunch and talk about football. Or possibly the BU atheist jugglers society meet every Tuesday in room 113 for their weekly discussion.

These students, for whatever reasons, wanted to meet in the economics department - as has been the case for nearly 25 years. That they could potentially meet in any number of other buildings hasn't got much to do with this case. I hardly see you changing your secular tune if every other church, park, square, or alley was somehow closed to them. Still, when you are Dean I hope you follow your thought to its logical conclusion and ban all non-syllabus related activity from Robin University.

Manach

Base on my past and current experiences, expecting students to study at Uni. of Robin, might be a leap of faith.

Fanny Cradock

Manach wrote: »

Base on my past and current experiences, expecting students to study at Uni. of Robin, might be a leap of faith.

Where there's life...

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I really can't see your overall point.

Well, then reread what I wrote

The train of events seems to have been something like the following: the catholic church appears to have guaranteed access to rooms in the university's department of economics; some people didn't like this (we're not told why, but we can both imagine plenty reasons why might have been the case); these people protested; to preserve the peace, the head of department blocked access while the situation was being resolved; the priest claimed violation of his rights and the rights of his flock; a catholic propaganda website delivered an obviously one-sided account of events, including an apparently false claim that religious believers were "assaulted"; some person called 'Lisa' posted that Spain had returned to Fascism and finally it shows up here with Xizors Palace declaring "aggression" with some enthusiasm.

If there is never any resource conflict with access to the room, if the religious people are not disturbing anybody and if the whole thing is done politely and without the threat or reality of the kind of unhelpful prose that the priest and the propaganda site have delivered (as would be the case with just about any other group), then I've no problem with the room being used for whatever people want to use it for.

Clearly that hasn't happened in this case and as I said above, I'd just like to find out what really happened and the report that appears on the catholic propaganda website certainly can't be trusted to provide that.

Though I still can't understand why they'd like to hold their religious rites in a university lecture room, rather than the hundreds of much more pleasant purpose-built spaces around town, most of which I'd expect to be thrilled to have young people showing up. No accounting for taste, I suppose [/QUOTE]

Manach wrote: »

Base on my past and current experiences, expecting students to study at Uni. of Robin, might be a leap of faith.

Sorry to hear it. Where did you go to university and what did you do? When I was in UL's Engineering department ~20 years back, students were expected to maintain a high study rate throughout the year, and pretty much all of us did, no doubt helped by having three sets of module exams every year, rather than one.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Clearly that hasn't happened in this case

Is anything clear in this case? All we have is a few fairly vague reports.

That you can't understand their choice of venue is a beside. They want to meet there. That you would seemingly deny them this passive service in the first place is something I can't understand.

Confusion abounds.

Manach

UCC & OU: Geology (also 20 yrs back), Computers, History, Classics, and currently Law. (hence the legalise) Compared to the real world of work, it was relaxing.
Main issue: Commonly assault can either be physical force(battery) or a threat of physical force, so it could be a translatation issue that we don't know which from the Spanish.
That only one side of issue is known, would the same standards be held is it was only reported on say the Guardian site?
That the head of department apparently broke a contract with the group who were exercising the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, due to the threats of a third party : that to me is a tad iffy.
However, this is me basically inventing a factual scenario to fit into a framework - and new facts or reporting on this might overturn this scenario.