You can also listen to the sermon here.

The Society of St. Pius X has been founded by the Church and in the Church, and we say this Society continues to exist, despite the fact that there is a pretense that it does not exist; that it was suppressed in 1976 (but obviously with total disrespect of the laws of the Church itself).  And that’s why we continue.  And our dear Founder insisted many, many times on the importance of this existence of the Society.  And I think, as time evolves, we must keep this in mind – and it is very important that we keep this Catholic Spirit.

We are not an independent group.  Even if we are fighting with Rome, we are still, so to say, with Rome.  We are fighting with Rome; or, if you want, against Rome, at the same time with Rome.  And we claim and we continue to say, we are Catholic.  We want to stay Catholic.  Many times I say to Rome, you try to kick us out.  And we see it would be much easier for us to be out.  We would have many more advantages.  You would treat us much better!  Look at the Protestants, how they open the churches to them.  To us, they close them.  And we say, we don’t care.  We do things in front of God.  We suffer from the Church, fine.  We don’t like that, of course.  But we ought to stay there in the truth.  And we have to maintain that we do belong to the Church.  We are Catholics.  We want to be and we want to stay Catholic, and it is very important to maintain that.

It’s also important that we don’t finally imagine a Catholic church which is just the fruit of our imagination but which is no longer the real one.  And with the real one we have problems.  That’s what makes it even more difficult: the fact that we have problems with it.  That does not allow us, so to say, to shut the door.  On the contrary, it is our duty to continuously go there, knock at the door, and not beg that we may enter (because we are in) but beg that they may convert; that they may change and come back to what makes the Church.  It is a great mystery; it is not simple.  Because at the same time we have to say, yes, we do recognize that Church – that’s what we say in the Creed, I believe in the Catholic Church – so we accept that there is a pope; we accept that there is a hierarchy, we do accept that.

And practically, at many levels, we have to say no.  Not because it does not please us, but because the Church has already spoken about that.  Even many of these things it has condemned them.  And so, in our discussions with Rome we were, so to say, stuck there.  The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church.  Because they say, “we are the pope, we are the Holy See” – and we say, yes.  And so they say, “we have the supreme power,” and we say, yes.  They say, “we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary” – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes.  And then they say, “then, obey.”  And we say, no.  And so they say to us, you are protestant.  You put your reason above the Magisterium of today.  And we answer to them, you are Modernists.  You pretend that the teaching of today can be different from the teaching of yesterday.  We say, when we adhere to what the Church has taught yesterday, we, by necessity, adhere to the teaching of the Church today.  Because the truth is not linked to time.  The truth is above it.  What has been said once is binding all times.  These are the dogmas.  God is like that; God is above time.  And the Faith is adhering to the truth of God.  It’s above time.  That’s why the church of today is bound and has to be like (not only like) the Church of yesterday.  And so when you see the present pope say that there must be continuity in the Church, we say, of course!  That is what we have said at all times.  When we talk about tradition, that’s precisely the meaning.  They say, there must be Tradition, there must be continuity.  So there is continuity.  Vatican II has been made by the Church, the Church must be continuous, so Vatican II is Tradition.  And we say, beg your pardon?

It goes even further, my dear brethren.  That was during the discussion.  At the end of the discussion, comes this invitation from Rome.  In this invitation there is a proposition of a canonical situation that is to regularize our situation.  And I may say, what is presented today, which is already different from what was presented on the 14th of September, we can consider it as all right, good.  They fulfilled all our requirements, I may say, on the practical level.  So there is not much problem there.  The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine.  But even there it goes very far – very far, my dear brethren.  The key is a principle.  Which they say, “this you must accept; you must accept that for the points that make difficulty in the Council – points which are ambiguous, where there is a fight – these points, like ecumenism, like religious liberty, these points must be understood in coherence with the perpetual teaching of the Church.”  “So if there is something ambiguous in the Council, you must understand it as the Church has always taught throughout the ages.”

They go even further and say, “one must reject whatever is opposed to this traditional teaching of the Church.”  Well, that is what we have always said.  Amazing, isn’t it?  That Rome is imposing on us this principle.  Amazing.  Then you may wonder, then why don’t you accept?  Well, my dear brethren, there is still a problem.  The problem is that in this text they give two applications of what and how we have to understand these principles.  These two examples that they give to us are ecumenism and religious liberty, as they are described in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which are exactly the points for which we reproach the Council.

In other words, Rome tells us, we have done that all the time.  We are traditional; Vatican II is Tradition.  Religious liberty, ecumenism is Tradition.  It is in full coherence with Tradition.  You just wonder, where do we go?  What kind of words will we find to say, we agree or we don’t?  If even the principles which we have kept and said, they say, yes it’s ok you can say that, because this means what we mean, which is exactly the contrary of what we mean.

I think we could not go further in the confusion.  In other words, my dear brethren, that means that they have another meaning with the word “tradition,” and even maybe even with “coherence.”  And that’s why we were obliged to say no.  We’re not going to sign that.  We agree with the principle but we see that the conclusion is contrary.  Great mystery!  Great mystery!  So what is going to happen now? Well, we have sent our answer to Rome.  They still say that they’re reflecting on it, which means they’re probably embarrassed.  At the same time I think we may see now what they really want.  Do they really want us in the Church or not?  We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready.  But if you want us to accept these things, we are not.  In fact we have just quoted Archbishop Lefebvre who said this already in 1987 – several times before, but the last time he said it was in 1987.

In other words, my dear brethren, humanly speaking, difficult to say how the future will look, but we know that when we deal with the Church, we deal with God; we deal with divine providence, and we know that this Church is His Church.  Humans may cause some disruption, some destruction.  They may cause turmoil, but God is above that, and He knows how to, out of all these happenings – these human happenings – these odd lines, God knows how to direct His Church through these trials.

There will be an end to this trial, I don’t know when.  Sometimes there is hope that it will come.  Sometimes it is like despair.  God knows when, but really, humanly speaking, we must wait for quite a time before hoping to see things better – five, ten years.  I am persuaded that in ten years things will look different because the generation of the Council will be gone and the next generation does not have this link with the Council.  And already now we hear several bishops, my dear brethren, several bishops tell us: you give too much weight to this Council; put it aside.  It could be a good way for the Church to go ahead.  Put it aside; forget it.  Let’s go back to the real thing, to Tradition.

Isn’t that interesting to hear bishops who say that? That’s a new language!  It means that you have a new generation which knows that there are things that are more serious than Vatican II in the Church, and that we have to go back to this more serious, if I may say so.  Vatican II is serious because of the damage it has caused, yes it is.  But as such it wanted to be a pastoral council, which is over now.  We know that someone who is working in the Vatican wrote a thesis for his academic grades and it was about the magisterium of Vatican II.  He himself told us and nobody in the Roman universities was ready to take that thesis.  Finally a professor did, and the thesis is the following: the authority of the magisterium of Vatican II is that of a homily in the 1960’s.  And he passed!

We shall see my dear brethren.  For us it’s very clear.  We must stick and hold to the truth, to the Faith.  We are not going to give that up – whatever happens.  There are some threats, of course, from Rome now.  We shall see.  We put all these things in the hands of God, and in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Oh, yes, we have to continue our crusade of rosaries.  We count on her, we count on God.  And then whatever happens, happens.  I cannot promise a beautiful spring.  I have no idea what’s going to be in this spring.  What I know is that the fight for the faith will continue, whatever happens.  If we are recognized or not, you can be certain that the Progressives will not be happy.  They will continue and we will continue to fight them too.

(Source : http://stas.org)

The work presents first of all the evolution of ordinations in Switzerland over the past few decades, and that of religious practice, in parallel with the statistics in other countries, and it offers numbers for the future.  It then goes on to present an interpretation of the situation by several representatives of the Swiss Catholic Church.

Since 1970, the number of diocesan priests incardinated in the Swiss bishoprics has diminished by more than half.  In 2029, according to Arnd Bünker’s and Roger Husistein’s analysis, there will most likely be 37% fewer priests than today, that is, 50% fewer than in 1991.  Over the last ten years, there have been 143 ordinations and over 500 deaths: in other words, one priest is ordained when three die.  At the end of the year 2009, the pyramid of the priests’ ages revealed an average age of 65 years.  The dioceses of Sion, Coire and Lugano are remarkable for their important number of relatively young priests.  Nonetheless, if the curve continues, there will only remain 36 priests under the age of 65 in the Valais in 2029.

This dizzying decline in vocations cannot be “a phenomenon born of a single cause,” claims Roger Husistein.  “The changes in society are reflected in a strong decline of religious practice, in a growing religious illiteracy, and in a secularization of society which causes the normative authority of the Churches to fade,” he continues, pointing out that “another characteristic of the crumbling of the ecclesiastical milieu is the tendency towards the elimination of denominations in the great Churches of Switzerland.  In the ecumenical movement, since Vatican II, what is emphasized is the common Christian trunk.”  According to the Valaisian newspaper, Le Nouvelliste, the study also shows that Vatican II emphasized the episcopal ministry and gave the layman a place that turned the priest “into a sort of vagabond.”

Among the analyses presented in the study realized by the Swiss Institute of Pastoral Sociology, that of Bishop Martin Werlen, Father Abbot of the Benedictine abbey of Einsiedeln, shows that the responsibility for the faithful’s desertion lies above all on the shoulders of the leaders of the Church, incapable of looking reality in the face and confronting their own deficiencies.

(sources: spi/letemps/nouvelliste – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

You can also read :
Switzerland: The Swiss bishops face reduced revenue for the Catholic Church
Switzerland: Priests Have Diminished by Half since 1970
Switzerland: Between 25,000 and 30,000 “leave” the Catholic church in 2010

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published on January 7, 2012, the pastoral guidelines to be followed at the global, national, diocesan and local level during the Year of Faith (October 11, 2012 – November 24, 2013).  According to the wishes of Benedict XVI, the Year of Faith will celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the 20^th anniversary of the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

At the level of the Universal Church, three major movements will mark the Year of Faith:  the Synod in October 2012 on “the new evangelization for the transmission of the Christian faith”, the World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in August 2013 and the closing Mass that Benedict XVI will celebrate at the Vatican on November 24, 2013.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also encourages Christians to go on pilgrimage to Rome, to the Holy Land and to Marian shrines.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for its part, will be in charge of promoting ecumenical initiatives on behalf of the restoration of unity among all Christians, which is “one of the principal concerns” of the Second Vatican Council.  A solemn ecumenical celebration “in which all of the baptized will reaffirm their faith in Christ” is thus planned as part of the program.

Thanks to a special Secretariat, the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization will manage to coordinate the initiatives promoted by the different dicasteries of the Holy See “or other events relevant to the Universal Church”, and will suggest some initiatives.  The Secretariat will be in charge of a website specially created for this purpose.

The Year of Faith should be the occasion to rediscover the teachings of Vatican II and of the CCC.  Several international conferences will be organized, and seminarians will be invited to study these documents carefully.  Similarly, the CDF encourages a rereading of the homilies, catecheses, addresses and other texts by Benedict XVI.

Episcopal Conferences should do everything possible to publish and distribute the documents of Vatican II, the CCC and its Compendium, in a way that is economical and accessible, in new [electronic] formats and in new languages, especially the local languages of countries in mission territory.  This latter task will be the responsibility of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

All forms of communication should be employed to speak about the faith and the Council:  television or radio broadcasts, films and publications, “on the popular level, making these things available to a wider public”, the CDF Note explains, but also by means of the heritage of visual works of art in the region entrusted to the pastoral care of the dioceses.

The episcopal conferences will also ensure that the local catechisms and the various catechetical resources being used in the local Churches are in “complete conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.  Finally, they will be able to devote a study day to the theme of faith, personal witness to it and the transmission of the faith to younger generations.

At the diocesan level, the CDF invites Catholics to celebrate the opening and the conclusion of the Year of Faith.  Each bishop can dedicate one day to study of the CCC and compose a pastoral letter on the theme of faith.  The Vatican also hopes that in each diocese will hold “catechetical events … especially for the youth and those searching for the meaning of life,” and encounters with meaningful witnesses to the faith.  During Lent, the bishops can organize “penitential celebrations … in which all can ask for God’s forgiveness, especially for sins against faith.”

At the university level, the CDF hopes to encourage “a renewed creative dialogue between faith and reason in the academic and artistic communities, through symposia, meetings and days of study, especially at Catholic universities”.

Finally, at the local level, parishes, communities, associations and movements are also invited to participate in the distribution of the Catechism.  The CDF is counting particularly on the new communities and the ecclesial movements, which “in a creative and generous way, will be able to find the most appropriate ways in which to offer their witness to the faith in service to the Church”.  The faithful are called to communicate their experience of faith with members of other Christian denominations or other religions, but also with non-believers.

On January 21, 2012, Father Federico Lombardi declared in an editorial of the weekly newsletter of the Vatican Television Center that he directs:  “The theme of the new evangelization that escorts us toward the Synod of Bishops next Fall is intrinsically ecumenical, and the Year of Father announced by the Pope will likewise have an ecumenical dimension at the universal level.”  “The new evangelization can be more fruitful if all Christians announce the truth of the Gospel together,” he assured his readers, adding, “once again, it is clearly evident that ecumenical engagement is essential and intrinsic to the mission of the Church in the world of today and to the main lines of this pontificate.”  (Sources : VIS/Apic/Imedia/Zenit/CTV – DICI no. 249 dated February 3, 2012)

“Their objection to our position, in short, is that the only living magisterium worthy of the name is today’s magisterium, not yesterday’s.  Only the magisterium of today can tell what conforms to Tradition and what is contrary to it, for it alone represents the living magisterium, the interpreter of Tradition.  And therefore we must choose one of two things:  either we reject Vatican II, judging that it is contrary to Tradition, but at the same time contradicting the only possible magisterium, the living magisterium, which is today’s (the magisterium of Benedict XVI), and we are no Catholics but Protestants;  or else we decide not to be Protestants and we are obliged to accept Vatican II so as to obey the living magisterium, which is today’s, declaring that the Council is in conformity with Tradition.  This is a dilemma, in other words, a problem with no apparent solution beside the two that are indicated:  if we try to avoid one of the two horns, we will not avoid the other.  But in reality this dilemma is false.  For there are such things as false dilemmas….

“The two alternatives are avoidable, both at once, for there is a third solution.  It is possible to reject Vatican II without being Protestant and while obeying the magisterium;  it is possible not to be Protestant and to obey the magisterium without accepting Vatican II….  The dilemma is false because an indispensable distinction is omitted.  If we make the distinction, we find the way out of the dilemma, because we show that there is a third alternative.  Our response therefore consists in making that distinction.

“… [the expression] ‘the living magisterium’ does not mean ‘as opposed to the past magisterium’;  it means ‘as opposed to the posthumous magisterium’.  This living magisterium is the magisterium of the present, but also that of the past.  The objection to our position consists of combining ‘living magisterium’ and ‘present magisterium’ and of setting this ‘living magisterium’ in opposition to the past magisterium.  This combination occurs because they situate themselves exclusively within the subject’s point of view.  They no longer distinguish between two points of view:  that of the office or function (in which the living magisterium is at the same time present and past) and the point of view of the subject (in which the living magisterium is present only).  The two are confused and thus they reduce the living magisterium to the present magisterium.

“The sophistical argument used against us consists of confusing the two meanings of the adjective ‘living’ when it is attributed to the magisterium.  We say that the living magisterium includes all of the past and present magisterium, and thus we take the right point of view, which is the perspective of a constant function that is always in force, a function whose act is defined by its object.  Those who object take the point of view of the subject and claim that the living magisterium coincides exclusively with the magisterium of an individual who is presently alive.

“Why this confusion?  Why reduce the living magisterium to the magisterium of the present?  Because since Vatican II they have been trying to invent a new magisterium.  The magisterium is redefined, because its task [now] is to express the continuity of a subject and no longer the continuity of an object.  The continuity of a subject, Benedict XVI tells us in his 2005 Address [to the Roman Curia], ‘which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God’.  For Rome, the living magisterium is precisely the magisterium of Benedict XVI, as opposed to the magisterium of Saint Pius X or of Pius XII.  And this magisterium is current [actuel] because it is subjective, because it expresses the continuity of a subject.  This is one of the presuppositions of the living Tradition in the 2005 Address.

“The magisterium is no longer defined in terms of the eternal, timeless truth of revelation (which remains the same, whether it is past, present or future).  This new magisterium redefines itself in terms of the present subject of authority, who is himself the spokesman of another more fundamental subject which is the one people of God journeying through time.  The living magisterium is always the magisterium of this present time, because it is situated in reference to the People of God as it lives in this present time.  The role of the magisterium is to assure the continuity of an experience, it is the instrument of the Spirit who nurtures communion ‘assuring the connection between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and the actual [i.e. current] experience of Christ in his Church” (Benedict XVI, “Communion in time: Tradition”, Address to the General Audience, April 26, 2006).  (Sources:  FSSPX/Ecône – DICI no. 249 dated February 3, 2012)

You can also read :
Debate about Vatican II:  Fr. Gleize responds to Msgr. Ocariz

Cardinal Anthony Olobunmi Okogie.

In an interview published on the website Vatican Insider on January 8, 2012, the archbishop of Lagos recalled the series of attacks that struck Nigeria at Christmas and in the beginning of January. (see DICI#248).  For Cardinal Anthony Olobunmi Okogie, this is not a religious, but a political conflict.  He thus denounced the pressure aroused by economic interests, because of petroleum resources.  “It is a tragic escalade… I have no proof that the terrorists of Boko Haram receive foreign help, but it is obvious that their threat has grown since the past.”  – These comments, requoted by the AFP, come in answer to the declarations of President Goodluck Jonathan who also revealed complicity between the sect Boko Haram and the security forces and the army.

For the Nigerian prelate, the only solution is in “dialogue”.  It is, says he, “the antidote for the venom of terrorism.  We will not answer violence with violence.”  In his eyes, “only the arrest and rapid condemnation of those responsible for the attacks, the majority of which the sect claims comes from them, will allow the government to win back the people’s trust.”

The bishop of Jos, Archbishop Ignatius Ayau Kaigama, considers, for his part, that “the present attacks against Christians recall the civil war in the 60’s.”  In a public interview published by the missionary agency Fides on January 8, he explained that “the war of Biafra had ethnic and political roots.  The sect Boko Haram’s attacks imply ethnic, social, political, religious and even criminal dimensions.  That is why the present situation is more dangerous than in the war of Biafra.”

(sources: apic/afp/fides – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

You can also read :
Nigeria: start of “ethnic and religious cleansing”

Laurette Onkelinx.

According to the Socialist Belgian Vice Prime Minister, “the Catholics of Belgium deserve better” than Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, archbishop of Malines-Brussels.  In an interview broadcasted on RTL-TVI on January 8, Laurette Onkelinx openly claimed: “the believers of our country deserve to have another representative,” adding that she scarcely appreciated the prelate’s public comments, which she called “a provocation against democracy.”

In his latest work, Agir en chrétien dans sa vie et dans le monde (ed. Fidélité) (Acting as a Christian in One’s Life and in the World), presented on January 5, in Malines, Archbishop Léonard deplores “the many abuses committed today in matters of parliamentary democracy.”  According to him, “Parliament takes upon itself the right to decide by majority vote on the meaning of sexuality, on the difference between masculine and feminine, on the meaning of the word ‘marriage’, on the metaphysical relation between the human being and finiteness and death, on the quality of embryos deserving to be respected or not.”

In the Archbishop of Malines-Brussels’ eyes, a remedy to these abuses would be for men and women with strong Christian convictions to get involved in politics: “Without a sense of transcendence, the danger of an arrogant democracy, that thinks that a vote is enough to found a right, lies in wait for us.”

(sources: apic/belga – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

Russia acquired the land by proposing the highest bid to the French State.  Saudi Arabia, hoping to build a mosque on Quai Branly, was among the other candidates.

(sources: apic/kna – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

Cardinal Jaime Ortega.

Cuban Cardinal Jaime Ortega has confirmed that Raul Castro’s government did indeed release close to 2,900 prisoners in an amnesty decreed in view of Benedict XVI’s next visit to the island.  “Almost all of them were able to spend the Christmas holidays at home,” announced the Archbishop of La Havane during the New Year celebrations, quoted by the newspaper El Nuevo Herald edited in Miami.  Before Christmas, President Raul Castro had announced freedom for prisoners, especially elderly persons, women and a few political prisoners.

Cardinal Ortega also prayed, with 4,000 faithful, for the continuation of the reform process begun by Raul Castro.  The political leaders must take “the steps necessary for a transformation of economic and social life,” he declared.  Pope Benedict XVI is expected in Cuba in the second half of March 2012.

(sources: apic/kna – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

And so this four-day plenary assembly allowed the cardinals and bishops who are members of it to study, among other subjects, the response of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Doctrinal Preamble proposed by Rome in September 2011.

According to I.Media, “after an initial response sent to Rome in December and judged insufficient”, the Society of Saint Pius X submitted “a second response” which “according to Vatican sources” (again according to I.Media), “proves to be no more satisfactory in the eyes of those who are studying it”.  And the Roman news agency concludes:  “Rome’s response is now in the hands of Benedict XVI.”

According to a source close to the matter, we can announce that the letter posted by Bishop Fellay in mid-January is not a “second response”;  rather it clarifies the position of the Society of Saint Pius X and the import of the document sent to Cardinal Levada on December 1, 2011, in response to the Roman proposal dated September 14.  (Sources : IMedia/Apic/FSSPX – DICI no.249 dated February 3, 2012)

You can also read :
Le Courrier à Rome [“Mail to Rome”]
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay : The Society of St. Pius X and the Doctrinal Preamble
Germany : Interview with Fr. Niklaus Pfluger about the doctrinal preamble
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay after his meeting with Cardinal William Levada

“They even wish to forbid visits to archeological sites where the statues are naked,” remarks an outraged tourism professional.  Men are not spared either: neckties would be forbidden.  And there are also plans for hairdressers no longer to have the right to shave beards.  But over all, it is mostly women who are the target.  It would be out of the question, for example, for them to wear pants, “unless they are with their husband, their brothers or their father.”  The niqab, the full veil, would not be obligatory.   But this would not exclude the obligation to wear a scarf over their hair.  The Islamists also consider make-up, perfume and other feminine accessories as adultery, allowing only the use of kohl for make-up, and that, only at home.

All these measures are beginning to frighten bankers and tourist guides, who are thinking of the consequences an Islamic State would have on tourism, which is an important branch of the Egyptian economy.  It would certainly be the sector that would suffer the most, and it employs about 12% of the population.  According to Egypt Independent, “it is the country’s primary source of money, with a $14,000,000,000 income in 2010.”

In an open letter published by the Egyptian newspaper Al Masri El Youm on December 12, Fatma Naout, an Egyptian writer, asks whether “ in the brain of a Salafi, there is anything other than women?”  She deplores the fact that “all the Salafi fatwas come down to one single idea, that women reject: that a woman is just a body, a carnal envelope not gifted with reason, an instrument of pleasure, a hotbed of walking temptation.”  In her conclusion, she hurled at the Salafis: “Why don’t you just bury women alive so that you can be in peace?”

Some women who held a beauty salon in Benha, in the Nile Delta, chased off some religious men who, in an operation much like that of the morality police in Saudi Arabia, had come down to make sure that the establishment was conformed to the Islamic law on women, reported Al Arabiya, quoted by this same article in Slate Afrique.  But instead of conforming to the demands of the Islamists or of calling for help, the women took the matter into their own hands and kicked them out of the salon with sticks and blows.

Other inspections were organized by the same group of religious in other shops to make sure they were “halal”.  It would seem that this “Group for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” also destroyed Christmas decorations, judging these festivities “haram”, that is, forbidden by Islam.

(sources: apic/Egypt Independent// Slate Afrique – DICI#249, Feb 3, 2012)

You can also read :
Egypt: The victory of the Islamist parties worries the Copts
Egypt: Cardinal Naguib Denounces the Rise of the Islamists
Egypt: The Interreligious Dream and the Islamic Reality
Switzerland: Two witnesses to the persecution against the Christians in Egypt and Iraq