Posted by: | May 16, 2008 6:15:45 AM,
Hah. Hah. Very funny.

SDG,
May the arrogance of others never tarnish your innocence. As always I greatly enjoyed your post and follow up comments.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Easy. By imploding it. :-)

Hmm...How do you "unexplode" something?!
The Chicken

Hmm...How do you "unexplode" something?!
The Chicken

Given the eternal nature of the Paschal Mystery, Christ probably did turn over in His grave ... while he was in it

Have you read Thomas Howard's luminous, wonderful Chance or the Dance? It will uncross your eyes and unexplode your brain. Also it clarifies how ritual and ceremony belong to the "dance" side of the equation that is so antithetical to the "chance" side.
I haven't read it, but I'll have to now. Sounds good. Especially the "uncross and unexplode" part (not that your post wasn't good or anything. I needed to it read slowly) :-)

So you're saying that they thought ceremony and ritual come from bitter people who cling to religion and guns?
Oh, wait. In Soviet Russia, glorious revolution has no problem with guns. Is God they don't like. :)

David B: Have you read Thomas Howard's luminous, wonderful Chance or the Dance? It will uncross your eyes and unexplode your brain. Also it clarifies how ritual and ceremony belong to the "dance" side of the equation that is so antithetical to the "chance" side.

Correction: Crossed.

...and my eyeballs cross. I ain't kidding. Well, maybe just slightly. :-)

The argument posits, not without plausibility, that ceremony and ritual per se are phenomenologically rooted in a sociocultural order that reductionistic, post human secularist materialism regards as superstitious and quasi-religious.
Ouch. SDG, my brain just exploded.

Thank you, SDG, gracious, helpful and informative, as always. If I were to respond further, I'd be taking us way off topic, at this point, in this thread.

Kevin, I haven't read Weigel's book, but heard the reviews for some time. They say it's a good complement/companion to the modern catechism, which is unfortunately a drastic departure from the Baltimore Catechism.
While admitedly not knowing exactly what Weigel wrote of the Holy Sepulchre, I was attempting to do the same as you suggest: trying to give an explanation to the situation without defending or condoning it.
To that end; one more thing I'd like to add here is that there is ALWAYS a sense of unease and tension wherever you go in Jerusalem (maybe everywhere in Israel). Anyone who has been there knows what I'm talking about. I think it is extremely difficult if not impossible to be completely at ease there for anyone who hasn't lived there for a long time. This tension often comes out in various ways, and the monks/religious are obviously not immune.
Also, I looked for the article all over the net, but couldn't find any other coverage in any other language other than the AP version in English.

Suppose I should tell you what BOOK to find said chapter in. Letters to a Young Catholic.

Which of Weigel's dozen or so books do you have in mind?

SDG - I recommend reading Weigel's chapter on the Holy Sepulchre. While not condoning the actions, it certainly puts the situation in a more 'small-c' catholic perspective.

Although I cannot comment on the fracas that occured at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, let me take a moment to say a word about the lowly palm frond.
Lest you be tempted to think that these are weapons worthy of Monty Python, a recent study found:
Mechanical properties were evaluated on specimens, prepared from DPLM from 3 different locations in Egypt. The average modulus of rupture (MOR) in static bending was 13 KN/cm2, the modulus of elasticity in bending was 1400 KN/cm2, the tensile strength was 9 KN/cm2 and the compressive strength 6 KN/cm2. The average density was found 0.66 gm/cm3. These value are comparable with those for beech wood.
As an expert in the biomechanics of grasses and woods, I can imagine what it might feel like in Scripture when it says that Jesus was struck with a reed. The "reed" meanted was probably one of three species of reed: arundo Sativa L., arundo phragmites - both gian reed plants that grow in Egypt, or (less likely), papyrus. The stem of these reeds is extemely flexible, but have very strong mechanical properties (on the order of some types of plastics). Being hit by a plant that quickly deforms (so a large impulse is created), but has a high modulus of elasticity is like being hit by a whip made of steel cords.
So, those palm fronds must have hurt.
The Chicken

LOL. Well, if everything I am saying is irrelevant in your mind, then there's not much more room for discussion.

The point at issue is what it is.

JULI, as SDG stated, the "heirarchy" of the Greek church (namely the Patriarch of Jerusalem) DID come out and made a statement, essentially denouncing the Armenians as trespassors. Now, did he also make a statement admonishing the priests and denouncing the violence? Possibly. With the news media being what it is, I'm thinking that either way they wouldn't have reported on it.

Ah, now there is a relevant point. Thanks, Deusdonat.

Labrialumn: I was thinking in terms of the motive of denying the body and creation because of it being less holy than the spirit, a common thread in Eastern-influenced religions. Christianity in its many segments, is not immune, that sort of thing is present everywhere. From certain perceptions of the value of virginity (as opposed to chastity) and monasticism, to ugly cinder block churches built by evangelical protestants, to the general view in our culture that we go to heaven and float around on clouds as winged angels, rather than believing in the resurrection of the body. It is something that has led to ugliness (as in those cinder-block churches), to tragedy of those rejecting legitimate goods in favor of something not superior (presumably they didn't take 1 Tim. 4:1-5 into consideration) and so on. One couple engaged to be married broke up because a Navigators leader told the guy that marriage was less holy than singleness, so they did. I don't think they ever actually recovered.

AFAIK, Labrialumn, the general point of view you are describing is usually called gnosticism. It is certainly condemned as heretical in Catholic teaching, though of course in practice it has not always been effectively rejected or resisted.
FWIW, while in practice gnosticism can be ascetical, it can also be libertine. Since spirit is what matters and the body is variously corrupt, gross or without value, what is done with the body may be deemed a matter of irrelevance. Indulgence can be considered appropriate to the condition of the body, which is beyond redemption anyway.
In orthodox Catholic thought, ascesis is grounded in the assumption that the created world and the body are in fact good... and what we offer to or give up for God is precisely what is good, not what is evil. Food, for instance. As the ancient Israelites sacrificed to God precisely the good animals from their stock and not the bad, Catholic tradition teaches us to give up food, or certain foods, for a time on the assumption that food is good, not evil.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 7 St. Paul mentions married couples abstaining from sex for a time of special prayer. In the same passage, he talks about how giving up marriage altogether -- though marriage is a great good in itself -- enables one to serve the kingdom of God with a freedom that one would not otherwise possess. Jesus also commends those who make themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom" (Matthew 19).
In keeping with this, orthodox Catholic thought honors avowed celibacy and virginity while taking for granted that marriage is a great good -- a holy sacrament, in fact. (Any notion of singleness as "holier" than marriage I take to be flatly mistaken, though there is a tradition in Catholic thought that celibacy is in a certain sense "nobler" than marriage.)
Unfortunately we Catholics have ourselves become quite good at building those ugly cinder-block churches; any mistake Protestants make seems to be repeated by Catholics a few decades later. (The same thing happened with liberal Bible scholarship.) I think that this is grounded in larger postmodern issues than gnosticism, though.
The disembodied heaven rather than resurrection and the new earth is of course a perennial catechetical issue. IIRC, N.T. Wright suggests that the idea that human beings become angels when they die may actually go back to pre-Christian Jewish ideas about the interim state of the soul before the resurrection.

As far as ascesis goes, its a rather basic principle that one ought not to engage in ascetical practices like fasting if they cause one to live less of a Christian life rather than more of one - e.g., behave irritably all the time. I have heard it said often enough.
In fact, St. Paul even counseled the Colossians that ascetical practices are of "no value" in dealing with the indulgence of the flesh. He's not ruling out asceticism altogether, as he practiced it himself and commended it to people on many ocassions, but he is pointing out it's limitations. Commentators say he is referring to certain practices in place at the time that failed to give the body what it needed.
St. Francis of Assisi, whom many would consider an ascetic par excellence, had similar views on these things. He recognized that many of the practices being undertaken by the brothers were - while beneficial to himself - causing them great harm. He was ready for these things, and they weren't, so he actually opposed certain ascetical practices for the general brotherhood. He wouldn't allow Franciscan regulations to require abstinence, and things like that. He saw that for an advanced soul, things like the sorts of extreme fasting required in some of the Eastern Churches would be beneficial, but for most - even dedicated Franciscan brothers - it would be damaging.

SDG, I am very open to the likelihood that we are using two different definitions of the term ascesis, and that yours is the correct one.
I was thinking in terms of the motive of denying the body and creation because of it being less holy than the spirit, a common thread in Eastern-influenced religions. Christianity in its many segments, is not immune, that sort of thing is present everywhere. From certain perceptions of the value of virginity (as opposed to chastity) and monasticism, to ugly cinder block churches built by evangelical protestants, to the general view in our culture that we go to heaven and float around on clouds as winged angels, rather than believing in the resurrection of the body. It is something that has led to ugliness (as in those cinder-block churches), to tragedy of those rejecting legitimate goods in favor of something not superior (presumably they didn't take 1 Tim. 4:1-5 into consideration) and so on. One couple engaged to be married broke up because a Navigators leader told the guy that marriage was less holy than singleness, so they did. I don't think they ever actually recovered.
You might be talking about something different, and I conclude that if that is the case, I don't understand it nearly well enough to have an opinion, just squeemishness based upon the above.

Fr Sayf, those pictures are AWESOME. Really takes me back. I'm awash in nostalgia at the moment : )

I wrote the following after my visit to the Holy Land in 2008:
Before we went in, however, we were told why there is a ladder leaning against a wall underneath a window, perched above the doorway to the Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. The window is Armenian. The wall is Greek Orthodox. At least over 100 years ago, the Armenians woke early to wash the outside of their window. Their racket woke the Greeks who shooed them away before they could collect their ladder. And so the ladder stayed. For years. Until it deteriorated – which I could have overlooked, until Khalil told us that when the ladder deteriorated, in order to maintain the Status Quo they had to get an identical ladder and put it outside in its place. Unbelievable!
You can find a pic of the keeper of the keys at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7294208@N04/124467369...

LOL. Well, if everything I am saying is irrelevant in your mind, then there's not much more room for discussion.
JULI, as SDG stated, the "heirarchy" of the Greek church (namely the Patriarch of Jerusalem) DID come out and made a statement, essentially denouncing the Armenians as trespassors. Now, did he also make a statement admonishing the priests and denouncing the violence? Possibly. With the news media being what it is, I'm thinking that either way they wouldn't have reported on it.

These Churches have hierarchies - I would wonder why SOMEONE isn't coming out and making a statement.

That's just what the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in the Holy Land, Theofilos III, did. Specifically he "The Associated Press the Armenians are pushing to change the rules, and try to challenge was he said is the dominance of his church in the Holy Land. "This behavior is criminal and unacceptable by all means," he said. "They wanted to trespass on the status quo concerning the order that regulates the services between the various communities."
:-(

Yes, I understand. But as I mentioned, many of these priests and monks come from VERY poor and uneducated backgrounds as well as cultures we would honestly consider backwards in many respects.

Yet consider the reaction above from the Greek patriarch, who holds their behavior as criminal and deliberate trespass, not just backwardness, etc. You are right, I can't understand the mindset.

There are/were always dispensations and guidance for those who could not handle it due to heavy work, health issues etc. In older generations, you could only receive communion (particularly during Lent) if you had been fasting properly. But VERY FEW PEOPLE DID. In fact, it was common for people to only receive once a year on Easter...AFTER the fast was over. Asceticism was an aspired ideal, but hardly normative.

AFAIK, the Lenten disciplines were normative: Unlike the Sunday morning fast, they were not a mere contigent requirement that one could choose to skip by passing on communion, but were legally obligatory for all Catholics of appropriate age and health. Even if the norms were widely bent and/or broken as you suggest, that would not automatically make them non-normative. The normative and the normal are not the same thing.

You mean as opposed to a 4th of July parade? Or a May day celebration? Don't you think political machines are just as organized if not more so? How many people would you guess die on the 4th of July each year?
Also, I'd like to add the World Cup and the Olypics (even though they are every 4 years), the Super Bowl, the world series etc. Wanna know how many people are killed during Super Bowl each year?

Since none of those are specifically irreligious in nature and in fact a great many participants would be religious, even highly so, they would seem not to be relevant.

Well, irreligionists like to blame religion for everything from static cling to their own ED. So, I'm not too bothered if they make that particular claim since it would be laughible and totally without merrit since Stalin was an avowed atheist operating in an atheist state under an atheist framework.

Stalin's atheism and that his followers is irrelevant to the point at issue. The argument posits, not without plausiblity, that ceremony and ritual per se are phenomenologically rooted in a sociocultural order that reductionistic, posthuman secularist materialism regards as superstitious and quasi-religious. In principle, a truly posthuman secularist society (the posthumanist argues) would be as free as possible from ceremony and ritual and thus from funerals, and the sort of upheaval occasioned by (the posthumanist argues) the superstitious mummery accompanying even Stalin's death would not have occurred.

This is certainly not doing the work of the Father like Jesus strongly suggested.
"If ye love Me, follow My strong suggestions."

Obviously at the moment it was happening, those participating didn't see anything wrong with brawling, or it would not have happened.
Oh? Just today I did something wrong and I knew it was wrong when I did it. Surely I'm not the only one.

These Churches have hierarchies - I would wonder why SOMEONE isn't coming out and making a statement. I agree, SDG, this is tragic. This is certainly not doing the work of the Father like Jesus strongly suggested.

Catholic Novus Ordo church near where I live in Durham North Carolina.
On Palm Sunday, this year, some liberal priest, incited a riot by suggesting that the congregation take out their Lenten frustrations on each other by swaking their neighbor with the blessed palms during the "kiss of peace".
Dan, what was the name of the church? I'd like to check out what happened.

But this is the priests -- quarreling over turf. One wants to say to them: Do you not fear God? Can't the followers of the Redeemer try to act a little more redeemed?
Yes, I understand. But as I mentioned, many of these priests and monks come from VERY poor and uneducated backgrounds as well as cultures we would honestly consider backwards in many respects. Have you heard of the concept of "ecclesia militans"? When one priest physically fights against another who he considers a heretic over a cause which he deems as just (although we find frivolous) he may think he is indeed following God in his righteous wrath as Jesus turning out the money changers in the temple. I'm not excusing this or even defending it. I'm just saying it's a mindset you can't understand unless you are in it.
I'm afraid I can't respond to your subsequent comments of sentence one, followed by sentence 3 but not to be exceded by sentence 2 if and when sentence 4 and 1 corroborate exactly what the participle in sentence 2 connotes. Suffice it to say, Ascesis is more than the abstinence of meat on Friday, which is neither harsh nor creates any rigorous self-discipline if you substitute meat for fish (see: lobster). If you only eat rice or bread and water on Friday, this is different. Changing your diet, as Labriasalumn points out, is more of a commemoration (i.e. we commemorate the Lord's sacrifice on Friday by abstaining from meat, just as Jews abstain from yeast on passover) and your belly will be full either way. If you wish to practice asceticism, then you take it the next step. But that is your call. And as I mentioned, Christianity only advocates it if the act itself will bring you closer to God. If it makes you a grouch and unable to practice Christian virtue, then you should not do it. There is a reason all ascetics have spiritual advisors of some sort.
Anyway, the pre-Vatican II Lenten disciplines surely amounted to a significant ascetical undertaking by the laity in general.
Yes. But see my comments above. There are/were always dispensations and guidance for those who could not handle it due to heavy work, health issues etc. In older generations, you could only receive communion (particularly during Lent) if you had been fasting properly. But VERY FEW PEOPLE DID. In fact, it was common for people to only receive once a year on Easter...AFTER the fast was over. Asceticism was an aspired ideal, but hardly normative.
The irreligionist easily and plausibly retorts that it is religion, not irreligion, that characteristically organizes itself so as to regularly create such events bringing together large numbers of adherents, from widely divergent backgrounds, in highly emotional states, under stressful attendant circumstances, etc.
You mean as opposed to a 4th of July parade? Or a May day celebration? Don't you think political machines are just as organized if not more so? How many people would you guess die on the 4th of July each year?
Holy Week and the Hajj are perennial phenomena with no parallel perennial phenomena in the culture of irreligion.
*cough*. Also, I'd like to add the World Cup and the Olypics (even though they are every 4 years), the Super Bowl, the world series etc. Wanna know how many people are killed during Super Bowl each year?
An irreligionist of a particular bent could even try to mount a case that insofar as Lenin's funeral was a ceremonial and ritual event, it was to that extent colored by religion, and thus even there religion is potentially implicated in the violence.
Well, irreligionists like to blame religion for everything from static cling to their own ED. So, I'm not too bothered if they make that particular claim since it would be laughible and totally without merrit since Stalin was an avowed atheist operating in an atheist state under an atheist framework. There is no room for using religion here other than to say the concept of a procession is a ritual which is equally used in religion and politics. But then you could point out to said irreligionist that is as far as it goes.
Regarding your final comment re schism, the quarrels in question are at times among churches (i.e. Armenians and Copts) which are NOT in schism. And other times they are (i.e. Copts and Greeks). In this case, schism is a pretext for the violence, but an unnecessary one, as any perceived slight or sacrilidge could have set it off. And I pray nightly for the reunification of the original 5 churches, so I can commiserate with your pain on this schismatic wound.

SDG: This isn't a failure of pedagogy or cross-cultural issues, it's just plain disgraceful and contrary to charity.

Deusdonat: No argument there.

Then I prescind from getting sidetracked into different senses of "seeing something wrong." The substantial point has been made.

This is what happens when you get crowds, specifically coming from different ethnic, socio-economic and educational backgrounds mixing, regardless of the setting.

But this is the priests -- quarreling over turf. One wants to say to them: Do you not fear God? Can't the followers of the Redeemer try to act a little more redeemed?

SDG: But Christian tradition promotes ascesis as normative, not helpful for certain people and harmful for others.

Deusdonat: I highly disagree. There are degrees of ascetism which can only be accomplished by people devoting their entire lives to it. Even fasting, when it used to be normative in the Catholic church was never at the levels of any ascentic. Friday was simply "fish-stick" night. If you had ascetic aspirations, you go from there. And it is only noble if it helps you spiritually.

Taking your sentences in order: I don't see that #1 is justified by #2 and possibly not by #3 (though I'm hindered here by uncertainty exactly what #3 means and not even 100 percent sure of the intended form of the final word). #4-#5 I find unhelpful. Meatless Fridays were certainly intended by the Church as a form of ascesis (pace L'Abri Alum, who seems to be defining ascesis differently). Anyway, the pre-Vatican II Lenten disciplines surely amounted to a significant ascetical undertaking by the laity in general.

Not necessarily. You'd simply have to show such deaths at any secular events. But Stalin's funeral is more pertenent, since he was atheist numer uno, yet his cult-like following inspired the furor which lead to the deaths.

Look, I'm all for the well-turned tu quoque, but this one just doesn't wash. The irreligionist easily and plausibly retorts that it is religion, not irreligion, that characteristically organizes itself so as to regularly create such events bringing together large numbers of adherents, from widely divergent backgrounds, in highly emotional states, under stressful attendant circumstances, etc. Holy Week and the Hajj are perennial phenomena with no parallel perennial phenomena in the culture of irreligion. Lenin's funeral was a one-time event and something of a fluke. An irreligionist of a particular bent could even try to mount a case that insofar as Lenin's funeral was a ceremonial and ritual event, it was to that extent colored by religion, and thus even there religion is potentially implicated in the violence.

It's called humor.

Color me uncomfortable with the humor.

That story depresses me far more than SDG's post here.

And yet that story clearly is something of a freak event, even though liturgical nuttiness generally isn't. In any case, I have to say that the comparatively trivial and (one hopes) ephemeral crisis of a thousand Father Flakes genially fostering self-actualized community celebrating itself in its okayness (to crib a phrase from someone or other) in parishes across North America strikes me as nowhere near as depressing as the prospect of centuries of entrenched schism and smoldering animosity among ecumenically divided households of faith with no end in sight.

L'Abri alumn: Ascesis is of course a product of the influence of Eastern mysticism via Plotinus and pseudo-Dionysios in the first place. Something to be earnestly removed from the household of faith, like yeast before the Pesach. As Deusdonat points out, there is a difference between periodic fasting, and actual asceticism.

"Like yeast before the Pesach" is an interesting image, since of course there's no difficulty about yeast the rest of the year. At any rate, your notion of "asceticism" seems to be like the modern reinterpretation of "usuary" to mean charging exorbitant interest, whereas originally the word just meant charging interest, period. Fasting, like any form of self-denial, is a form of ascesis.

Liam,
there have always been custodial families (Christian and Mohammedan) of the Holy Sepulchre, dating back to the time of Constantine. But the CURRENT families/process dates no later than the 18th century, which is "modern" in Jerusalem time.
DAN,
That story depresses me far more than SDG's post here. Some priests are just not cut out for the job. I know this is understating the obvious, but I'm really straining to be charitable here.

This sounds like what happened at a Catholic Novus Ordo church near where I live in Durham North Carolina.
On Palm Sunday, this year, some liberal priest, incited a riot by suggesting that the congregation take out their Lenten frustrations on each other by swaking their neighbor with the blessed palms during the "kiss of peace".
This turned into a five minute free-for-all right before the reception of the Blessed Sacrament, with palm fronds buffeting men women and children.
Maybe this is part of some antiquarian rite of the early Church?
No surprise, really.
Ut Prosim

There are two different Muslim families who have responsibilities for the keys to the basilica: one possesses them and the other does the opening and closing of the doors with them.
And these roles have been around for many centuries, long before modern times.
The various Islamic caliphs in control of Jerusalem (which varied over the centuries: the Damascus-based caliphate, then the Bagdhad-based caliphate, then the Cairo-based Fatimid caliphate, then the various Crusader states, then the Cairo-based Mamluk sultanate, then the Istanbul-based Ottoman caliphate) have favored different Christian powers over the centuries in terms of use of the basilica.
For example, when the Carolingians were waxing, they were given preference over the closer Byzantines (also waxing in power), under the understandable preference for a distant and weaker power over a closer and stronger power. This is the source of the traditional French role in the shrines of the Holy Land, btw, and some may remember that France also tried to maintain good relations with the Ottomans in later centuries. In the 19th century, Russia asserted and won a great deal more influence since it had considerable influence over the Ottomans by that time. Et cet.
After World War II, the British Mandate inherited things as they stood from the Ottomans, then Jordan in turn in 1947 and then Israel in 1967.

I was under the impression that I'd read of -Franciscans- of all people, involved in similar inter-nicean riots not too long ago.
Ascesis is of course a product of the influence of Eastern mysticism via Plotinus and pseudo-Dionysios in the first place. Something to be earnestly removed from the household of faith, like yeast before the Pesach. As Deusdonat points out, there is a difference between periodic fasting, and actual asceticism.
The Garden Tomb site is a result of 19th century archaeologists thinking that archeology might arrive at a more precise location than an Empress of the 4th century, when it came to archeology. However, it remains disputed.
Smugness is too close to sin for me to be comfortable with.

Aye, Francis. It's called humor. Take a breathe and relax. Or better yet, rent a movie of the Jewish commedian of your choice.

Sorry guys, but I just can't make the word "pummel" fit any type action taken with a palm frond. The photo looks more like a heated argument...
Any chance this is the media trying to make Christians look bad?

Please, guys, we should not believe, much less actually write, things like we're "lucky" if thousands die in the Hajj. I can't just let that pass. Please, anyone who's reading this, don't conclude that all religious people, or all Catholics, or all readers of JA.O are full of spite and hatred. We aren't. Deusdonat probably isn't either, although his words were certainly ill-chosen.

I don't think it's plausible that the people involved "didn't see anything wrong" with the scuffle;
Obviously at the moment it was happening, those participating didn't see anything wrong with brawling, or it would not have happened.
rather, it seems each was outraged at the other.
Yes, the two events are cause and effect; I am outraged, therefore I will brawl with you. Not mutually exclusive.
This isn't a failure of pedagogy or cross-cultural issues, it's just plain disgraceful and contrary to charity.
No argument there.
All Muslims are supposed to go to Mecca. I suspect the logistical issues of the latter are considerably more daunting.
Definitely. But the same concepts apply. I know several people who have gone to the Hajj. While they all expound on the warm-fuzzy feeling they had worshipping along side masses of people, they all invariably had stories of people shoving, crowding, stinking, stepping on their feet, and not saying "excuse me" or even caring. This is what happens when you get crowds, specifically coming from different ethnic, socio-economic and educational backgrounds mixing, regardless of the setting.
But Christian tradition promotes ascesis as normative, not helpful for certain people and harmful for others.
I highly disagree. There are degrees of ascetism which can only be accomplished by people devoting their entire lives to it. Even fasting, when it used to be normative in the Catholic church was never at the levels of any ascentic. Friday was simply "fish-stick" night. If you had ascetic aspirations, you go from there. And it is only noble if it helps you spiritually.
Perhaps, but then that WOULD be a fluke, until such time as incidents regularly occur at Stalin's grave around the anniversary of his death.
Not necessarily. You'd simply have to show such deaths at any secular events. But Stalin's funeral is more pertenent, since he was atheist numer uno, yet his cult-like following inspired the furor which lead to the deaths.

Deusdonat,
Much of what you say is of course common sense. In this case, the brawl appears, if the account is correct, to have been precipitated by clerics feuding over "status quo" site-sharing rights:
The fight is part of a growing rivalry over religious rights at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, built over the site where tradition says Jesus was buried and resurrected. It erupted when Armenian clergy kicked out a Greek priest from their midst, pushed him to the ground and kicked him, according to witnesses.

Father Pakrad, an Armenian priest, said the presence of the Greek priest during the Armenian observances violated the status quo. "Our priests entered the tomb. They kicked the Greek monk out of the Edicule," he said.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch in the Holy Land, Theofilos III, told The Associated Press the Armenians are pushing to change the rules, and try to challenge was he said is the dominance of his church in the Holy Land.

"This behavior is criminal and unacceptable by all means," he said. "They wanted to trespass on the status quo concerning the order that regulates the services between the various communities."
I don't think it's plausible that the people involved "didn't see anything wrong" with the scuffle; rather, it seems each was outraged at the other. This isn't a failure of pedagogy or cross-cultural issues, it's just plain disgraceful and contrary to charity.
The comparison to the Hajj is interesting; not sure how helpful it is. Probably most Christians in the world never make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. All Muslims are supposed to go to Mecca. I suspect the logistical issues of the latter are considerably more daunting.
On a side note, having just gotten back from Orlando, Suz and I think that the whole planet should just put Disney in charge of all logistical issues worldwide. Just let them handle everything.

If fasting and ascetism is going to make you mean, then you shouldn't do it.

But Christian tradition promotes ascesis as normative, not just helpful for certain people and harmful for others. If Christian ascetical traditions commonly lead to short tempers and altercations, how are we to apportion blame between the people and the traditions themselves?

Possibly. But then you could simply remind them of how many died during Stalin's funeral (some say upwards of a thousand).

Perhaps, but then that would be a fluke, until such time as incidents regularly occur at Stalin's grave around the anniversary of his death.

SDG, I wanted to also respond on two of your comments here:
This sounds perilously like an argument against ascesis per se: If it leads to less charity rather than more, isn't it defeating the whole purpose?
Absolutely correct. If fasting and ascetism is going to make you mean, then you shouldn't do it. Not everyone understands this.
If I were a Fundamentalist anti-sacramentalist and anti-ascetic, the whole business would leave me feeling quite smug.
Heh Heh, but then you wouldn't be in the real Sepulchre to begin with. Protestants have their own "garden tomb" which they believe is Jesus' final resting place. In actuality it is a 2nd century BC tomb converted to a stable in crussader times. I don't know if there have ever been any brawls there.
Then again, a James Carroll or Christopher Hitchens would feel equally smug in finding the business a rebuttal of (respectively) exclusivist religion or superstitious claptrap generally.
Possibly. But then you could simply remind them of how many died during Stalin's funeral (some say upwards of a thousand).

I haven't gone to Wikipedia, but most likely it is wrong. The keys being handed over to the Mohammedans is s semi-recent invention, but the Israeli government pretends like it is something that goes WAY back for some reason. I can't figure out why other than to try and keep Christians subservient there.
Just as an FYI, since Christianity began, Easter, Christmas and other holy days were always celebrated on different days by different churches. I don't think there was ever any universal uniformity. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but just that in the case of the Holy Sepulchre, it is convenient as it splits the crowd.
I know in a perfect world one would think that Christians wouldn't brawl, especially in holy places and in holy events. But that is just not how humans work. You might be in one mindset when you are there, but someone next to you might only be there because he is being forced to by his family. Or if you look German, maybe you are standing next to someone who's great-grandfather was killed by Nazis and so your presence is resented. Plus, if you come from a country with no concept of "personal space", someone who is expecting arm-room might be offended you are standing so close and not respecting him. That type of thing. Crowds are crowds.
Also, I have to say this, the religious "education" of some of the clerics who inhabit the Holy Land is severely lacking (think Rasputin). So, they see nothing wrong with participating in brawling (like what happened in Bethlehem). And finally, I know this doesn't mean much and is little consoloation, but no one has actually DIED from any brawling in the Holy Land. Contrast this with the "Hajj" in Saudi Arabia, where hundreds die from brawls, stampedes and murder each year (thousands some years, if we're lucky). They dismiss this by saying that anyone who dies during the Hajj gets an instant pass to paradise. But the fact is going to the hajj is risky business. I'd take my chances in the Holy Sepulchre anyday.

There you go. Case in point.

"Priests beating each other with palm fronds in front of the Saint Sepulchre": you can't tell me this doesn't sound like a Monty Python sketch!

Deusdonat,
Of course I'm aware that such brawls are not uncommon at holy sites (wasn't there just one in Bethelehem recently?). That's precisely what makes it so "numbingly depressing": If it were a fluke, it'd be "shocking" or "alarming" or something of the sort.
In this case, the aggravated use of palm fronds of all things caught my imagination as especially emblematic of the scandal of Christian belligerence (that could be commonplace too, but I'd never heard of it). More depressing still, though, is the notion that the East–West Easter gap could be seen as a "good" thing in the way you suggest.
Keys confiscated in the 19th century? Is Wikipedia wrong to say that the arrangement goes back to, like, Saladin?
Holy week is very cathartic for people who have been fasting and sacrificing for 40 days, so have a low tolerance and are quick to be irritated

This sounds perilously like an argument against ascesis per se: If it leads to less charity rather than more, isn't it defeating the whole purpose? In the same way, the whole business sounds like an argument against venerating holy sites, and by extension sacramentalism in general.
If I were a Fundamentalist anti-sacramentalist and anti-ascetic, the whole business would leave me feeling quite smug. Then again, a James Carroll or Christopher Hitchens would feel equally smug in finding the business a rebuttal of (respectively) exclusivist religion or superstitious claptrap generally.

SDG,
Your innocence is actually a bit cute. These brawls happen every year in the Holy Sepulcre. Usually (and no disrespect at all here) they involve the Egyptian Copts, so I'm surprised they aren't mentioned in this year's pugilistics (maybe they were over near the crypt placing bets on the winners). Catholics are never involved, as their/our section of the Sepulcre is a far off chapel to the left as you enter, so a) there is plenty of space and b) it is rare that Catholics and Orthodox celebrate the same day for Easter (once every 15-years or so I think). This is actually a GOOD thing, since the predominantly Italian Catholics in Jerusalem use olive branches instead of palm fronds, so they would have an unfair advantage and do considerable damage : )
There are basically two reasons for these brawls: 1) Holy week is very cathartic for people who have been fasting and sacrificing for 40 days, so have a low tolerance and are quick to be irritated 2) Since the end of the crussades, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been the victim of a VERY sinister proxy turf war. Every centimeter of the church is mapped out as to who can control, sweep, clean what. The Egyptian church even squeezed out the Ethopian church centuries back by burning their claim documents in order to increase their "territory" within the church. The church of the Holy Sepulchre is really a microcosm of the Orthodox church in the world, saddly.
Now, regarding the keys, yes they are held by Mohammedan Nusseibeh family. The story says they were presented the keys by the churches in order to settle a dispute. But this is highly doubtful, as they were most likely confiscated after a fire in the 19th century. Regardless, it is shameful. At night, when the church is about to close, the Israeli IDF come in and shout and harass everyone to leave. When the worshipers are finally out, the religious stay near the door inside as the Mohammedans come to the entrance and close the door and lock it. One night there were a group of Danish and Americans who cheered and clapped as this "spectacle" ended, as if they had just witnessed the final act of "Annie". I shook my head and said in Italian "Morons". A Franciscan standing at my side overheard me and said, "that's the way it is."