The Baphomet statue from the ‘conversion room’ at the Satanic Temple in Salem, Massachusetts, Oct. 8, 2019. / Credit: JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 14, 2023 / 18:15 pm (CNA).
The Satanic Temple display in the Iowa state capitol building is not protected by the First Amendment, a Catholic legal expert told CNA.
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, a legal analyst for EWTN, told CNA that the display installed at the request of a prominent atheist group is not religious expression but rather about making a mockery of religion.
The temporary statue, which portrays a larger-than-life-size goat-headed figure cloaked in red and black and surrounded by candles, was erected at the request of Iowa’s Satanic Temple (TST) alongside several religious holiday displays. According to Forbes the Iowa state capitol holiday display this year also includes a Christmas tree, a Nativity scene, and a holiday banner by another atheist group. Local news station KCCI Des Moines reported that the display will remain in the capitol through Dec. 15.
Since its unveiling, the TST display has inspired outrage as well as calls to prayer. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds called the display “absolutely objectionable” and encouraged “all those of faith” to join her in “praying over the Capitol and recognizing the Nativity scene that will be on display — the true reason for the season.”
On Thursday there were reports on social media that the TST exhibit had been vandalized but was still on display.
Others such as Iowa state Rep. Jon Dunwell, a Republican and a pastor, have said that the Satanic display is protected by the free exercise of worship and religion clause of the First Amendment.
Though he said he personally objects to the monument, Dunwell said: “I don’t want the state evaluating and making determinations about religions.”
Picciotti-Bayer, who is the director of the human and religious rights group the Conscience Project, said the First Amendment “absolutely” does “not protect this kind of offensive and irreligious display.”
She explained that because the group has publicly admitted that it is primarily composed of atheists and does not believe in the existence of Satan, the display does not constitute genuine religious expression. Instead, she said it is meant to make a mockery of religion and is part of a “concerted effort to undermine the fabric of American society.”
“We have to avoid the temptation to want to abandon our free speech principles and think that opposing The Satanic Temple can only be done with censorship. I don’t believe it has to. I think that our principles of religious freedom and free speech actually weigh on the side of excluding mockery from our public places,” she explained.
“The first principles that support these core freedoms like religious freedom and free speech did not embrace a farce like The Satanic Temple is trying to put on display. Nor does it protect irreligious mockery of these kinds of core and important celebrations,” she went on.
“The founders in particular, even those who weren’t particularly religious themselves, knew and spoke often about the importance of a religious people and that especially Christian virtues and ethics were key to a healthy citizenry.”
What is TST?
TST is a national group of progressive atheists with chapters they call “congregations” across the United States.
On its website, TST states that it does not worship Satan, nor does it believe in the existence of the devil or any supernatural force or power. The group says on its website that it believes in “reason, empathy, [and] the pursuit of knowledge.” Its seven core tenets were also shown on the display in the Iowa capitol.
Undermining the fabric of American society
According to Picciotti-Bayer, the danger is that the TST founders have “set their sights on core places of the gathering of citizens.”
“They’re going after public schools, they’re going after our public facilities like our state capitols or even the U.S. Capitol, they’re trying to do that thinking that they can use the rich principles protecting religious freedom and free speech to kind of warrant what they’re trying to do,” she went on. “Sadly, they’ve got some funding to do that. So clearly, this is not just an annoying small group, but it’s a concerted effort to try to undermine the fabric of American society [by] manipulating our principles and the rule of law.”
Picciotti-Bayer said that TST has also become a growing threat to American society through its promotion of abortion as a “religious right” and its increasing presence in public schools.
She said that it’s important that government officials “draw the line” and that “if they’re going to make facilities open for public displays, that they are very clear that it needs to be for the good of the community and not for mocking what people hold dear, which is their religious beliefs.”
“To allow public displays from different community groups to celebrate the richness of our diversity does not mean that it opens the door for those places to be basically made fun of.”
In the case of the satanic monument at the Iowa state capitol, Picciotti-Bayer said she was “very heartened” that Gov. Reynolds “not only objected to it but asked for prayers.”
“Even though the leaders and the founders of The Satanic Temple disavow Satanism, the minute you let Satan in, we all know all sorts of havoc ensues,” she said.
Despite the danger, Picciotti-Bayer said that concerned citizens can take action to push back.
“We need to support our elected officials to stand up to these kinds of manipulations,” she said, adding that “it’s important that officials feel emboldened by their voters and they feel like they have the backup to stand up to this kind of nonsense.”
“The other thing is, I do think we can’t diminish the importance of prayer,” she went on. “Even though the founders of The Satanic Temple claim not to really be Satanists … it’s something that we need to use our most powerful weapon, which is prayer, to fight against.”
TST did not reply to CNA’s request for comment by the time of publication.
[…]
Anyone who seeks truth seeks God, itself an irrefutable truth whether one proceeds to identify God as truth itself. Doctor of truth, “A title that was proposed for her at the time was ‘doctor veritatis’ because of her relentless intellectual pursuit of truth, which after her conversion she recognized in the person of Jesus Christ”.
Edith Stein as she preferred to be called identified Christ with his Cross, which is to identify him as love. Her history, a life story of discovering truth in Christ during a philosophical search for truth makes her a perfect model and source for grasping our teleological end in this life. From this writer’s perspective her writing has the depth and clear focus on the acquisition of truth that would benefit the reader.
I am unaware that Teresa Benedicta of the Cross preferred to be know by her secular name. At her Baptism she was named Teresa. At her clothing with the Discalced Carmelite habit she once again deliberately chose Teresa, added Benedicta in honor of St. Benedict whose monks were instrumental in giving her a deep love for the liturgy and matured her personal spirituality. The title “of the Cross” was in honor of St. John of the Cross for whom she had great devotion. She thought of it as Teresa “blessed by the Cross.”
I am often disappointed and simultaneously amused at the contrived use of photos of Sts. Therese and Teresa Benedicta before they took the habit. There was not much that they desired more than to be clothed in the habit of Carmel. Presently we even have to strip the saints of their religious habits in order to be post-conciliar. I don’t have to wonder what they would think of the confection.
Assuming a new name upon monastic investiture is a very personal and deeply spiritual act. Her religious name framed her existence as a Discalced Carmelite which fulfilled the deepest longing of her heart.
Edith Stein no longer existed
“I am often disappointed and simultaneously amused at the contrived use of photos of Sts. Therese and Teresa Benedicta before they took the habit.”
Weird Comment of the Day. Sigh.
How often do you see a book on John Paul using his image from a time before his papacy? Unless a photo is specific to a topic in the individuals life, why would use one that did not portray the person in the maturity? Or even his priesthood?
How often Padre Pio as a layman? Maximilian Kolbe in his civvies? How often a portrait of Ignatius in his armor?
The abandonment of the religious habit was instrumental eradicating religious life, particularly for women.
The attempt, frequent within the effort to justify the abandonment of the traditions of orders and congregations, to equate figures from their history assenting to the mutilation they have undergone is propaganda. Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face fought hard to get that habit, Edith Stein sought for ten years to enter Carmel. Embraced in their spousal relationship with Christ the old woman was dead.
Therese of the Child Jesus died the Carmelite iron maiden, at the height of her religious maturity, no little girl.
Teresa Benedicta walked off to her death at the hands of the Nazis braced in her Carmelite habit, a nun, no longer the up and coming academic. What a comfort to her fellow prisoners, what a chill up a Nazi spine.
I understand the point you are making yet I have no problem with those two photos. In fact, I like them because they represent the development, the path of the person to God and this article does just that, outlines her path so two photos provide a good illustration. It is also very interesting and enlightening to see the transformation reflected on the face of the Saint.
I also disagree with “Edith Stein no longer existed”. She was incorporated. The academic did not disappear but very clearly seen in her last book, ‘The Science of the Cross’ (a discourse about St John of the Cross’s doctrine’.
I recently read ‘The Milestones’, Pope Benedict’s autobiography written while he was a Cardinal. I looked at his photos there, from the early age to older with great delight. By the way, his autobiography convinced me of his true and utmost humility and truthfulness = holiness. I think he is Blessed.
Yet you might well see books by Joseph Ratzinger from the time before he became Pope Benedict bearing photos of him from about the time he wrote the books. As Edith Stein, she wrote about philosophy, and, aside from her last days leading up to and including her martyrdom, these writings are what most people know about her.
To my understanding, Sr Teresa Benedicta of the Cross was not a martyr for Christian faith. She (so as her sister Rosa) was killed because she was a Jew. I have always thought that “Doctor of the Church” is the best title for her.
In connection to her, I also recall that the Discalced Carmelites organized a monastery on the territory of Auschwitz with the major purpose to pray there and make reparations and purify the place of horror, hell on earth. Unfortunately, they had to leave that place because of the pressure of Jews who claimed Holocaust as their own; they accused the nuns of “appropriating” the Jewish Holocaust. To settle the conflict, Pope JPII (I think it was him) ordered Carmelites to leave their house. Reportedly, many visitors of Auschwitz would drop into the monastery seeking some comfort after what they saw and so the removal of Carmelites was bad for everyone including non-Christians.
I think Sr Terresa Benedicta of the Cross would be appalled with the fact that some people of her race insisted on a removal of a group of the dedicated to God women from the sight the murder, of her and many others – Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Christians, communists. I studied her life, she was deeply Jewish and deeply Christian, her Jewishness found its completion in her Christianity. Her zeal for God is something I believe to be innate in the Jewish people. That utmost dedication to One True God to the point of death is very Jewish, like in the Prophets.
I am not sure why I am writing about this. Probably because figures like Edith Stein highlight the tragic idiocy of humanity (“this is mine” – “no, this is mine”) making it truly unbearable.
No offense, but I would like some clarification on what it now means to be a “Doctor of the Catholic Church”. For centuries, the title seemed to designate a saint who had ALREADY had a remarkable influence on the Church as a whole, but more recently it seems to indicate someone whom the Pope then reigning HOPES will at some point in the near future have a larger influence on the Church. Sts. Athanasius, Anselm, Ambrose, and Augustine fall into the former category; St. Hildegard into the latter.
Wikipedia can be useful: “Doctor of the Church (Latin: doctor “teacher”), also referred to as Doctor of the Universal Church (Latin: Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis), is a title given by the Catholic Church to saints recognized as having made a significant contribution to theology or doctrine through their research, study, or writing.”
This certainly describes Edith Stein, even in her earlier writings on phenomenology which she wrote under her preceptor, Edmund Husserl.
“This certainly describes Edith Stein, even in her earlier writings on phenomenology which she wrote under her preceptor, Edmund Husserl.” At best, that is like saying that Lars Onsager is a famous physicist. He kind of is, but unless you are a physicist (or maybe a chemist, since he won a Nobel prize in chemistry), I’m pretty sure you’ve never heard of him.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, on the other hand, is basically a nobody that everyone has heard of. You might not think physics had the equivalent of a Paris Hilton, but that’s kind of what he is.
Then there are people like Einstein and Newton; physicists who are genuinely important and actually well-known. These are the physics equivalents of Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas; they need no introduction.
If you really want to see what something means, sometimes you have to dig deeper than Wikipedia.
God, as Truth, has been for me a treasure beyond price. May He be so to every one of us – Mahatma Gandhi
St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross has been an object of devotion for me since I was a boy sixty years ago. What a heroic woman…she continues to leave me speechless. I made sure I was at her canonization. Her witness to Jesus Christ has been an anchor for my faith for many decades.
She was an impressive philosopher. I have found her theological and devotional writings rewarding. Do they support her being declared a Doctor of the Church? I think not. That sort of theological reflection was not her vocation.
Let us be honest in our recognition of heroic virtue and of superior theological contributions to the faith. There is no need to patronize any individual over and above their accomplishments achieved by cooperation with Grace. For some time now we have been canonizing individuals who, while good, very good even, are not exactly examples of heroic virtue.
The ambition to bestow the doctorate upon St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross is, honestly, merely an ecclesiastical DEI job because of her identity as a woman, a Jew, a scholar. It has nothing to do with groundbreaking exceptional theological reflection. It is a vacuous effort, it is ultimately dishonest.
St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross would not approve. She was a profoundly honest woman of exceptional common sense and virtue. Not a theologian. Her contemplative reflection does not rise to the level of Teresa, Catherine, Therese…
Well said. We need great theologians like St. Augustine, but we need great prayer warriors like St. Monica even more. St. Monica will never be a Doctor of the Church, nor should she, but she might be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven than her son, and we can be sure that for every famous theologian, there are hundreds or thousands of St. Monicas known only to God.
Profoundly insightful, and wonderfully unsettling. Puts things in their supernatural perspective.
I too greatly admire the writing and the life of St. Teresa Benedicta together with her fellow Carmelite saints Teresa, Therese, and John of the Cross. I’ve read much of their work, some more than once. Teresa Benedicta wrote a treatise on St. John (The Science of the Cross), but she very meticulously repeated and clarified what St. John had written. She has a brilliantly detailed work on ’empathy’ which is philosophy, not theology. I believe she wrote biographical notes or essays on some other notable Carmelites. She also has some wonderfully thoughtful and insightful essays on womanhood.
Her heroic virtue in her arrest, time in the concentration camp and facing death was apparent to all. Her love for her natural family, particularly her mother, was heart-rending to us folk who shared Edith’s anguish on the days leading to the day in the parlor. There we share Edith’s sorrow at informing her Jewish mother of her wish for Catholic Baptism. Her biography inclines her to sainthood. But what inclines the Church to name her one of its doctors? Nothing that I know.
Correction: The days of anguish for Edith occurred not prior to her Baptism but prior to her entrance into convent.
Would that St. Benedicta and St. John of the Cross would help me reserve my exuberant sharing of inaccurate memory!
Why the bigotry of calling her by the wrong name? She is St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross.
I don’t think anything ill is meant by it. We tend to call recently departed saints by the names they were best known by when they were alive. We’ll be saying “Mother Teresa” instead of “Saint Teresa of Calcutta” and “Padre Pio” instead of “Saint Pio of Pietrelcina”, which is not quite the same thing, but somewhat related.