Goalkeeper gets caution for breach of the peace
Posting updated at 18:07 26/8/06 (title further updated at 19:00 28/8/06)
This is an interesting story on BBC News. “Artur Boruc (the Celtic goalkeeper) was cautioned for a breach of the peace over (an) incident at an Old Firm match at Ibrox in February…the Crown Office said the decision was based on the player’s behaviour, rather than a single act. In addition to crossing himself, the player was alleged to have made gestures to the crowd at the start of the second half of the game on 12 February. “
The BBC story gives the pros and cons of the case. An eyewitness, Mr Eugenides, gives his account. I will not jump in with a comment either way.
I would just add one little footnote. “Crossing yourself” with the sign of the cross is not necessarily a denominational thing. People of many Christian denominations do it. Certainly, I know many Anglicans who do it all the time. Indeed, on television at St Paul’s Cathedral I have seen Prince Charles (next in line to be head of the Church of England) crossing himself. That said, I readily acknowledge that there were other actions and circumstances involved in this incident. Of course, I would never condone using “crossing oneself” as part of some sort of communication with a football crowd. It is a private thing.
Tweet
Related posts:
No Responses to “Goalkeeper gets caution for breach of the peace”
Leave a Reply
Burbler-in-chief
According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross Protestants don't use the sign of the cross, except oddly for Lutherans. This may be to the point at an Auld Firm match.
The said Wikipedia article states: "The Sign of the Cross is a ritual performed mainly within Latin-Rite Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Rite Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism."
I am an Anglican, Anglican=Church of England, which is a Protestant church.
While I can understand the Church's visceral reaction to this story, I could do with some help understanding the logic of their objection.
The caution was not for crossing but for a breach of the peace.
A breach of the peace merits a caution, whether done in a religious way or not. Surely?
Why isn't the church more annoyed that the footballer caused a breach of the peace using one of their sacred gestures?
Good point Joe. I have now updated my posting following some additional reading I have done on this. The original BBC report has also been updated so I have changed the link to the new story.