A Satanic Tree & The Fragility of American Catholicism

American Catholic figureheads mobilize childish rage against holiday displays, while the Vatican grows less tolerant of Culture War grandstanding

A couple of days ago, the local NBC affiliate in Wisconsin ran an online piece with the headline, Diocese of Green Bay bishop responds to controversial Satanic Temple tree. Neither the Diocese nor the NBC affiliate had reached out to The Satanic Temple for any statement of any kind beforehand. The news organization did, however, reach out to the National Railroad Museum where the holiday tree offered by a local TST congregation is on display, despite the fact that the museum has already responded again and again explaining that they maintain a policy of viewpoint neutrality for any organization participating in their holiday Festival of Trees that do not “promote hate, violence or drug use.”

Naturally, being that there was no interest in hearing our own account of our motives and intended messaging regarding the holiday tree, there was also no attempt to base any commentary surrounding it or TST on any credible background knowledge whatsoever. “Allowing a traditional understanding of Christmas to be usurped by an organization/cult is divisive during a time of the year that we come together in unity,” the ironic and thoughtless statement declared, clarifying nothing, and raising more questions than answering. Which “we” are they referring to, and how is “unity” better served by expelling some people from a neutral forum? And what “traditional understanding of Christmas” is being referred to here? Surely, it is no longer a shocking revelation to learn of the Pagan traditions that were co-opted in the creation of Christmas, nor can it be a surprise that “the holidays” take on a different meaning to different people of different religious leanings. But then, the diocese referred to us as an “organization/cult” which, without any attempt at delineating a “cult” from a religion, is a clear indication of the childish motivations behind the statement.

The statement goes on, “Displaying a Christmas tree with bright red lights, inverted crosses, pentagrams and other satanic symbolism, with a snake wrapped around the tree where our savior belongs, is not something families and children should be exposed to at any time, but most especially during this Christmas season. The tree is offensive and harms the unity and joy that the Christmas season brings."

While, on the face of it, these remarks may seem logically consistent with the rest of the complaints, here too we find nothing but more confusion. For one, and most obviously, even if we take seriously the nonhistorical assertion that the decorating of trees has its origins in the veneration of their lord, there is not, and never has been, a designated place upon Christmas trees, even in modern Catholic tradition, “where our savior belongs.” Even if there were, there is no reason to understand the omission of such — from a tree that is not presented by practitioners of Christian faith — as an insult. In fact, other news sources have reported that of the nearly 70 trees on display, almost none of them have religious iconography at all.

More perplexing to me is the objection to the “satanic symbolism,” particularly the reference to “inverted crosses.” It has long been a sport of the Catholics-opposed-to-TST who believe themselves clever to point out that the “actual” meaning of an inverted cross is to denote the Cross of St. Peter, who was crucified upside-down, by request, to signify his unworthiness in relation to Christ. The insistence on an essential meaning for any symbol — especially one that has been long understood to hold multiple meanings — is unsophisticated and irrational. But the insistence on both a context-free essential meaning for a symbol, while simultaneously insisting on taking offense at our use of the symbol in a particular context, is incoherent. One can not, with any intellectual credibility, acknowledge that symbols are pliable to the intended message of those displaying it, while taking it upon themselves to demand that they be given the liberty to ascribe to us our intended meaning in our use of those symbols… all based on the superstitious notion that symbols have fixed meanings.

The Catholic League, apparently a one-man club run by one Bill Donohue, released an even more childish statement declaring that there “is no other way to interpret the TST anti-Christmas display at the Museum than to say that it is demonstrating hostility to Christianity.” Of course, the Catholic League did not seek any alternative interpretations, nor was there any reference to our own statements regarding the display… even as Donohue chose to decry superfluous, unrelated items on our website. “TST chooses the term ‘pregnant person’,” Bill rages in a parenthetical aside, “to imply men can get pregnant, which shows its animus against science.” 

Just take a moment to consider how bafflingly stupid this remark is. A “pregnant person” is something that exists, and is a non-controversial concept regardless of any disagreements any parties may have related to gender politics. Bill obviously does not believe that gender is a matter of how people identify, but in claiming that we have run afoul of science (rather than “appropriate” cultural norms) in using the term “pregnant person,” he is suggesting that we are suggesting that people without wombs are getting pregnant, indicating that he is completely ignorant on a topic that he nonetheless seems to love to publicly obsess over. It is not as though we are endorsing the concept of Immaculate Conception.

The Intercessors For America, a 501(c)3 that takes donations to pray “for our nation” sent out a desperate fundraising pre-dawn alert about our tree the other day.

Interestingly, the comments under the Intercessors online alert indicates a real lack of consensus among their readers regarding the proper interpretation of our tree, and of Christmas itself.

"Yes, I agree that a Satanic Christmas tree is a very disturbing thing; yet God’s Word says in Deutronomy 12:4 (NLT, KJV) that we are not to worship Him in the ways that pagans worship their gods. Christmas is full of paganism," one comment stated. Several others also expressed skepticism regarding the sanctity of Christmas. "The Christmas traditions are rooted in satanic worship. The scriptures mention nothing about Christmas or Easter," admonished one. "Christmas trees are never referred to as a way to worship Yahweh. It’s a pagan practice and was banned by Bible following believers," yet another explained.

Interestingly, this confused outrage and lack of any clearly identifiable consensus comes at a time in which the Vatican seems to be at breaking-point odds with American Catholics whose obsessive and narrow focus on Culture War items finds them at near-schism with the Roman authority. As the New York Times reported, "In the last month, [Pope Francis] has turned his focus on two of his most vocal and committed conservative critics in the United States, and in the year since the death of his conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI, he has exiled a previously protected chief antagonist and moved against others who have accused him of destroying the church."

Perhaps the feigned outrage over a tree is an effort by Donohue and other Culture War loudmouths to unite Catholics in common cause against a mutual enemy. But even this is being met with resistance from even more extreme factions which feel that Christmas has been Satanic all along. It does seem bizarre that an institution of such worldwide ubiquity, massive private holdings, and political influence, could express such outsized fear toward a relatively marginal group having representation in an obscure open forum. It is especially bizarre that American Catholics in particular have such little respect for the secular laws that abolished the practice of excluding Catholics from political offices in the United States. Perhaps American Catholics themselves are losing their sense of distinction from the ecumenical apocalyptic Christian American mob that increasingly interprets the most obscure irrelevancies as a call-to-arms. 

"Close allies of Francis have said that America, with its well-funded conservative Catholic media apparatus, amplified far and wide criticism intended to derail the pope’s vision of a more inclusive church," the New York Times reported. "Asked on the papal plane returning from Africa in 2019 about the American conservatives attacking his pontificate across vast media platforms, he seemed to shrug off the possibility of their splitting off from the church”...”'I pray there are no schisms,' he said. “But I’m not scared.'”

Meanwhile, American Catholics are afraid. They are afraid of a changing world, a “progressive” Pope, and an unassuming little red tree sitting amongst others in a Festival of Trees, for which they stand ready to abandon democratic norms of Religious Liberty and Free Expression. How long before the Vatican begins to view their continued activities as a greater threat than their potential to schism?