Protestantism emerged because of actions like this. That is, when the majority in who disagree with this type of deed by the Church, decide to breakaway.
Interestingly the Church in China has Bishops but are not recognised by the Vatican. A very lengthy link is here. The point I am trying to make is that one’s religious practise must be in tandem with the social and political environment he resides.
What I firmly believe is that the Church here is being pulled by its nose by POLITICIANS with not so hidden agendas. The faithful will always follow and trusts whatever the Archbishop decides. In this case, the Vatican may or not be aware (I believe it must be aware) of the situation but will intercede when the situation becomes untenable. Either way, being silent or ignorant of the matter does not show a sincere reconciliatory attitude with Muslim brotherhood, which it promulgates.
As always and not only restricted to this case, it becomes extremely dangerous when POLITICIANS are behind actions that solely benefit their agendas and not for its true intention. More so when the action has religious ramifications.
The action is truly frivolous. I do not understand how the judgement could have passed without any qualification by the learned Judge. Which means to say, citing the Constituition she had no choice but that the party to the action could easily avoid any distress and grievance by just using the word ‘Tuhan’ in the Herald.