| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2013 04:00:59 AM · #251 |
The existence of the Reichskonkordat is at BEST (and mind you, this is after ignoring much of the previous history of the Catholic Church and its behavior to Jews) open handed appeasement. I consider some of the diplomatic appeasement understandable (not warranted, but understandable) in context, but when your business is dictating morality, this is unspeakable, to say the least.
Later, more open support for Germany was had when war was declared on the Soviet Union by Germany. While it can be argued that this was simply done because there were great fears of Bolshevism, being in bed with Hitler (again, when your business is "morality") is STILL laughable.
I am not debating the fact that individuals within the Catholic Church did in fact help Jews, as well as opposed Nazi policy at various points. However, if we are to judge the Catholic Church by individuals, we can't forget Hudal, either.
It's far more than just "Hitler's Pope" that takes these positions, and if you're trying to refute these facts with quotes attributed to Einstein that are favorable of the Catholic Church, you might want to read up a bit more on what Einstein had to say about the institution.
But all this is beside the point, because it doesn't really matter if you can bring up various individuals from the Jewish community that support the actions at the time. I find it reprehensible that a purported source of morality would sign a pact of any kind with Germany at this time, and what is even more terrible is that this was an agreement that substantiated Catholics and sought self preservation through skirting enlistment for clergy and ensuring the ability to further Catholic causes where they were convenient. Making agreements and then rescuing people is exactly the sort of crap line bending that is at discussion here.
The frustrations that took place earlier in the thread wherein hardline policies are suddenly breached whenever convenient is exactly what I am noting. The furor that has been brought against abortion today might have been better brought against, well, the Fuehrer. But then, maybe we should consider him for a second, too-
"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self-indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognise a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is the master. They will know which way the wind blows."
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 04:02:35. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 05:48:57 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
When my girlfriend's mother chose to remarry after her first husband left her to cope on her own with the kids and divorced her, it was to be a Catholic marriage because her new husband was Catholic. She was told her children were bastard children (quoted), that her first marriage was not recognized, but that she would still have to pay annulment fees to satisfy their requirements to do the marriage. So, you might be surprised. |
The Catholic Church are welcoming like that. As long as you pay your fees.
tbh, I'm surprised her new husband didn't tell them where to stick it, and be happy with a civil ceremony. How on earth could she stand in front of the altar knowing what the church thought of her and her children? |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 06:14:40 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
When my girlfriend's mother chose to remarry after her first husband left her to cope on her own with the kids and divorced her, it was to be a Catholic marriage because her new husband was Catholic. She was told her children were bastard children (quoted), that her first marriage was not recognized, but that she would still have to pay annulment fees to satisfy their requirements to do the marriage. So, you might be surprised. |
The Catholic Church are welcoming like that. As long as you pay your fees.
tbh, I'm surprised her new husband didn't tell them where to stick it, and be happy with a civil ceremony. How on earth could she stand in front of the altar knowing what the church thought of her and her children? |
Indeed, that is what ended up occurring. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 07:09:18 AM · #254 |
In accordance with my long standing policy to abandon any thread that reaches "critical absurdity" in respect to Godwin's Law, I will bid you all ado. It was fun while it stayed semi-real. See you in the next rant.
God bless |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 07:28:11 AM · #255 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
In accordance with my long standing policy to abandon any thread that reaches "critical absurdity" in respect to Godwin's Law, I will bid you all ado. It was fun while it stayed semi-real. See you in the next rant.
God bless |
Hells bells, it was in context and appropriate.
You can't invoke Godwin when someone is talking about factual history! I'm OK with you bowing out, but invoking Godwin as your reason is silly here.
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 07:28:41. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 07:47:19 AM · #256 |
| GODwin? Is that a name or a prediction? |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 08:25:05 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
In accordance with my long standing policy to abandon any thread that reaches "critical absurdity" in respect to Godwin's Law, I will bid you all ado. It was fun while it stayed semi-real. See you in the next rant.
God bless |
Hells bells, it was in context and appropriate.
You can't invoke Godwin when someone is talking about factual history! I'm OK with you bowing out, but invoking Godwin as your reason is silly here. |
To suggest that Chick Tracks are factual history is close enough for me. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 11:13:37 AM · #258 |
I find it amusing that because I pointed out two things that are factually accurate you jumped to that conclusion. If you'd like to dispute them, go for it, but something tells me you're not going to successfully prove the Reichskonkordat never happened unless you're some zany revisionist.
The fact of the matter is that many countries took very similar stands and approaches (which I pointed out in my initial post). The difference is one is a worldwide dictator of morality while the others are not. You can't routinely take the moral high ground and then refuse to actively fight against the moral low ground selectively. If half the efforts put forth against abortion were put forth then, things would probably have turned out the same, but the Catholic Church wouldn't have provided another example of morality that suited its purposes. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 11:19:22 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
While it can be argued that this was simply done because there were great fears of Bolshevism, being in bed with Hitler (again, when your business is "morality") is STILL laughable. |
Perhaps the opposition to Bolshevism wasn't unwarranted. I'll let you read my great-grandmother's diaries describing the murder and pillaging of the Mennonite communities in Russia by the red army during the revolution. Wacky, anti-religious humanism was a real threat in the world whether by Marxian communism or pseudoscientific eugenics in Germany.
I also recommend another book In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larsen who wrote about the American ambassador to Germany during the rise of Hitler to power. It details a lot of complacency by the American government.
Looking backward 70 years and declaring superficial heroes and villains is probably a task beyond any of us. If you want to paint the Church as evil, you can do it. As hero? You can do it. These conversations, I think, reveal more about the person having them than any absolute truth.
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 11:32:27. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 11:55:26 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps the opposition to Bolshevism wasn't unwarranted. I'll let you read my great-grandmother's diaries describing the murder and pillaging of the Mennonite communities in Russia by the red army during the revolution. Wacky, anti-religious humanism was a real threat in the world whether by Marxian communism or pseudoscientific eugenics in Germany.
I also recommend another book In the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larsen who wrote about the American ambassador to Germany during the rise of Hitler to power. It details a lot of complacency by the American government.
Looking backward 70 years and declaring superficial heroes and villains is probably a task beyond any of us. If you want to paint the Church as evil, you can do it. As hero? You can do it. These conversations, I think, reveal more about the person having them than any absolute truth. |
Sure, it's always going to be armchair quarterbacking. But the earlier linked to book paints them as the savior of the Jewish people... so, again, they can't have it both ways. Choose one and accept it, either is fine to me, really.
As earlier noted, every country behaved in the same fashion, but they weren't all projecting their absolute morality. You can't claim moral high ground, call time out for awhile, and then stand back upon your pulpit after siding with what was earlier your enemy. Nation states can do this because they do what is convenient for preservation. If you're dictating absolute morality, you have no choice on the matter without sullying yourself.
And even if Bolshevism was the biggest threat, it still speaks poorly to preserve yourself and throw the Jews under the proverbial bus.
You are right about it saying more about the person, which I make no denial. However, my fight is not against religion here, but its haphazard application of it in the real world that then leads to horribleness. If an institution's stance is morality, it ought not trade it for anything and everything it can. After all, wasn't the whole point of the teaching to live as good a life as one can, not a convenient one?
|
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:03:30 PM · #261 |
| One thing I think that always plays a role is that when an institution is big (let's say government size, which the church really is), the right hand might be saving the Jews while the left hand is "throwing them under the bus". You are correct in saying it would be nice to keep some moral clarity and purity in your overall actions, but humans, being who they are, can rarely do as such. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:05:52 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
However, my fight is not against religion here, but its haphazard application of it in the real world that then leads to horribleness. If an institution's stance is morality, it ought not trade it for anything and everything it can. After all, wasn't the whole point of the teaching to live as good a life as one can, not a convenient one? |
So, basically, a hopeless stand on principle is better that an orderly retreat to fight another day? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that standing up to Hitler, opposing him, would have caused him to lash out against the Church as well as against the Jews (I know this is an oversimplification) whilst remaining neutral would at least save the bulk of your own membership, that's still morally unacceptable?
Believe me, I do know the lines aren't that clearly drawn, but IF it were that simple (to oppose = death, to ignore = survival, and the fate of the Jews doesn't change either way) what would YOU do, Biblical morality notwithstanding? |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:08:47 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing I think that always plays a role is that when an institution is big (let's say government size, which the church really is), the right hand might be saving the Jews while the left hand is "throwing them under the bus". You are correct in saying it would be nice to keep some moral clarity and purity in your overall actions, but humans, being who they are, can rarely do as such. |
I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the defense lawyers for the Catholic hospital that's been sued on behalf of the family of the dead mother and fetuses, where the lawyers said the fetuses had no standing because they weren't people. It wasn't the church saying that per se, it was attorneys just looking at established case law and not thinking through the ramifications for their client, the Church. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:09:59 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing I think that always plays a role is that when an institution is big (let's say government size, which the church really is), the right hand might be saving the Jews while the left hand is "throwing them under the bus". You are correct in saying it would be nice to keep some moral clarity and purity in your overall actions, but humans, being who they are, can rarely do as such. |
Understandable, but the obvious solution is don't deal in absolutes if you don't want to make yourself look silly if that's the case. Not that hard. Again, it's picking and choosing. Don't politicize yourself and paint yourself as king of morality if you aren't going to do that. The expectations of a religious institution are not the same as nation states, so they should either accept the consequences or cease such behavior and simply stick to preaching religion. My personal issue is the attempt to have it both ways, eating cake and having it too. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:24:56 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing I think that always plays a role is that when an institution is big (let's say government size, which the church really is), the right hand might be saving the Jews while the left hand is "throwing them under the bus". You are correct in saying it would be nice to keep some moral clarity and purity in your overall actions, but humans, being who they are, can rarely do as such. |
Understandable, but the obvious solution is don't deal in absolutes if you don't want to make yourself look silly if that's the case. Not that hard. Again, it's picking and choosing. Don't politicize yourself and paint yourself as king of morality if you aren't going to do that. The expectations of a religious institution are not the same as nation states, so they should either accept the consequences or cease such behavior and simply stick to preaching religion. My personal issue is the attempt to have it both ways, eating cake and having it too. |
An alcoholic can clearly teach the benefits of sobriety even if he struggles with drunkeness. The church is not populated with perfect people. As we like to say at our church, "perfect people need not apply". If one can only be a voice for moral principles one she's got her "sh*t together" we're not going to have much of a voice for morality in the world... ;) |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:30:33 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So, basically, a hopeless stand on principle is better that an orderly retreat to fight another day? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that standing up to Hitler, opposing him, would have caused him to lash out against the Church as well as against the Jews (I know this is an oversimplification) whilst remaining neutral would at least save the bulk of your own membership, that's still morally unacceptable?
Believe me, I do know the lines aren't that clearly drawn, but IF it were that simple (to oppose = death, to ignore = survival, and the fate of the Jews doesn't change either way) what would YOU do, Biblical morality notwithstanding? |
The idea of the martyr is deeply set in religion. The specific godhead here is a redeemer who has sacrificed one's self, and the adherents are assured of everlasting life. There really is no question to me that in such a situation one must preserve the ideal through example. They're claiming a direct line to God here. Frankly, plenty of Buddhist monks are willing to do it.
This would never have been a big deal if they didn't already deal in absolutes. If you deal in absolutes, you must live by them. You can't have both.
As for me specifically, it is nowhere near the same, being an atheist. I'm not at the center of a religion advocating eternal life and living by absolute morals that I dictate. If I was, it would again be a pretty obvious answer. If you live by absolutes, you have no choice but to live by them or you violate the very morality you are dictating to your flock. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:35:55 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
As for me specifically, it is nowhere near the same, being an atheist. I'm not at the center of a religion advocating eternal life and living by absolute morals that I dictate. If I was, it would again be a pretty obvious answer. If you live by absolutes, you have no choice but to live by them or you violate the very morality you are dictating to your flock. |
You have no absolute moral principles of your own? There is nothing that is not violatable at some point in an acceptable way?
* By "absolute" we mean "universal" meaning that given a particular situation the correct action is the same for anybody in that situation regardless of who they are or what they believe.
EDIT: I'll add that nobody is arguing that if you preach a moral principle and then don't live by it you "violate the very morality you are dictating". Very true! But is it reasonable then to demand that they simply stop preaching the moral principle? If you break the rule once are you forever forbidden from saying it was a good rule to have?
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 12:41:53. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:40:59 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One thing I think that always plays a role is that when an institution is big (let's say government size, which the church really is), the right hand might be saving the Jews while the left hand is "throwing them under the bus". You are correct in saying it would be nice to keep some moral clarity and purity in your overall actions, but humans, being who they are, can rarely do as such. |
Understandable, but the obvious solution is don't deal in absolutes if you don't want to make yourself look silly if that's the case. Not that hard. Again, it's picking and choosing. Don't politicize yourself and paint yourself as king of morality if you aren't going to do that. The expectations of a religious institution are not the same as nation states, so they should either accept the consequences or cease such behavior and simply stick to preaching religion. My personal issue is the attempt to have it both ways, eating cake and having it too. |
An alcoholic can clearly teach the benefits of sobriety even if he struggles with drunkeness. The church is not populated with perfect people. As we like to say at our church, "perfect people need not apply". If one can only be a voice for moral principles one she's got her "sh*t together" we're not going to have much of a voice for morality in the world... ;) |
Which church are you speaking of? They all vary on their admittance of error, and the Catholic Church is troublesome for its denial of ever doing fault. Seemingly, from the earlier responses, the interpretation from Catholic readers is either they rescued all the Jews or alternatively that any criticism means they caused WWII. Now, those who respond to RANT are admittedly a special breed, but that's pretty drastic. Besides which, Papal Infallibility totally supercedes the entire point, since they CAN'T be wrong. Their shit is proverbially ALWAYS together. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:43:08 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
...Papal Infallibility totally supercedes the entire point... |
This is a red herring. Even to Catholics the Pope is infallible only when he speaks "ex cathedra" and that is not a common occurence as far as I'm aware.
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 12:43:17. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:46:44 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
... the Catholic Church is troublesome for its denial of ever doing fault. |
There's a wiki for everything: list of apologies made by Pope John Paul Included: "The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)" |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 12:56:08 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
As for me specifically, it is nowhere near the same, being an atheist. I'm not at the center of a religion advocating eternal life and living by absolute morals that I dictate. If I was, it would again be a pretty obvious answer. If you live by absolutes, you have no choice but to live by them or you violate the very morality you are dictating to your flock. |
You have no absolute moral principles of your own? There is nothing that is not violatable at some point in an acceptable way?
* By "absolute" we mean "universal" meaning that given a particular situation the correct action is the same for anybody in that situation regardless of who they are or what they believe.
EDIT: I'll add that nobody is arguing that if you preach a moral principle and then don't live by it you "violate the very morality you are dictating". Very true! But is it reasonable then to demand that they simply stop preaching the moral principle? If you break the rule once are you forever forbidden from saying it was a good rule to have? |
Point taken, and I don't disagree. I am no moral relativist. The difference, to me, is I am not planting myself as a beacon of morality (and Papal infallibility extends beyond ex cathedra, btw, and into decidedly more ambiguous areas through which I won't claim able to navigate, but I feel the topic is important).
This issue is not if people are fallible, but if the Catholic Church has sidestepped such issues whenever convenient, and I have a hard time seeing an answer other than yes. |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 01:02:13 PM · #272 |
| OK, we can find some common ground. I've known you to be a reasonable arguer here on rant. Has the church ever sidestepped moral principles? I'm sure the answer is yes. I'd probably disagree that it's done "whenever convenient". |
|
|
|
02/08/2013 01:07:49 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
... the Catholic Church is troublesome for its denial of ever doing fault. |
There's a wiki for everything: list of apologies made by Pope John Paul Included: "The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)" |
This is the same armchair quarterbacking you said was meaningless earlier when I asked the opposite. And frankly, a "my mistake" doesn't cut it half a century later when you're claiming to be divine and ignoring that which you find morally reprehensible.
ETA: Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, we can find some common ground. I've known you to be a reasonable arguer here on rant. Has the church ever sidestepped moral principles? I'm sure the answer is yes. I'd probably disagree that it's done "whenever convenient". |
That's fair. My words are admittedly harsh, and as I said my stance does indeed say much about myself, as well. I'll add that it's decidedly difficult to stay neutrally worded when specifically true statements are interpreted as Chick, no? I'd venture a guess that you might do likewise had I done the same?
ETAA: We likely see weaseling in the other when it's convenient. You see weaseling when I say I'm simply a single person, an atheist with no outwardly stated morals, and I see weaseling when organized religion conveniently skirts issues that it takes offense to. Opposite sides of the coin, I suppose.
Message edited by author 2013-02-08 13:16:13. |
|
|
|
02/09/2013 07:20:09 AM · #274 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, we can find some common ground. I've known you to be a reasonable arguer here on rant. Has the church ever sidestepped moral principles? I'm sure the answer is yes. I'd probably disagree that it's done "whenever convenient". |
"Whenever convenient" is a very broad brush, and is not one that I would use to describe the activities of the church.
However, in this country alone there exist several examples where the church transferred priests who molested children rather than address the issue, treated natives horribly in residential schools for decades, dealt with orphans in the Province of Quebec in an unbelievable fashion ... and there are a few others similar scenarios.
Did the church offer an apology... in some rare instances yes, but in most cases no. Sadly, it would seem that they only acknowledged their involvement when denial was no longer an option.
Not truly an exemplary character trait that.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-02-09 10:39:38. |
|
|
|
02/09/2013 07:30:47 AM · #275 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
However, my fight is not against religion here, but its haphazard application of it in the real world that then leads to horribleness. |
This really hits home....
I took two women from community hours at my church to a food bank. (Community hours comprising two hours a few days a week where bus passes, used clothing, food bank chits, coffee & fellowship are shared with the community.) These women, one Eritrean refugee, and a Hispanic mother of three, had duly signed in, given a quick interview to determine their needs, and then given their chits for the food bank. They had no way to get there at the time as it was not the usual food bank four blocks away. I finished up what I was doing and drove them to the food bank, which was at a local church. When I got them there, it was about five minutes after the hour. We walked in, followed the signs, and presented ourselves at the door to the food area.
There were two women there tending to the closing up for the day, and I said hello, that I had brought these two women from our church, and that they had their chits for food. I had not been to this church's food bank before, and neither had my friends, and these two women, who looked like they were straight out of suburban America in the '50s pretty much proceeded to dress us down for being late, not having some form or other filled out for these first time clients, and were just generally miserable, unpleasant, and uncooperative.
I swallowed my intense desire to tell these two biddies to go........jump in the lake, and put on my best, "Gosh, golly gee, I'm sorry, but we didn't know any of this including the time you close.".
For people to have this kind of attitude when two needy, and obviously displaced, women who have also obviously never been there before was one of the most disgusting displays of un-Christian behavior I ever witnessed. Where are the welcoming smiles? How about, "Here, let me help you through this process so you'll know how it works in the future."? WTF, these women acted like we were walking into their house and stealing their personal food. How a couple of miserable people like that end up in a church's food bank is entirely mystifying to me, but suffice it to say I never went back there......
Yeah, I know churches are all run by people, and maybe these women had a bad day and all, but this was just another of those examples I have seen all too often from some place that is supposed to be welcoming and giving.
|
|
