Originally posted by lioyankNo. All card games. Including "uno" and "gin" and "rummy" in all its variations.
Everyone's a "weird bunch", some with more quirks than others. In the end, "normal" is just a substitute for the "current majority", right?
Your story about laughing around the card table brings back some good memories. What game do you prefer, poker, or are you more of the intellectual and play bridge?
I have a (way distant) cousin who won the world chamionship playing for Cambridge in Bridge.
But that is why i'm a cousin. I never met a person I can play with. Snark.
Hell. We laugh at Monopoly. And the kids games. whatever.
A game is just an invite to laugh.
As opposed to 'porn'. Which is an invite to "dominate'?
monopoly, family, and alcohol. Now there's a deadly combination. lol
In all seriousness though, I remember some good times around my older cousin's table. Jenga and Monopoly. You're right about one thing. Games were made for laughing. At least there's one thing that can still bring the family together without involving money.
Now poker, that's another story...
As for porn, I try to stay away. Can become quite addicting. One addiction is enough for me.
I noticed that FDU lost. damn. Didn't expect them to win, but always that glimmer of hope. I've been losing sight of it lately, ya know?
Anyway, time for me to go to bed.
Take it easy on the alcohol. or not. just my 2 cents. ive seen what it can do.
I look forward to speaking with you again, though. Till next time.
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankThank you for chattin'.
I noticed that FDU lost. damn. Didn't expect them to win, but always that glimmer of hope. I've been losing sight of it lately, ya know?
Anyway, time for me to go to bed.
Take it easy on the alcohol. or not. just my 2 cents. ive se ...[text shortened]... I look forward to speaking with you again, though. Till next time.
Yea. I always cheer for the dog.
g'night.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich. For every churchman speaking against the atrocities, how many acted as chaplains to German armed forces?
A lot of people assume "The Church", and they are usually referring to the Roman Catholic Church, was alltogether silent about what happened in the Third Reich.
One of the people who clearly spoke out against the practices of the Reich ...[text shortened]... ion as bishop, but only under constant observation of the Gestapo.
And did the Pope - the head of the Catholic Church - know members of his own church were participating in the killing of millions of Jews? And what did he have to say about it?
Originally posted by steerpike
I am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich. For every churchman speaking against the atrocities, how many acted as chaplains to German armed forces?
Indeed, how many? If we're going to argue this out, we need facts - not rhetoric.
2 edits
Fair enough. Every German division ( roughly 10 000 soldiers) had two chaplains - one Catholic. one Protestant, reporting directly to the Division Commander. I would guess around a 1000 chaplains in total, based on 500 divisions.
Originally posted by steerpike
I am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich. For every churchman speaking against the atrocit ?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
If we're going to argue this out, we need facts - not rhetoric.
These divisions would have included SS Waffen divisons and Special Groups which were dedicated to exterminating racial groups. With the responsibility of dealing with spirtual matters, the chaplains may have been questioned by soldiers about the morality of their actions - but perhaps the young soldiers were more interested in discussing the nature of spirit rather than the moral correctness of finding and shooting terrifed chidren in cold blood every day.
When I find a clear statement by the Pope condemning the murder of tens of millions of civilians, I will post it for you.
Originally posted by steerpikehttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
When I find a clear statement by the Pope condemning the murder of tens of millions of civilians, I will post it for you.
Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.
In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deported to Germany. He later made a similar request for Jews in Lithuania. The papacy did nothing.(5)
Within the Pope's own church, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna told Pius XII about Jewish deportations in 1941. In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, a position under the supervision of the Pope, reported to Rome that Slovakian Jews were being systematically deported and sent to death camps.(6)
In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain "neutral," and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)
In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience."(8)
On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, "The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope's behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)
Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
Originally posted by steerpikeFrom the same site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
Throughout the Holocaust, Pius XII was consistently besieged with pleas for help on behalf of the Jews.
In the spring of 1940, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Isaac Herzog, asked the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Luigi Maglione to intercede to keep Jews in Spain from being deporte ...[text shortened]... e Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef1.html
The image presented today is that of a Pope immobilized in the face of atrocities. Hence the self-revealing question, "Why did not the Pope do something?" Or, tendentious allusions to the "inaction" of the Vatican, as if the only action conceivable is that of making public and provocative statements regardless of their real and possibly disastrous and pernicious consequences for the Jews themselves. This is to cancel out too easily the factual record of the continuing real assistance of the Vatican to European Jewry, of which the appropriate documents and declarations of those concerned are convincing (but suppressed) witness.
It may surprise the contemporary generation to learn that the local Jewish communities, and the world Jewish bodies did not, for the most part, urge the Pope to "speak out." Their objective was far more concrete and down-to-earth. They invoked the real or supposed influence of the Holy See on governments in respect to certain situations arising at one or other points of the tragedy. Appeals to world opinion, high-sounding though they may appear, would have seemed cheap and trivial gestures to those engaged in rescue work. (There were many Allied propagandistic appeals, and threats, which had no effect and possibly hastened action by the Eichmann crew.) The crying need in those years was for effective pressure on persecuting governments, pressure that often enough could only be exercised by discreet and even roundabout methods.
The need to refrain from provocative public statements at such delicate moments was fully recognized in Jewish circles. It was in fact the basic rule of all those agencies in wartime Europe who felt keenly the duty to do all that was possible for the victims of Nazi atrocities and in particular for the Jews in proximate danger of deportation to an unknown destination. In Geneva at this time, for instance, the World Council of Churches found itself obliged to refrain from any public statements about Nazi atrocities, on the grounds that this would bring to naught whatever real good they were presently accomplishing. Yet, behind the scenes, without fanfare, the Council, under the Secretary General Visser 't Hooft, deployed, like the Vatican, effective assistance to the Jews.
The drama faced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, with its seat likewise in Geneva, is perhaps even more striking. The Committee is officially charged by international agreement with supervising the application of the Red Cross Conventions on Prisoners of War. But the needs of civilian internees (read, Jews) increasingly alarmed the members of the committee. The Red Cross had no real knowledge of the extermination camps at this time (in the autumn of 1942) but the harshness of German procedures, and even more so the sinister disappearance of so many thousands into the maw of deportation, suggested the necessity of an open and public protest on the part of the Committee. With profound regret, the Geneva Red Cross decided that a public protest, a) would have no effect, b) would compromise what real good the Committee was already doing for the internees, without benefit of public declarations. And indeed in the following war years, the International Committee of the Red Cross was able to achieve a great deal in its efforts at alleviating suffering.
There is no one who today questions the reasonableness of the silence of the World Council of Churches, or of the Committee. But the same factors were operative in like manner for the Vatican: no good would be accomplished by public protests, and on the contrary, what good was yet possible would be compromised by provocations. In his own reaction to the negative decision of the Red Cross, the Geneva representative of the World Jewish Congress, Gerhart Riegner, accepted its validity. If something could yet be done to save the threatened Jews, then this should be followed up, in place of a protest: "I believe — he (Carl Burckhardt) told the Committee representative — a protest is necessary only in the case where there is really nothing more to be done at the time. But if one can still exercise some influence and if one wishes to refrain from a protest, it is necessary to act and not to satisfy oneself with passively recording news of deportees. Riegner's stand, preferring action to words, is in contrast with the contemporary prevailing obsession with open protests, as if they were an end in themselves.
The Vatican, too, had to face the possibility — even the probability — that its own direct protests against the deportation of Jews would undermine the slender basis it had already for effective interventions. Any one who pretends to pass moral judgment on the actions of persons and institutions during the stress of World War II owes it to the truth to consider adequately the real margin left for action. This courtesy, or justice, has demonstrably not been extended to Pius XII. The result has been the construction of images totally out of relation to reality. It is significant that the argumentation against Pius XII is uniformly of a negative nature: the Pope did not do "enough." He did not say "enough." This open-ended approach can be applied, at will, to almost any other institution of personality, and it reeks with subjectivity and arbitrariness. Under such a formula of enough, nobody is immune from criticism.
Even the word "silence" is relative. Pius XII was not "silent" during World War II. He was not even "neutral." In this the Holy See differed from the above-mentioned World Council of Churches and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which found themselves unable to make any statements, even the most generic, protesting Nazi atrocities. The Pope's public statements, from his first inaugural encyclical of October 1939, were clearly directed against the National Socialist regime, and were so understood on both sides.
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeSteerpike: "I am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich."
I am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich. For every churchman speaking against the atrocities, how many acted as chaplains to German arme ...[text shortened]... ing of millions of Jews? And what did he have to say about it?
Do you really think only one person spoke out against the Reich ?
What are you interested in ? The historic truth or accusations that fit in with your political views now ?
Originally posted by steerpikeSteerpike: "And did the Pope - the head of the Catholic Church - know members of his own church were participating in the killing of millions of Jews? And what did he have to say about it?"
I am afraid a single person speaking up - even a Bishop - does not clear the church of its shameful silence on the events in the Third Reich. For every churchman speaking against the atrocities, how many acted as chaplains to German armed forces?
And did the Pope - the head of the Catholic Church - know members of his own church were participating in the killing of millions of Jews? And what did he have to say about it?
The Church spoke out very clearly against all those who followed the new ideology of Nazism. Please read the encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge", a truly prophetical document.
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeVery well - let's start with 500 divisions (5M soldiers) and 500 Catholic Chaplains.
Fair enough. Every German division ( roughly 10 000 soldiers) had two chaplains - one Catholic. one Protestant, reporting directly to the Division Commander. I would guess around a 1000 chaplains in total, based on 500 divisions.
The ...[text shortened]... e murder of tens of millions of civilians, I will post it for you.
How many of the 5 million soldiers would've actually been involved in atrocities against civilians (Jewish or otherwise)? How many of them would've spent the majority of the war on the multiple fronts fighting with Allied troops?
Further, let's look at the issue of motivation. How many of these 5 million soldiers would've been sympathisers of the Nazi ideology? What other reasons could account for their fighting in the German army:
1. Loyalty/Patriotism - Germany was, after all, in war with the Allies. How many of them would've joined in order to defend their nation?
2. Economics/Employment - I would guess that the German economy was devastated after WWI. How many soldiers would've joined the army because it was the only viable source of emplyment/income?
3. Draft - Did Germany have a compulsory draft? How many soldiers might be fighting against their will?
Let's take the argument one step further. Every German division would've had atleast one doctor and a few nurses to tend to the sick and wounded. Would this imply that the medical community was complicit in Nazi war crimes? Did the German (or global) medical community publish a declaration denouncing the Nazis? (As it turns out, the ICRC decided not to publish such an announcement as it was felt it would only worsen the situation). I have posted a section from an essay on the issue in a previous post - I would like to have your comments on it.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=806
The site is dedicated to Edith Stein and, among other things, the circumstances in the Netherlands during wartime under which she and others were arrested and transported to death camps.
Excerpts from this site:
"The text of telegram itself is entered into the minutes:
The undersigned Dutch churches, already deeply shocked by the measures against the Jews in the Netherlands by which they are excluded from participation in normal national life [citizenship was being taken away from Dutch Jews] have become aware with horror of the new regulations by which men, women and children and entire families are to be deported to the territory of the German Reich and areas under Germany's Jurisdiction. Because of the suffering this will cause tens of thousands of people, knowing that these measures contradict the deepest moral conscience of the Dutch people, but above all because these measures violate everything we are commanded by God [to do] as right and just, the churches must urgently appeal to you not to carry out these measures. In addition, as far as the Christians among the Jews are concerned, it is necessary for us to make this urgent request because of the fact that by these measures their participation in the life of the church is being cut off."
The churches also notified the Nazis about three steps they were planning: to proclaim Sunday July 26 "as a day of atonement and prayer in all churches of the Netherlands," to read to their congregations their telegram of protest, and to recite the following prayer for God's help for Jews and for Dutch workers being deported as forced laborers: ..... "
" ............ "
"The horrible deportation Seyess-Inquart is presiding over so smoothly seems to be occurring even as he writes, for he refers to the sudden receipt of fresh reports: "I have just been informed that the intercession of the churches has resulted in the roundup of about 4,000 'Christian Jews' and their transport to a camp in Holland, where they are being detained for the time being."
Thus, the secret Nazi records support the argument that the Church's July 26 defiance of the Nazis determined the Nazi's decision to deport Edith Stein to the Auschwitz concentration camp a few days later."
We all must understand that the Nazis held everybody who was against the Reich and its actions as hostages. In this case the Dutch Church spoke out against the Reich's actions. One of the results in this particular case was that a considerable number of Roman Catholic jews were sent to the death camps.
As you are hopefully able to see there are reasons why the Church was being very careful to speak out in public because that would backfire on the Jews immediately as shown by these events.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI dropped into this debate to point out my opinion that, contrary to some opinions expressed here, the church was largely silent on the issue of the persecution of Jews.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=806
The site is dedicated to Edith Stein and, among other things, the circumstances in the Netherlands during wartime under which she and others were arrested and transported to death camps.
Excerpts from this site:
"The text of telegram itself is entered into the minutes:
The undersig ...[text shortened]... in public because that would backfire on the Jews immediately as shown by these events.
I do commend the Roman Catholic bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, and I am sure many others spoke out - as individuals, as local church leaders as national chuch leaders as the Dutch did, both Protestant and Catholic. But many other church leaders remained silent - amongst them Pope Pius XII. Others saw no conflict in ministering to soldiers who were active or complicit in murders of Jews - both in the West and East.
Some here condone this silence - saying an ouspoken denunciation would hot have helped.But it seems to me you can not claim both the outspoken Bishop and the silent Pope both did the right thing.
As for your charge the Dutch church proclamation sent Edith Stein to Auschwitz - a death sentence had been imposed on all Jews by the Nazis and it chaned only the timing. Perhaps the proclamation persuaded more Dutch to shelter and protect their fellow citizens.
Originally posted by steerpike
I dropped into this debate to point out my opinion that, contrary to some opinions expressed here, the church was largely silent on the issue of the persecution of Jews.
I do commend the Roman Catholic bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, and I am sure many others spoke out - as individuals, as local church leaders as national chuch leaders as the Dut ...[text shortened]... ing. Perhaps the proclamation persuaded more Dutch to shelter and protect their fellow citizens.
There is much more to tell about this case. It is, in my view, remarkable that this everlasting myth concerning Pope's Pius XII 's and the Churche's alleged silence and the corresponding innuendo of active collaboration with the Nazis, originated from Rolf Hochhuths's playwright called "Der Stellvertreter", not a historical piece of objective research and investigation, but a "piece of art". You can also call it a piece of propaganda. Whether you want to call it the former or the latter depends on what side of the truth you want to place yourself.
I hope you have gotten an insight as to why the Church had to be very careful. Pius XII chose a policy of which he thought it would be effective at that time to save as much jews as possible.
Of course it is very easy to dismiss this policy in hindsight. Of course you can claim in hindsight it wasn't enough. Of course .....
One question though remains:
Why do those who do not accept the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Pope demand from him he should have used the same moral authority publically against organised criminals the world had never seen before ? Do they really think this political and criminal Nazi riffraff would have done what they themselves, being good and honest people, do not intend to do and that is obeying the Pope ?
As many sad instances indicate, the Nazis intensified the persecutions whenever lower echelons of the Church spoke out against them. Seen in this perspective critisising the Pope in hindsight does not show a great insight in and the understanding of the difficult historical circumstances in Europe at that time and the resulting political, diplomatic and moral dilemmas the Church had to face.
One last remark. Of course there were too many members of the Church, also in the higher echelons, who willingly collaborated with the Nazis. May the Lord have mercy on them. They will need it. The Church as such, however, clearly was, is and will be an enemy of the Nazi-ideology.