Originally posted by HalitoseIt was the first 'rec' I've given. Really, there seems to be an unhealthy focus on 'recs'. If the Gee-man spouts a piece of jaudiced drivel that I feel is profound enough, I might rec it. Same goes for you.
Unless you support Hg in one of his "anti-God Squad" tirades; a free rec for every piece of jaundiced drivel spouted.
Originally posted by David Crecs mean absolutely nothing. if anything, they are a popularity contest. though they are tossed around here, at least it's not as bad as the general forum.
It was the first 'rec' I've given. Really, there seems to be an unhealthy focus on 'recs'. If the Gee-man spouts a piece of jaudiced drivel that I feel is profound enough, I might rec it. Same goes for you.
Originally posted by ivanhoei'm not so sure about this statement. i think it's more of a "tie". yes, pius did do what he could do at the time. that wasn't much, however. basically, he was between a rock and a hard place. either way, he was getting screwed. however, i think if he spoke out more against hitler publicly, there wouldn't be as much controversy.
[b] The "Pius Wars" are in fact over and the scientific dispute has been settled in favour of Pius XII and the Church.
now, let's see the other side. if he did speak out publicly, hitler most likely would've done something about it. if he did try to save/shelter more jews, hitler most likely would've done something about it. by "keeping silent", pius tried to protect the catholic church, was not "attacked" by hitler, and at the same time managed to save some lives in the process.
the question for me is this: which way is the more moral of the two? some will say the first. others will say the second. i honestly don't know. looking back on both sides of it, there really is no easy answer. and though i personally wouldn't say that the "pius wars" were settled in his favor, i certainly do not think it is easy to determine what was the right or wrong thing to do in this situation. it's easy to be a monday morning qb. very different if it was u playing the game at the time, making the decisions.
4 edits
Originally posted by lioyankThe Church did protest publicly against the persecutions of many groups of people, including the persecutions of Jewish people. After those protests the persecutions and progroms intensified considerably. Instances of this are the protests of the Dutch bishops against the actions of the German occupiers during the first war years. As any dictatorship the Nazi-dictatorship was extremely sensitive regarding criticism. If any criticism was voiced immediate actions were undertaken. In case of the Dutch protests many Jews were being imprisoned and sent to death camps where they were murdered. After these unfortunate events the Dutch Church province decided not to speak out publicly anymore in order not to provoke the Nazi's to take hostile actions against the people the Church was trying to protect.
i'm not so sure about this statement. i think it's more of a "tie". yes, pius did do what he could do at the time. that wasn't much, however. basically, he was between a rock and a hard place. either way, he was getting screwed. however, i think if he spoke out more against hitler publicly, there wouldn't be as much controversy.
now, let's see the ot ...[text shortened]... onday morning qb. very different if it was u playing the game at the time, making the decisions.
lioyank: " i think if he spoke out more against hitler publicly, there wouldn't be as much controversy."
This remains to be seen. If the Church would have continued to speak out against the Nazi's as they did and as a result of that the progroms and persecutions would have intensified considerably, don't you think there would have been another controversy but now about the question why the Church did not cease to speak out publicly in spite of the murderous counter actions undertaken by the Nazi's ? The question would be raised why the Church and the Pope spoke out publicly while they and he knew from the experiences of the local churches that each time these protests would trigger a wave of intensified progroms and murderous counter-actions by the Nazi's.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDamned if you do, damned if you don't.
The Church did protest publicly against the persecutions of many groups of people, including the persecutions of Jewish people. After those protests the persecutions and progroms intensified considerably. Instances of this are the protests of the Dutch bishops against the actions of the German occupiers during the first war years. As any dictatorship ...[text shortened]... tests would trigger a wave of intensified progroms and murderous counter-actions by the Nazi's.
There are many many instances in the Church's history when it has erred seriously - but this is one case where I think the Catholic Church would've been blamed no matter what it did.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerCorrect. The "Pius Wars" were/are a perfect playground for people who have a political and ideological interest in placing the Church in a bad light. By accusing the Church of collaborating with the Nazi's they hope to be able to score points in other questions which are important now and in which the Roman-Catholic Church is their most vehement opponent. The Church is the most staunch and consistent advocate of the Sanctity of Life notion and the Right to Life for everybody, both in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. In accusing the Church of collaborating with the Nazi's they are trying to turn the world public opinion against Her and in doing so they hope to score points in order to win the present ideological battles.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
There are many many instances in the Church's history when it has erred seriously - but this is one case where I think the Catholic Church would've been blamed no matter what it did.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeParanoid claptrap. Perhaps your and other Catholic apologists making absurd claims like the Pope saved 860,000 Jews or the Inquistion was an improvement over existing legal systems is a way to attempt to score present ideological points. Your argument can be used both ways.
Correct. The "Pius Wars" were/are a perfect playground for people who have a political and ideological interest in placing the Church in a bad light. By accusing the Church of collaborating with the Nazi's they hope to be able to score points in other questions which are important now and in which the Roman-Catholic Church is their most vehement op ...[text shortened]... t Her and in doing so they hope to score points in order to win the present ideological battles.
Originally posted by ivanhoe"The (Roman-Catholic) Church is the most staunch and consistent advocate of the Sanctity of Life notion".
Correct. The "Pius Wars" were/are a perfect playground for people who have a political and ideological interest in placing the Church in a bad light. By accusing the Church of collaborating with the Nazi's they hope to be able to score points in other questions which are important now and in which the Roman-Catholic Church is their most vehement op ...[text shortened]... t Her and in doing so they hope to score points in order to win the present ideological battles.
Sure. Just ask the Spanish inquisition.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo marauder, because the truth stands in your way. The truth never works "both ways".
Your argument can be used both ways.
Besides, if you would be right ["it works both ways"] then of course these accusers, among whom you and others on this site, would be very thick people, because they would give the Roman-Catholic Church the chance to score points in the controverses they initiate by constantly spouting these anti-Church accusations.
The accusers initiate these wars, not the defenders. The accusers want to score points, not the defenders. Yet another reason why it doesn't work both ways, marauder.
Or dou you think these accusers are in fact working for the RC Church spouting these accusations and provoking these controverses in order to score points for the RCC ?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Perhaps your and other Catholic apologists making absurd claims like the Pope saved 860,000 Jews ... "
Paranoid claptrap. Perhaps your and other Catholic apologists making absurd claims like the Pope saved 860,000 Jews or the Inquistion was an improvement over existing legal systems is a way to attempt to score present ideological points. Your argument can be used both ways.
.... these "Catholic apologists" are serious historians, scientists, among whom Jewish scientists. They claim the Pope and the Church have indeed rescued Jewish people.
You simply are not interested in the historic truth. You are interested in accusations. insults, provocations and streetfights.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you grow up? You turn everyone of these threads into a personal vendetta. When ever anybody brings up historical truth that demolishes your fairy tales and wild claims, they are part of the conspiracy against the Roman Catholic Church. Your childish blatherings are tiresome and sickening.
[b]marauder: "Perhaps your and other Catholic apologists making absurd claims like the Pope saved 860,000 Jews ... "
.... these "Catholic apologists" are serious historians, scientists, among whom Jewish scientists. They claim the Pope and the Church have indeed rescued Jewish people.
You simply are not interested in the historic truth. You are interested in accusations. insults, provocations and streetfights.[/b]