Brandon's Response

Discussions of topics unrelated to education or degrees but still of interest to our members.

Brandon's Response

Postby Brandon » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 pm

This is a spin off from one of Jimmy’s threads. Here are my responses to the foul McEwan.

McEwan wrote:Aside from trying to make sure women don’t have access to life-saving medical procedures,


This life-saving procedure kills a child. And there is no doubt that at that stage, it is a baby. To say otherwise is totally foolish. There is no right to slay an innocent to save another.

McEwan wrote:not to mention birth control


Do what you want with birth control, you’re only affecting yourself.

McEwan wrote:and emergency birth control,


If I understand the issue correctly, emergency birth control causes an abortion if conception has already occurred. In most cases, the woman should have simply used birth control beforehand. They’ve no right to risk the slaying of an innocent for their screw up. In the case of rape, it is not as much of an issue because I would imagine the emergency birth control would be administered shortly after the rape, at the hospital before fertilization could occur.

McEwan wrote:getting busy with the state initiatives to slowly chip away at abortion rights,


There is no such thing as an abortion right. There is no right to kill, period.

McEwan wrote:revving up to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to another vote


Each state should decide the issue and the federal courts should just keep their nose out of it, thereby eliminating the need for the MPA.

McEwan wrote:cutting funding for international family planning,


I have a right to decide where my tax dollars go. I do not condone birth control and you have no right to use my money to support it. She can donate money to Planned Parenthood if she cares so much.

McEwan wrote:increasing funding for domestic abstinence-only sex education programs,


So?

McEwan wrote:now they’re embarking on a crusade to ban gay adoption in at least 16 states.


There is no right to adoption. Each state should be allowed to set its own criteria.

RobbCD wrote:Seems to me that Mr. Donohue would rather scream for publicity than address, as I'm sure Brandon will, the issues that Ms. McEwan lists in her blog.


The issues have been addressed. The Catholic League is a civil rights group, not a group of apologists.

RobbCD wrote:Wouldn't conservative Catholics be better served to engage in dialougue with the, admittedly, foul mouthed and polemic Ms. McEwan?


I engage in dialogue with people who don’t resort to crude language and downright rudeness and disrespect.

RobbCD wrote:Maybe the actions of both parties here are expected and appropriate.


If she had done her objecting with respect, or at least class, sure. Otherwise, her actions are unacceptable.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Brandon's Response

Postby dntw8up » Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:43 pm

Brandon wrote:I have a right to decide where my tax dollars go.


You can't choose not to have your tax dollars fund abortion or the war on Iraq or farm subsidies. You can only "decide" where your tax dollars go to the extent that you can vote for (or against) your representatives.
dntw8up
Senior Member
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: USVI

Postby uncle janko » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:50 pm

Bingo.
Doing good, doing well, raising hope and raising hell. Janko Shave.
"Airplane music? Just like music for big bees, only louder."--Arnold Schoenberg
uncle janko
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:04 am

Postby Brandon » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:30 am

dntw8up wrote:
Brandon wrote:I have a right to decide where my tax dollars go.


You can't choose not to have your tax dollars fund abortion or the war on Iraq or farm subsidies. You can only "decide" where your tax dollars go to the extent that you can vote for (or against) your representatives.


Yes, I know that. You might consider searching for a thread that discussed neural diseases. I think that is the one where Abner and I discussed how much control the people really have on policy. I took your line of thinking, stating that we can only influence government policy by voting every few years. As to the sentence you quote, I was only offering my belief that the people deserve more say in their government than a vote every two years. You may or may not agree with that. Peace.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Brandon's Response

Postby RobbCD » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:01 pm

Brandon wrote:
RobbCD wrote:Seems to me that Mr. Donohue would rather scream for publicity than address, as I'm sure Brandon will, the issues that Ms. McEwan lists in her blog.


The issues have been addressed. The Catholic League is a civil rights group, not a group of apologists.

RobbCD wrote:Wouldn't conservative Catholics be better served to engage in dialougue with the, admittedly, foul mouthed and polemic Ms. McEwan?


I engage in dialogue with people who don’t resort to crude language and downright rudeness and disrespect.

RobbCD wrote:Maybe the actions of both parties here are expected and appropriate.


If she had done her objecting with respect, or at least class, sure. Otherwise, her actions are unacceptable.


I think that Ms. McEwan's ire comes from two places: One, she seems to be a gay woman who's radical stance against Catholic teachings is personal. I can't speak for her, so I don't know but this is how it looks to me. Second, and more important, she is a left-wing blogger who's job it is to rally the base, or at least fuel the partisan fires that drive our partisan political system. She's preaching to the choir, as it were. The only way that a conservative group like the Catholic League can be offended by what Shakespeares-Sister writes on her blog is to read it. They have to go out of their way into the left-wing blogosphere and look for something to be offended at. What a joke.

If the content of a lefty blog like Ms. McEwen is unacceptable for containing anti-Catholic opinions which she holds, then every anti-feminist, anti-gay stance on every Catholic blog is also unacceptable and their authors should be fired from thier jobs, just like Mr. Donohue would like to see from Mr. Edwars regarding Ms. McEwan.

Or........They are all acceptable and we can learn to live with each other (even if we don't like each other).
RobbCD
Senior Member
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:08 pm

Re: Brandon's Response

Postby Carl_Reginstein » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:07 pm

RobbCD wrote:
Brandon wrote:
RobbCD wrote:Seems to me that Mr. Donohue would rather scream for publicity than address, as I'm sure Brandon will, the issues that Ms. McEwan lists in her blog.


The issues have been addressed. The Catholic League is a civil rights group, not a group of apologists.

RobbCD wrote:Wouldn't conservative Catholics be better served to engage in dialougue with the, admittedly, foul mouthed and polemic Ms. McEwan?


I engage in dialogue with people who don’t resort to crude language and downright rudeness and disrespect.

RobbCD wrote:Maybe the actions of both parties here are expected and appropriate.


If she had done her objecting with respect, or at least class, sure. Otherwise, her actions are unacceptable.


I think that Ms. McEwan's ire comes from two places: One, she seems to be a gay woman who's radical stance against Catholic teachings is personal. I can't speak for her, so I don't know but this is how it looks to me. Second, and more important, she is a left-wing blogger who's job it is to rally the base, or at least fuel the partisan fires that drive our partisan political system. She's preaching to the choir, as it were. The only way that a conservative group like the Catholic League can be offended by what Shakespeares-Sister writes on her blog is to read it. They have to go out of their way into the left-wing blogosphere and look for something to be offended at. What a joke.

If the content of a lefty blog like Ms. McEwen is unacceptable for containing anti-Catholic opinions which she holds, then every anti-feminist, anti-gay stance on every Catholic blog is also unacceptable and their authors should be fired from thier jobs, just like Mr. Donohue would like to see from Mr. Edwars regarding Ms. McEwan.

Or........They are all acceptable and we can learn to live with each other (even if we don't like each other).


My God! What a..... liberal.... concept!
Carl_Reginstein
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:44 pm

Postby Brandon » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:56 pm

RobbCD wrote:I think that Ms. McEwan's ire comes from two places: One, she seems to be a gay woman who's radical stance against Catholic teachings is personal.


That explains her opposition but not her rudeness. I don’t care that she disagrees with us. There is a polite, correct way to disagree and then there is a junior high, “I hate the world and you” way. She seems to have selected the latter.

RobbCD wrote: Second, and more important, she is a left-wing blogger who's job it is to rally the base, or at least fuel the partisan fires that drive our partisan political system. She's preaching to the choir, as it were.


I get email that preaches to the choir all the time. I've never quite seen them deliver their message or rally the base in quite the way she did. You don’t have to be rude and mean-spirited to rally the base.

RobbCD wrote:The only way that a conservative group like the Catholic League can be offended by what Shakespeares-Sister writes on her blog is to read it. They have to go out of their way into the left-wing blogosphere and look for something to be offended at. What a joke.


This is a popular form of communication. I doubt you’d criticize the ADL or NACCP for pointing out a racist blogger who worked for Edwards. I’m sure these fine, noble organizations do what the Catholic League does.

RobbCD wrote:If the content of a lefty blog like Ms. McEwen is unacceptable for containing anti-Catholic opinions which she holds, then every anti-feminist, anti-gay stance on every Catholic blog is also unacceptable and their authors should be fired from thier jobs, just like Mr. Donohue would like to see from Mr. Edwars regarding Ms. McEwan.


First off, any Catholic who wrote a blog with that kind of hate filled garbage about homosexuals or radical feminists should not be employed in a political campaign or any job with the Church. We are Christians, called to love like Christ did, not hate. Second, I do not oppose criticism (even without suggestions) so long as it is done in a polite, reasonable manner. She disagrees with our stance on abortion, on birth control, and on other issues. Fine, this is America and God gave us freewill. But she doesn’t have to be profane and hateful about it. Even if it is personal.

RobbCD wrote:Or........They are all acceptable and we can learn to live with each other (even if we don't like each other).


Or neither is acceptable, we’ve already learned to live with each other (no civil war since 1865) and we already like each other because we’d all be bored without the other. Let me state something: I don’t hate Ms. McEwan or her fellow blogger. I hope to enjoy the splendor of Heaven for all eternity with them there as well. Whenever I pray the Rosary I pray for Jesus to lead all souls to Heaven, not just mine.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby levicoff » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:57 pm

So . . . how do you make a dead baby float?

Two scoops of dead baby and a little 7-Up. :lol:
__________________________

(Chill out, Brandon . . . I'm a pro-lifer.)
levicoff
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Somewhere in a truck

Postby Carl_Reginstein » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:15 am

Brandon wrote:
RobbCD wrote:I think that Ms. McEwan's ire comes from two places: One, she seems to be a gay woman who's radical stance against Catholic teachings is personal.


That explains her opposition but not her rudeness. I don’t care that she disagrees with us. There is a polite, correct way to disagree and then there is a junior high, “I hate the world and you” way. She seems to have selected the latter.

RobbCD wrote: Second, and more important, she is a left-wing blogger who's job it is to rally the base, or at least fuel the partisan fires that drive our partisan political system. She's preaching to the choir, as it were.


I get email that preaches to the choir all the time. I've never quite seen them deliver their message or rally the base in quite the way she did. You don’t have to be rude and mean-spirited to rally the base.

RobbCD wrote:The only way that a conservative group like the Catholic League can be offended by what Shakespeares-Sister writes on her blog is to read it. They have to go out of their way into the left-wing blogosphere and look for something to be offended at. What a joke.


This is a popular form of communication. I doubt you’d criticize the ADL or NACCP for pointing out a racist blogger who worked for Edwards. I’m sure these fine, noble organizations do what the Catholic League does.

RobbCD wrote:If the content of a lefty blog like Ms. McEwen is unacceptable for containing anti-Catholic opinions which she holds, then every anti-feminist, anti-gay stance on every Catholic blog is also unacceptable and their authors should be fired from thier jobs, just like Mr. Donohue would like to see from Mr. Edwars regarding Ms. McEwan.


First off, any Catholic who wrote a blog with that kind of hate filled garbage about homosexuals or radical feminists should not be employed in a political campaign or any job with the Church. We are Christians, called to love like Christ did, not hate. Second, I do not oppose criticism (even without suggestions) so long as it is done in a polite, reasonable manner. She disagrees with our stance on abortion, on birth control, and on other issues. Fine, this is America and God gave us freewill. But she doesn’t have to be profane and hateful about it. Even if it is personal.

RobbCD wrote:Or........They are all acceptable and we can learn to live with each other (even if we don't like each other).


Or neither is acceptable, we’ve already learned to live with each other (no civil war since 1865) and we already like each other because we’d all be bored without the other. Let me state something: I don’t hate Ms. McEwan or her fellow blogger. I hope to enjoy the splendor of Heaven for all eternity with them there as well. Whenever I pray the Rosary I pray for Jesus to lead all souls to Heaven, not just mine.


It is indeed too bad people get so emotional about the Catholic Church. But then there's that history.... that we all wish weren't there. Or maybe we wish it were there when it is glorious (St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Joan of Arc), but not when it warns us of the danger of theocracy (the Inquisition, the jew-baiting, the crusades).

So, yes people get emotional. And they sometimes equate today's Church with the horrors of the (sometimes recent) past. Like the help that Pius XII gave Hitler in achieving total power in Germany. Or the Concordat of July 6 1933 where German bishops agreed to swear fealty to the Nazi regime.

Sometimes a picture says a thousand words....

http://emperor.vwh.net/images/bishops.jpg

Chilling, isn't it?

But of course that's all in the past..... God understands that this was just a little mistake made by mortals, and the true Church now lives on. Right?
Carl_Reginstein
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:44 pm

Postby Brandon » Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:38 am

You bring up excellent points about the Church’s past, Carl. I’d be happy to discuss them further, if you want. Right now, however, its 1:30 in the morning and I am hitting the sack. I’ll post more later but only after you’ve responded that you’d like to discuss the issues you so politely bring up. Peace, my friend.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby Carl_Reginstein » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:57 pm

Brandon wrote:You bring up excellent points about the Church’s past, Carl. I’d be happy to discuss them further, if you want. Right now, however, its 1:30 in the morning and I am hitting the sack. I’ll post more later but only after you’ve responded that you’d like to discuss the issues you so politely bring up. Peace, my friend.


Thanks Brandon. I'm dealing with a weather emergency today myself, so it might be a bit before I get time to post much out here again..... <please..... the rest of you, hold your applause..... > :lol:
Carl_Reginstein
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:44 pm

Postby Brandon » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:24 pm

Carl_Reginstein wrote:
Brandon wrote:You bring up excellent points about the Church’s past, Carl. I’d be happy to discuss them further, if you want. Right now, however, its 1:30 in the morning and I am hitting the sack. I’ll post more later but only after you’ve responded that you’d like to discuss the issues you so politely bring up. Peace, my friend.


Thanks Brandon. I'm dealing with a weather emergency today myself, so it might be a bit before I get time to post much out here again..... <please..... the rest of you, hold your applause..... > :lol:


We're getting hit pretty hard where I'm at. It looks like it is getting close to a foot on the ground and it is not expected to stop snowing for awhile. I'm stuck inside all day. :x

Carl wrote:Or maybe we wish it were there when it is glorious (St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Joan of Arc)


And very fine members of the Church you selected. Joan of Arc is actually my patron saint. I took her name at my baptism and confirmation. Each night I seek her intercession. I'm glad you think of her as being part of the glorious part of the Church's history. Of course just mentioning the name of Augustine or Aquinas speaks for itself, such fine men only come along once in a great while.

Carl wrote:but not when it warns us of the danger of theocracy (the Inquisition, the jew-baiting, the crusades).


These are probably the three darkest parts of the Church’s history. Of course, theocracy alone does not create such things. The history of the United States is an excellent example, with racism, slavery, anti-Semitism, McCarthyism, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. So can you really say it was theocracy that did this or is something more basic to the nature of the human soul? Anyways, to address each point:


The Inquisition was foreseen by Christ and Paul. Paul mentions in Acts 20:29 – “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” So here we have Paul telling us that the wolves will join the flock, and attack it from within. That speaks very clearly of the Inquisition, if you ask me. Furthermore, it confirms that only those who do the harm are the wolves, not the whole Church. Christ mentions in Matthew 7:15 - "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Again, the same warning that wolves would eventually arrive and do harm to the Bride of Christ. What does this mean? It means that Christ and Paul clearly saw some bad Christians, wolves, who would abuse their power and do harm to the Church and her people. It does not mean that the Church is the wolf or that God has abandoned the Catholic Church. Not all. The Inquisition, a dark period of our history, was the result of some men who gave into Satan and became wolves. They are the spiritual descendants of Judas Iscariot. The Church, as a whole, is not responsible for their crimes. It is also important to bear in mind that the Inquisition occurred primarily in southern France, Spain, Italy, and parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Most heretics were tried, convicted, and executed by local courts. You had a pretty good chance of surviving if you were actually tried by the Church, because her courts used logic and had rules of procedure, evidence, etc. Finally, no more than 50,000 – 100,000 were killed between the start of the first inquisition to combat Catharism in 1184, to the completion of the Spanish Inquisition centuries later. Please refer to http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm. This amounts to about 100 – 200 people killed each year. Other estimates are even lower than 50,000. There is simply no logical reason to believe estimates that are in the millions. Such estimates are ridiculous. Now, what this all means is that the darkest aspect of the Church’s history is hardly the Holocaust of Innocents and the travesty of justice that people claim. Yes, people died. Was it wrong? Sure. Does it somehow blemish the soul of the Church and detract from its moral authority? Not at all, no more than slavery or capital punishment, or McCarthyism, or segregation prove the United States is immoral and without “room to talk.”

Jew Baiting – Are you referring to anti-Semitism in general or some specific incident? Anti-Semitism is not immune to the Catholic Church, nor did it start with us. Our past leaders should have done a better job but they did not. The Church has issued an apology and today the Church is very supportive of the Jewish people. Unless change and forgiveness are not possible, I am not sure why this issue is still brought up.

Crusades – An endlessly interesting topic. You must remember that the Crusades began as a legitimate defense. The Muslims had conquered significant portions of the Christian world and had begun to interfere with Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land. I think the Byzantine Empire even asked for help. What happened afterwards, however, crossed the line from legitimate defense to war crimes. That was not the fault of the Church. Individual Christian nobles committed these crimes and the Muslims themselves were hardly blameless. War has the annoying ability to push men over the line and to dehumanize people. The subject of the Crusades, like many criticisms of the Church, is not so black and white.

Carl wrote:Like the help that Pius XII gave Hitler in achieving total power in Germany. Or the Concordat of July 6 1933 where German bishops agreed to swear fealty to the Nazi regime.


Pope Pius XII was a saintly man who saved thousands of Jews during the reign of Hitler. I request you clearly specify what crimes you are accusing him of. The Concordat of 1933 was a mistake but I challenge anyone to prove that someone living in 1933 could have predicted the Holocaust.

Carl wrote:But of course that's all in the past..... God understands that this was just a little mistake made by mortals, and the true Church now lives on. Right?


The Church has always lived on, since Christ founded it 2,000 years ago. Christ and His apostles all predicted that wolves would commit the “little mistakes” you speak of, so why should we be surprised that it did come to pass?

Peace, my friend.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Brandon's Response

Postby Carl_Reginstein » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:05 am

Brandon wrote:This is a spin off from one of Jimmy’s threads. Here are my responses to the foul McEwan.

McEwan wrote:Aside from trying to make sure women don’t have access to life-saving medical procedures,


This life-saving procedure kills a child. And there is no doubt that at that stage, it is a baby. To say otherwise is totally foolish. There is no right to slay an innocent to save another.

McEwan wrote:not to mention birth control


Do what you want with birth control, you’re only affecting yourself.

McEwan wrote:and emergency birth control,


If I understand the issue correctly, emergency birth control causes an abortion if conception has already occurred. In most cases, the woman should have simply used birth control beforehand. They’ve no right to risk the slaying of an innocent for their screw up. In the case of rape, it is not as much of an issue because I would imagine the emergency birth control would be administered shortly after the rape, at the hospital before fertilization could occur.

McEwan wrote:getting busy with the state initiatives to slowly chip away at abortion rights,


There is no such thing as an abortion right. There is no right to kill, period.

McEwan wrote:revving up to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to another vote


Each state should decide the issue and the federal courts should just keep their nose out of it, thereby eliminating the need for the MPA.

McEwan wrote:cutting funding for international family planning,


I have a right to decide where my tax dollars go. I do not condone birth control and you have no right to use my money to support it. She can donate money to Planned Parenthood if she cares so much.

McEwan wrote:increasing funding for domestic abstinence-only sex education programs,


So?

McEwan wrote:now they’re embarking on a crusade to ban gay adoption in at least 16 states.


There is no right to adoption. Each state should be allowed to set its own criteria.

RobbCD wrote:Seems to me that Mr. Donohue would rather scream for publicity than address, as I'm sure Brandon will, the issues that Ms. McEwan lists in her blog.


The issues have been addressed. The Catholic League is a civil rights group, not a group of apologists.

RobbCD wrote:Wouldn't conservative Catholics be better served to engage in dialougue with the, admittedly, foul mouthed and polemic Ms. McEwan?


I engage in dialogue with people who don’t resort to crude language and downright rudeness and disrespect.

RobbCD wrote:Maybe the actions of both parties here are expected and appropriate.


If she had done her objecting with respect, or at least class, sure. Otherwise, her actions are unacceptable.


Brandon,
That's a good response. But I still have issues with your stance on Pius XII. Yes, he helped the Jews IN ITALY - after the Nazis were literally knocking on the door of the Vatican. In other words, only when the problem of atrocity was right under his very nose did he finally, FINALLY... admit there might be a little problem with the Nazi regime. Incidentally, during the entire rise to power and early victories of the Nazis in WWII Pius XII remained silent while being urged by diplomats of governments-in-exile as well as the Allied Powers to make some sort of statement condemning Nazi extermination of the Jewish people.

He remained silent.

Now, in 2006, we find there is evidence that Pius XII had something to do with the Jewish orphans being baptized and kept in "Christian homes" for their own good, also during WWII after their parents and even their culture had been all but exterminated. Was it right? Moral? Ethical? Depends on your point of view I guess. Depends on whether you think the Church is so absolutely right that it can make no mistake, and that Pius XII was actually helping those poor hell-bound Jewish children find a new path in the arms of Christ. Or was that intrusion on self-determination and a mild form of cultural genocide? Hmmm?

Pius XII is also seen as the last of a breed of Popes that preceded (and would have opposed) the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that it contained. As such, he is held up to this day by conservative Catholics and separatists as the last legitimate Pope.

Yet he has been canonized..... So there must be something saintly about him I guess.
Carl_Reginstein
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:44 pm

Postby Brandon » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:55 am

Carl wrote:That's a good response. But I still have issues with your stance on Pius XII. Yes, he helped the Jews IN ITALY - after the Nazis were literally knocking on the door of the Vatican. In other words, only when the problem of atrocity was right under his very nose did he finally, FINALLY... admit there might be a little problem with the Nazi regime.


I wouldn’t be so sure about that. It is estimated he hid between 4,000 and 7,000 Jews when the Nazis finally took over direct control of Italy. These Jews were hidden in Vatican City and on Church property located in Rome and at the pope’s summer residence. Now, compare that to estimates, including some that are Orthodox Jewish, that Pius XII saved as many 860,000 Jews during World War II.

Carl wrote:Incidentally, during the entire rise to power and early victories of the Nazis in WWII Pius XII remained silent while being urged by diplomats of governments-in-exile as well as the Allied Powers to make some sort of statement condemning Nazi extermination of the Jewish people.


Again, I am not so sure about that. As the Nazis rose to power, before he was pope, he condemned them on several occasions. I believe he even called them a blood cult or something to that effect and this was public. He became pope in 1939, shortly before war broke out. Pius XII then began to covertly thwart the Nazis, to the best of his ability.

Carl wrote:He remained silent.


Please do not mistake silence for inaction. Those are two different things. It is clear that Pius XII saved hundreds of thousands of Jews during the war. And I must ask, what would condemnation have brought? The Catholic archbishop of Utrecht publicly condemned the Nazis. And what was his reward? The Nazis rounded up all the Catholic Jews in his jurisdiction and sent them off, presumably to their deaths. This was in 1942, I believe. So what would Pius XII have accomplished with his public condemnation, surrounded by the very fascists and Nazis he was condemning? I will forever remember the words of Albert Einstein on this matter of Nazis and the Church: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."

Carl wrote:Now, in 2006, we find there is evidence that Pius XII had something to do with the Jewish orphans being baptized and kept in "Christian homes" for their own good, also during WWII after their parents and even their culture had been all but exterminated. Was it right? Moral? Ethical? Depends on your point of view I guess.


Right? Yes. Moral? Yes. Ethical? Yes. I can live with what Pius XII did for those children for one simple reason: they got to live with it. They got to live with it. Therefore, I can too. Think of it like this: God forbid but if a fascist regime had murdered you and your wife, and I could save your children by baptizing them into the Church and hiding them away, would you want me to do it? Or would you prefer something else, though the alternatives are fairly slim at this point?

Carl wrote:Depends on whether you think the Church is so absolutely right that it can make no mistake, and that Pius XII was actually helping those poor hell-bound Jewish children find a new path in the arms of Christ. Or was that intrusion on self-determination and a mild form of cultural genocide? Hmmm?


I know you're not saying he should have left them to die. What would your solution have been? I don't see this as an intrustion on self-determination or cultural genocide. I see it as saving life when there were few alternatives available.

Carl wrote:Pius XII is also seen as the last of a breed of Popes that preceded (and would have opposed) the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that it contained. As such, he is held up to this day by conservative Catholics and separatists as the last legitimate Pope.


Conservative Catholics do not think of him as the last pope. You’re thinking of the Sedevacantists, a group of heretical breakaways. I am a conservative Catholic and I accept the authority, without reservation, of Pope Benedict XVI. I also accepted, in the same manner, the authority of John Paul the Great.

Carl wrote:Yet he has been canonized..... So there must be something saintly about him I guess.


Actually, he hasn't been canonized yet. You're probably thinking of St. Pius X, a different pope. But yes, Pius XII was a saintly man. We can sit here with our 20/20 hindsight and denounce him but nothing will change the fact that he saved thousands and thousands of lives that would have otherwise perished. I hope I can go to my grave having accomplished something like that.

Some links that may interest you:

“The twentieth century was marked by genocides on an monstrous scale. One of the most terrible was the Holocaust wrought by Nazi Germany, which killed an estimated six million European Jews and almost as many other victims.

During this dark time, the Catholic Church was shepherded by Pope Pius XII, who proved himself an untiring foe of the Nazis, determined to save as many Jewish lives as he could. Yet today Pius XII gets almost no credit for his actions before or during the war.

Anti-Catholic author Dave Hunt writes, ‘The Vatican had no excuse for its Nazi partnership or for its continued commendation of Hitler on the one hand and its thunderous silence regarding the Jewish question on the other hand. . . . [The popes] continued in the alliance with Hitler until the end of the war, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Nazi government to the Vatican.’”

http://www.catholic.com/library/how_piu ... ws.asp#T23

A more neutral website:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm

Peace, my friend.

P.S. I won’t be able to respond until probably sometime on Monday. I don’t know if I’ll have computer access during my retreat or not. God Bless.
Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.

- 1 Peter 5:8

Bernie 2016

Support the Pregnant Women Support Act!
Brandon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby SteveFoerster » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:57 pm

Brandon wrote:
Carl wrote:Now, in 2006, we find there is evidence that Pius XII had something to do with the Jewish orphans being baptized and kept in "Christian homes" for their own good, also during WWII after their parents and even their culture had been all but exterminated. Was it right? Moral? Ethical? Depends on your point of view I guess.

Right? Yes. Moral? Yes. Ethical? Yes. I can live with what Pius XII did for those children for one simple reason: they got to live with it. They got to live with it. Therefore, I can too. Think of it like this: God forbid but if a fascist regime had murdered you and your wife, and I could save your children by baptizing them into the Church and hiding them away, would you want me to do it? Or would you prefer something else, though the alternatives are fairly slim at this point?

You got me here. To use a rather extreme and unlikely example, If Islamists conquered the U.S., and someone had to choose whether my kids were raised Muslim or else put to the sword, I'd clearly prefer the former.

-=Steve=-
BS, Information Systems concentration, Charter Oak State College
MA in Educational Technology Leadership, George Washington University
PhD in Leadership, U. of the Cumberlands (in progress)
More about me at my site
SteveFoerster
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: Northern Virginia & Dominica, West Indies


Return to Off-topic Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron