Answering anti-Catholics attacks

[LoyalViews]

But not on the usual stuff. Some poor soul on YouTube sent me a message, and it started to escalate into a whole conversation. Now, he’s attacking me about something that happened in Croatia…this: concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=6151
Though he used a different story, I had not heard of this up until he told me. How can I defend the holy Church and answer the persons attack? I hope I’ve not violated forum rules or anything, I really just want help!

If I’ve got this in the wrong forum, as well please move it to the more appropriate one as I didn’t know which one to put it in!

God Bless byzsoc:

 

[MontChevalier]

Looks like anti-catholic propaganda.
From the Document:

Nonetheless, according to the claimants, other records do exist in German and American archives, and these indicate that what is being claimed for Croatia in fact happened in Germany. There the records show Nazi transfers of funds from the Reichsbank to the Vatican Bank and further transfers of funds from the Vatican Bank to Nazi-controlled banks in Switzerland. [16] The claimants maintain that this shows how the Vatican Bank acted as an intermediary in order to help spirit Nazi gold from Germany to the safe haven of secret Swiss bank accounts, where it would then be available to fund the ratlines, without leaving any trace.

“Secret”? Really? If it’s a “secret”, how would they know about it?

Nah, this document is a bunch of ****. It’s just something made to attack the Catholic Church in Croatia. Nothing more.

-MontChevalier

 

[JRKH]

Why would you need to defend against something that has not been proven?

Peace
James

 

[LOCO]

These are unsubstantiated claims. Do not fall into the trap where you feel every accusation must be rebuked. You could answer that, ‘neither he nor you are privy to all the FACTS of the case, wait for the final outcome’.

Some people are brought up with anti-catholic views instilled in them at home, the media or at their place of worship. Some are poorly catechised ex-Catholics (I know there is no such thing, couldn’t think of another description) these think by virtue of being born Catholic they know the faith. In truth very few of us comprehend the history, beauty, vitality and depth of our faith outside of attending Mass and saying prayers. We need to become more active and discerning about knowing more about our faith.

They could simply be reciting myths, anecdotes and lies. Be patient with him. . Always communicate with love.

Just a footnote on Concordat Watch. Its purpose is to make sure all existing Concordats with the Holy See are ended, and to prevent new ones. This sophisticated, professional looking web site is of course anti-Catholic.

On their home page it states: “EU lawyers warn: Concordats a danger to human rights.” Then, in a sub-heading: “Concordats help enforce Canon Law, the Vatican version of Sharia.”

 

[Reepicheep]

1. Assertion is not proof.
2. The article speaks of individual priests deserting thier duty and supporting the dictator.
   How is that the fault of the Church as a whole, or even the Church in Croatia?
3. The article says the Fransican order did not actively seek out and punish those clergy who supported the dictator.
   Exactly how could the Fransciscans, living under a brutally murderous military dictatorship, “seek out and punish” their own deserters?
4. “The Vatican did nothing.”
   Because the Pope should have mobilized his military forces and made war upon Pavelic. Oh wait. The Pope has no military forces.
   Well, then the Pope should have…made a speech denouncing Pavelic and demanding he cease his atrocities. He could denounce Hitler while he was at it.
   I think if he had, the critics would have said that was the same as doing nothing.

The article contains other points I could dispute, but I think you see the pattern.

 

[JRKH]

These are unsubstantiated claims. Do not fall into the trap where you feel every accusation must be rebuked. You could answer that, ‘neither he nor you are privy to all the FACTS of the case, wait for the final outcome’.

Some people are brought up with anti-catholic views instilled in them at home, the media or at their place of worship. Some are poorly catechised ex-Catholics (I know there is no such thing, couldn’t think of another description) these think by virtue of being born Catholic they know the faith. In truth very few of us comprehend the history, beauty, vitality and depth of our faith outside of attending Mass and saying prayers. We need to become more active and discerning about knowing more about our faith.

They could simply be reciting myths, anecdotes and lies. Be patient with him. Always communicate with love.

RE: the bolded sections…
For some people, in fact for many people there is a tendancy to jump on every accusation as fact. People are seen as guilty as soon as they are arrested etc.
This is especially true if the crime is a particularly vile one, or if the issue is one they have definite opinions on.
Thus your friend is ptresenting this court case, undecided, unproven, as though it is a valid argument against the legitimacy of the Catholic Church…

Just answer as LOCO suggests above and steer the conversation back to discussion of actual teachings etc.

Peace
James

 

[marica_mandic]

But not on the usual stuff. Some poor soul on YouTube sent me a message, and it started to escalate into a whole conversation. Now, he’s attacking me about something that happened in Croatia…this: concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=6151
Though he used a different story, I had not heard of this up until he told me. How can I defend the holy Church and answer the persons attack? I hope I’ve not violated forum rules or anything, I really just want help!

If I’ve got this in the wrong forum, as well please move it to the more appropriate one as I didn’t know which one to put it in!

God Bless byzsoc:

In Croatia lives peaceful humans, as in all the world. Catholic Church support us.
The person who want to attack you maybe have your personal problems.
I am sorry that that person has problem but she need to resolve that problem with self.

 

[trials]

Hi,
Some arguments are worth getting into - some aren’t. This isn’t, believe me, I would strongly advise that you cease communication on the matter altogether because you’re wasting precious time - time that could be spent honouring God in other ways.

Even if you did manage to prove inconclusively that this account was totally fictitious - it’s not going to succeed in converting this person’s heart, is it? They will probably come up with another account that they use to justify - to themselves - why they are against the Church, therefore you will never out-argue them. They are on a journey, but pretty blinkered at the moment as to the Truth, just pray they will find God on a personal level, because they are just seeing the Church as a physical institution at the moment.

The reason I strongly advise you to drop this - I fell into the same trap myself a few years ago, and got into an online debate with some atheists, no less, who had no intention, never had, of being swung by my arguments. Essentially they wanted to back me in a corner with intellectual and historical arguments, I wasted so much time and energy on that debate that I was exhausted and distracted about it in the rest of my life. It didn’t do me any good spiritually, and my arguments didn’t do them any good either, no matter how convincing they were. In the end, I got pretty emotional about it because I felt under attack from them, in a spiritual sense, and so totally withdrew from the argument. Once I took a step back from it, I realised how much time, energy and emotions I’d wasted on it, to get me… nowhere!

 

[PiousTemplar]

1. Assertion is not proof.
2. The article speaks of individual priests deserting thier duty and supporting the dictator.
   How is that the fault of the Church as a whole, or even the Church in Croatia?
3. The article says the Fransican order did not actively seek out and punish those clergy who supported the dictator.
   Exactly how could the Fransciscans, living under a brutally murderous military dictatorship, “seek out and punish” their own deserters?
4. “The Vatican did nothing.”
   Because the Pope should have mobilized his military forces and made war upon Pavelic. Oh wait. The Pope has no military forces.
   Well, then the Pope should have…made a speech denouncing Pavelic and demanding he cease his atrocities. He could denounce Hitler while he was at it.
   I think if he had, the critics would have said that was the same as doing nothing.

The article contains other points I could dispute, but I think you see the pattern.

Very, very well said. I couldn’t have written better.

 

[Reepicheep]

Pious Templar - thank you.