N
NotWorthy
Guest
He received sanctuary in the Vatican before being smuggled into Argentina.
What does this have to do with the Vatican saving so many Jews? Are you saying the Vatican sanctioned Pavelic’s killing of so many Jews?
- Status
What does this have to do with the Vatican saving so many Jews? Are you saying the Vatican sanctioned Pavelic’s killing of so many Jews?
P
Petergee
Guest
And not because they were being persecuted in England either. According to their own testimonies, the Puritans left because they couldn’t stand the anglican authorities in England not being intolerant enough of “papists” and “popery”, so they went to America to found a fundamentalist-fascist state where they could persecute Catholics to their hearts’ content.
P
Petergee
Guest
Then you should warmly applaud the Inquisition for having far less of both than any other court in the world up to that time. In fact the Inquisition became the first court in the world to ban torture.
B
bobzills
Guest
I think the reference was to the Vatican’s speaking out against Nazis or Nazism. Wasn’t Pavelic the leader of Croatia when the horrific concentration camp at Jasenovac was set up? And yet, after the war, he did receive sanctuary in the Vatican, according to what you say and what is commonly reported?
B
bobzills
Guest
Really? So no one was tortured in the inquisition? And no one was burned at the stake because of the inquisition?
P
Petergee
Guest
What part of the word “less” don’t you understand?
B
bobzills
Guest
In other words, it is true that people were tortured by the Inquisition. their limbs were pulled out of their sockets by hanging during questioning and they were sentenced to be burned at the stake by the Inquisition.
P
Petergee
Guest
Yes, as I said far more rarely than in any other court up to that time, and they were the first to cease the practice. Also the Inquisition unlike other courts at that time (and even today) refused to use torture to extract information. The purpose of the Inquisition was to save people’s souls and to save them from the rough “justice” of secular courts. They hated having to use torture because that meant they had failed.
No, that’s a vicious lie invented by bigots.
No that’s another lie.
No, the Inquisition’s job was merely to find the truth. The sentence was the job of the secular government, to punish people for breaking secular laws. Although it is true that Inquisitions often recommended to the governments which sentence they should carry out.
F
FightingFat
Guest
Wassat?
The accusations leveled at the Church over the Crusades are a really weak argument. The Crusades are a fascinating time in history and well worth studying. The battle between Christianity and Islam still rages today as people use the Word of God for the wrong reasons. Ultimately more and more Protestants are becoming vociferously anti-Islam today as we begin to feel threatened by Muslims. What’s the difference between now and then? Islam invaded Christian lands and killed Christian pilgrims. The single act that sparked of the first Crusade was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Nothing the Protestants did not persecute just as vociferously frankly, but try this catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp
Ever read this vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
N
NotWorthy
Guest
So, again, do you think the Vatican set up these concentration camps, or took part in them?
Why would the Vatican do that in Croatia, while doing it’s best (while the rest of the world was silent, Bob) to free Jews? Bob, you tend to want to throw mud without considering that this would be highly inconsistent behavior. What did your church do for the Jews in WWII. Did the Patriarch of Rome consider converting to your faith?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
The Church wanted to save souls.
The secular authorities wanted to grab land and property.
So the Church sent out highly educated lawyers to find out what was going on when a secular official lodged a complaint against a citizen who was often poor and uneducated.
While the secular authorities held rigged trials when they could get away with it. In these they tortured for ‘testimony’ and burned folks alive to impress the local populations with their power.
Speaking about burning, Calvin had that down pretty pat, didn’t he?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Are you disputing whether or not Pope Pius XII spoke out unequivocally against Naziism before and during the War in literally scores of newspaper articles and radio announcements? Or any of the other information about what Pope Pius XII actually did to save the Jews during WW2?
Yes or no please. Thank you.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I tire of these proofs that since other religious leaders tortured and killed more maliciously than the Church, then its not so bad. If the Church (or its members) did wrong, then the Church (or its members) did wrong.
I’d rather hold us up to a higher level (as we should be) than to rationalize it by saying “well, it’s not as bad as those”.
F
FightingFat
Guest
Well said, but it does provide a historical context: ie everyone considered burning an appropriate punishment for blasphemy then. That’s just how it was, so it’s not really fair to single out Catholicism as the sole perpetrator or instigator of this horrific punishment!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
OK, “sign of the times”, I can accept. But, “if we were bad, your ancestors were even worse” is a cop out.
A
Axion
Guest
On the subject of whether Catholics or Protestants supported the Nazis - check this page out.
It gives a startling picture.
ewanco.com/~eje/robert.html
The stubborn anti-Nazism of Catholic church-goers is amazingly
prevalent throughout the country. Its two parties, the Centre Party and the Bavarian People’s Party, were the only ones not to suffer losses to the Nazi Party. In some areas in November 1932 the Centre Party got 75 %, whereas the Nazi Party did not even get 10 %. Local or regional variations, such as the number of unemployed or of Jews, the ethnic structure, separatism or areas especially humiliated by foreign countries/League of Nations seem to have had little or no bearing on party preference, nor does the “Prussian” mentality.
The immunity of Catholic church-goers to Nazism is probably due to the bishops’ public defiance of Alfred Rosenberg’s “aryan” paganism. The Protestant church leaders, however, were not able to issue negative statements about Nazism, apparently becauce of a long cultural process
.
It gives a startling picture.
ewanco.com/~eje/robert.html
The stubborn anti-Nazism of Catholic church-goers is amazingly
prevalent throughout the country. Its two parties, the Centre Party and the Bavarian People’s Party, were the only ones not to suffer losses to the Nazi Party. In some areas in November 1932 the Centre Party got 75 %, whereas the Nazi Party did not even get 10 %. Local or regional variations, such as the number of unemployed or of Jews, the ethnic structure, separatism or areas especially humiliated by foreign countries/League of Nations seem to have had little or no bearing on party preference, nor does the “Prussian” mentality.
The immunity of Catholic church-goers to Nazism is probably due to the bishops’ public defiance of Alfred Rosenberg’s “aryan” paganism. The Protestant church leaders, however, were not able to issue negative statements about Nazism, apparently becauce of a long cultural process
.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I agree. That is why I post on the deeds of other churches. Because I am tired of a double standard being held up against the Catholic Church. And tired of truth being suppressed.
Indeed individuals in our Church have strayed and perpetrated destructive things. We have admitted these. Our former Pope John Paul II went to extraordinary lengths not only to admit our misdeeds, but to apologize for them, make amends for them, and persistently hold out the hand of friendship and healing.
We are held up to a higher standard. That is why we admit our faults and misdeeds, while others – perhaps with the best of intentions – point their fingers and evade self-examination.
Who, Sir, has rationalized the faults of individual Catholics by saying “well, it’s not as bad as those”? I think it is preferable to request clarity if you do not understand someone’s post, rather than leaping to your own conclusions. Pot? Kettle?
I am all too acutely aware that there are individuals who breathe fire when folks post facts concerning the misadventures of the Reformers. Are we then to not speak the truth – instead placing more and more truth on our no-go lists? Are we to continue to ignore the elephants in the room?
The plain and obvious reality is that too many folks are being misled about the ‘innocence’ of their beliefs and about the roots of beliefs which are all but ‘innocent’. Those folks cannot exercise free will without information.
While that information may be very very uncomfortable to hear, particularly among the misled, how else are folks to exercise free will? In the end, this is a discussion forum. That means that many different points of view make it to the screen.
If you disagree with a proof then say why. But please do not attempt to curtail the free exchange of ideas. What benefit is there for the lost in that? Thank you for considering my point of view.
S
SPH1
Guest
Perhaps you should do some research.
Torture was allowed, but not near as much as in civil courts. I recall it could be applied once. We have “torture” today, police and rubber hoses, Gitmo, etc. Some think that torture has it’s place even today.
Burning at stake, a method of execution. I think it’s bad as I fear death by fire. But perhaps the electric chair is/was just as bad. I assume you’re only objecting to burning as a method of execution, and not to execution itself?
Most of the advancements in the Church courts, as I recall, had to do with due process and a more humane treatment. I understand that prisoners in civil courts would “blaspheme” just to be sent to Church court.
Oh. And the numbers. Far less than the propaganda tells.
It’s possible that more people were killed and persecuted in Protestant England than Catholic Spain.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Who said this?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
If it seems like I’m curtailing, then I apologize. I feel that rationalizing my past by saying someone else’s is worse is not what Apologetics is all about. It rarely, if ever, leads to constructive talks.
But, as usual, I do appreciate your post and your point of view, just as you do mine. Take care and God Bless!!!
- Status