I am so tired Hollywood and their AntiCatholicism

[bones_IV]

Valke2:

The Church did not take the opportunity to address the unjust laws regarding Jews in Italy after the fall of Mussolini and before the German occupation.

Only in your imagination. Pius XI condemned the anti-semetic laws of Fascist Italy in his encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno and in Mit brennended Sorge. Your wrong on both counts. Pius XI’s encyclicals are an official representation of the Church.

Valke2:

For some reason however, it still approved the denial of full civil rights to Jews and their legal seperation from Christians.

No it didn’t. Cite the source.

Valke2:

People have a habit of calling posts they disagree with “lies” and then attempting to prove that they are lies by saying something totally unrelated to what was posted.

You don’t even know what a lie is, that’s just stupid.

Valke2:

HOw does that address my post regarding a specific report made to a specific Cardinal?

If your attempting to paint a Cardinal as anti-semitic your stepping out of bounds.

 

[Valke2]

Only in your imagination. Pius XI condemned the anti-semetic laws of Fascist Italy in his encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno and in Mit brennended Sorge. Your wrong on both counts. Pius XI’s encyclicals are an official representation of the Church.

No it didn’t. Cite the source.

You don’t even know what a lie is, that’s just stupid.

If your attempting to paint a Cardinal as anti-semitic your stepping out of bounds.

I did cite the source.

 

[Valke2]

To be clear. The Churh had the opportunity to address the bias laws agains jews after Mussolini was overthrown and before the German’s occupied Italy. It took the opportunity to address harsh laws against Jews who had converted to Cathoclism. IT did not take the opportunity, at that time, to address the antisemetic laws that Mussolini’s regime had instituted. ANd there is a written report, discussed in my original post, where it is clearly stated that there was no discussion on those laws because parts of them were in line with Church doctrine (now I’m paraphrasing but the quote is in my original post.) You can call me stupid, call me a liar, but it is what it is.

 

[bones_IV]

To be clear. The Churh had the opportunity to address the bias laws agains jews after Mussolini was overthrown and before the German’s occupied Italy. It took the opportunity to address harsh laws against Jews who had converted to Cathoclism. IT did not take the opportunity, at that time, to address the antisemetic laws that Mussolini’s regime had instituted. ANd there is a written report, discussed in my original post, where it is clearly stated that there was no discussion on those laws because parts of them were in line with Church doctrine (now I’m paraphrasing but the quote is in my original post.) You can call me stupid, call me a liar, but it is what it is.

Tell that to Rabbi Dalin, Ronald Rychlak, Sister Marchione. They would tell you a different story. Your point seems to be that the Church didn’t do enough. If that’s what your saying then that’s revisionist history. The source you cite holds little credibility. It’s just more vile hatred of the Church.

 

[Valke2]

Tell that to Rabbi Dalin, Ronald Rychlak, Sister Marchione. They would tell you a different story. Your point seems to be that the Church didn’t do enough. If that’s what your saying then that’s revisionist history. The source you cite holds little credibility. It’s just more vile hatred of the Church.

Actes et Documents du Saint Siege Relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (a/k/a “ADSS”) is the source I cited. If you don’t know what this is, in 1999 the President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, togher with the Chairman of International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, appointed a team of six scholars charged with examining the 11 volumes of archival material published by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State.

The ADSS contains the diplomatic correspondence of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State, as well as notes and memoranda from meetings with diplomats and Church leaders from various countries during the period of the Second World War. These documents were culled from Vatican archives by a team of four Jesuit scholars between 1965 and 1981.

Now, there is some controversy regarding the work of the appointed scholars. So you can say their findings have little credibility. But I would disagree. I realize that this is a debate that won’t go anywhere and its been debated on this board before, (at least once by me.) Rather than fuel the flames any further, I’ll leave it be.

 

[bones_IV]

Actes et Documents du Saint Siege Relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale (a/k/a “ADSS”) is the source I cited. If you don’t know what this is, in 1999 the President of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, togher with the Chairman of International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, appointed a team of six scholars charged with examining the 11 volumes of archival material published by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State.

The ADSS contains the diplomatic correspondence of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State, as well as notes and memoranda from meetings with diplomats and Church leaders from various countries during the period of the Second World War. These documents were culled from Vatican archives by a team of four Jesuit scholars between 1965 and 1981.

Now, there is some controversy regarding the work of the appointed scholars. So you can say their findings have little credibility. But I would disagree. I realize that this is a debate that won’t go anywhere and its been debated on this board before, (at least once by me.) Rather than fuel the flames any further, I’ll leave it be.

True, but I don’t think the Holy See will apologize for the Holocaust if that’s what your looking for. It will never happen.

Two can play at this game.

catholicleague.org/research/rychlakcomm.htm

Don’t mess with me on history sir/mam.

 

[Karin]

True, but I don’t think the Holy See will apologize for the Holocaust if that’s what your looking for. It will never happen.

Why should he apologize for it? Did the Church start it…NOPE!

 

[bones_IV]

Why should he apologize for it? Did the Church start it…NOPE!

Exactly. The Church didn’t start it.

 

[Karin]

Exactly. The Church didn’t start it.

Exactly!
So can we stop with all of this garbage

 

[Contarini]

Exactly!
So can we stop with all of this garbage

What garbage? Are you suggesting that because the Church didn’t start the Holocaust, it follows that the historically documented Christian mistreatment of Jews doesn’t matter?

The Church didn’t start the Holocaust, and the Church (not just individual Catholics as Valke hints) did a lot to save Jews. But the Church did promote anti-semitic stereotypes right up to the early 20th century, and the Church opposed full civil rights for Jews throughout the 19th and maybe even into the 20th century.

In the early 20th century some Catholic writers distinguished between “good” and "bad’ anti-semitism. “Good” anti-semitism meant restricting Jewish influence in society and maintaining Christian dominance; bad anti-semitism meant stereotyping Jews as a race as intrinsically evil and actively persecuting them. At least that’s how I understand it. The Nazis clearly practiced “bad” anti-semitism and the Church opposed them; but the Nazis probably wouldn’t have been so successful if not for centuries of “good anti-semitism” which had established the idea that Jews were a threat.

Furthermore, I’ve read (admittedly one of my sources for this is Cornwell, whom I know you guys don’t trust–I don’t trust his interpretations either, but this is documented and could be checked by anyone with access to the sources) that both Civilta Cattolica and L’Osservatore Romano published articles in the early 20th century maintaining the “blood libel” (the idea that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in the passover ritual, or at least that they had done so in the past). After all, the Church had canonized some of the children allegedly killed by Jews, and isn’t canonization supposed to be infallible?

Just because the Church didn’t start the Holocaust doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have lots of blood on its hands with regard to Jews.

Karin, remember that bones started this by saying that he couldn’t see how someone could be Jewish and anti-Catholic. That’s culpably naive–it’s like saying that you don’t understand how black people could not like white Southerners. If you don’t like this “garbage,” blame bones.

Jews have plenty of reasons to be anti-Catholic, and anti-Christian in general. It will take several centuries of sincere repentance on all of our parts before they will have the slightest reason to trust us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Two can play at this game.

catholicleague.org/research/rychlakcomm.htm

Yes, but it’s more fun if both people play by the rules–that is to say, make relevant arguments.

I can’t see that any of this refers to the specific issue Valke cited.

Don’t mess with me on history sir/mam.

Messing with stubborn and bigoted ignorance is a depressing task, but someone has to do it or you will stay ignorant your whole life and pay for it in purgatory (since this ignorance is not invincible as far as I can see).

Edwin

 

[bones_IV]

Yes, but it’s more fun if both people play by the rules–that is to say, make relevant arguments.

I can’t see that any of this refers to the specific issue Valke cited.

Messing with stubborn and bigoted ignorance is a depressing task, but someone has to do it or you will stay ignorant your whole life and pay for it in purgatory (since this ignorance is not invincible as far as I can see).

Edwin

You believe in purgatory? I thought Protestants didn’t believe in purgatory. Just an observation is all.

 

[Contarini]

You believe in purgatory? I thought Protestants didn’t believe in purgatory. Just an observation is all.

I do, although as an opinion, not a dogma. I’m not the only one either. C. S. Lewis believed in it too.

And no doubt I extended my term there by being rude to you!

Edwin

 

[Lost_Found]

I went with the g/f to watch The Departed last weekend because I like Scorsese films. Well, it was pretty good for the most part, but in the movie, Jack Nicholson has a hatred for Catholics. He calls them,priests, and nuns everything in the book. Consider this when heading to the multiplex this weekend.

Just saw the movie last night and I agree, it was a good movie but I too was offended when the Nicholson character verbally abuses some Catholic priests at a restaurant, with some graphic depictions of the pedophilia scandal. I have already googled movie reviews on this film and have corrected critics who have misrepresented that scene. I would like to contact the movie writer but I’m unable to find contact info so I wish we had a contact list for Hollywood.
It’s strange how we live in a society where it is unacceptable to be physically attacked for our beliefs, and yet the verbal & visual attacks are very much present and they are every bit as real and harmful and threatening.

usccb.org/movies/d/thedeparted.shtml I disagree with the person who reviewed this film for the UCSSB, I think it should have been rated “O”, morally offensive.

 

[Contarini]

Just saw the movie last night and I agree, it was a good movie but I too was offended when the Nicholson character verbally abuses some Catholic priests at a restaurant, with some graphic depictions of the pedophilia scandal. I have already googled movie reviews on this film and have corrected critics who have misrepresented that scene. I would like to contact the movie writer but I’m unable to find contact info so I wish we had a contact list for Hollywood.
It’s strange how we live in a society where it is unacceptable to be physically attacked for our beliefs, and yet the verbal & visual attacks are very much present and they are every bit as real and harmful and threatening.

usccb.org/movies/d/thedeparted.shtml I disagree with the person who reviewed this film for the UCSSB, I think it should have been rated “O”, morally offensive.

I haven’t seen the movie, but isn’t the Nicholson character the bad guy? It’s a bit tough if even bad guys aren’t allowed to be anti-Catholic

Edwin

 

[Lost_Found]

I haven’t seen the movie, but isn’t the Nicholson character the bad guy? It’s a bit tough if even bad guys aren’t allowed to be anti-Catholic

Edwin

“A bit tough” for them to find subject matter for a movie that does not misrepresent my faith? No sir, leave my religion out of it, just as they have left your Episcopalian religion out of it. If they do bring in my religion, then present it fairly.
The problem with your comment is that you don’t know enough about the movie, character, or scene in question to have a sense of it. Which raises the question as to why you would feel qualified to defend it. Could it be to rub my Catholic nose in it, Edwin?

 

[Contarini]

“A bit tough” for them to find subject matter for a movie that does not misrepresent my faith? No sir, leave my religion out of it, just as they have left your Episcopalian religion out of it. If they do bring in my religion, then present it fairly.
The problem with your comment is that you don’t know enough about the movie, character, or scene in question to have a sense of it. Which raises the question as to why you would feel qualified to defend it. Could it be to rub my Catholic nose in it, Edwin?

I didn’t defend it. I asked a question. You didn’t answer the question. If Nicholson isn’t the bad guy, please correct me.

How is it misrepresenting your faith to portray a brutal gangster as disliking it?

I am going by what you yourself said. You have only yourself to blame if you have not expressed what is really objectionable about this.

As for Episcopalianism–haven’t you heard of the “Book of Daniel”?

Negative portrayals of clergy do not constitute “misrepresentation,” because there are bad clergy in any church. Far less is it “misrepresentation” to have a bad character in a movie express a dislike for your church. This is like the fundamentalist critique of Harry Potter that accused Rowling of glorifying vampirism because Lord Voldemort drinks unicorn’s blood!

I’m not trying to rub anyone’s nose in it, but I’m astounded at the level of hypersensitivity and paranoia on this thread–and at the cynical way in which people who don’t believe in political correctness are willing to invoke it when it suits them.

Edwin

 

[Valke2]

In the movie, Nicholson had knowledge that the priest and the nun at the table had done something inappropriate in the past. It seemed clear to me anyway, that his issues with the Church were of a personal nature.

No one here has mentioned the fact that one of the other characters came from a religious background and, as part of his, “corruption”, abandons the church, yet he still clearly yearns for what he had there.

 

[rocklobster]

Hollywood can’t be blamed for Constantine. That’s the comic book’s fault, not Hollywood’s. It was based on a DC/Vertigo title, Hellblazer.

 

[Lost_Found]

I didn’t defend it. I asked a question. You didn’t answer the question. If Nicholson isn’t the bad guy, please correct me.Edwin

Yes you did defend it as being “a bit tough”. And you continue to do so. And what sentence structure someone uses to make a point - question or otherwise - is irrelevant.

How is it misrepresenting your faith to portray a brutal gangster as disliking it?
Edwin

Again, I understood the first time, and I already answered it regarding your ignorance of the nuances of the movie. But besides that, it’s simply not acceptable to use other aspects of a character’s personality traits to justify the scene in question. If you don’t understand that, there’s nothing more I can tell you.

I am going by what you yourself said. You have only yourself to blame if you have not expressed what is really objectionable about this.
Edwin

Fine, I’ll blame myself if that’s what you are suggesting I do.

As for Episcopalianism–haven’t you heard of the “Book of Daniel”?
Edwin

No, tell us about it, and how it doesn’t bother you if your religion is unfairly portrayed.

Negative portrayals of clergy do not constitute “misrepresentation,” because there are bad clergy in any church. Far less is it “misrepresentation” to have a bad character in a movie express a dislike for your church. This is like the fundamentalist critique of Harry Potter that accused Rowling of glorifying vampirism because Lord Voldemort drinks unicorn’s blood!
Edwin

Same old point again about the bad character, see above. And I don’t know why you bring in completely different examples and try to tell me it’s the same thing.

I’m not trying to rub anyone’s nose in it, but I’m astounded at the level of hypersensitivity and paranoia on this thread–and at the cynical way in which people who don’t believe in political correctness are willing to invoke it when it suits them.
Edwin

I guess you’ll have to get used to it around here. If you don’t care about something, it doesn’t mean that we’re all that way. Your accusing us of an astounding degree of political correctness, hypersensitivity, cynicism, paranoia and unevenness all in one sentence does not invalidate how we see this.