Subway

[RedZepperin]

I guess Catholic teachers would have beaten it out of me or brought in the theological big guns.

A non-believer would not have felt out of place at an RC school 30/40 days, I can assure you. And the level of violence you received was not proportionate to your degree of faith.

[RedZepperin]

What then is your explanation for the multiple outrages regularly carried out throughout the world whose only common factor is adherence to Islam? Coincidence perhaps?

Has it not occurred to you that there are other factors involved, Edward?

[Eddie Hitler]

Has it not occurred to you that there are other factors involved, Edward?

Poverty, oppression and lack of opportunity are there for Catholics in south and central America, Hindus in India, Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, and whatever religions are followed in China and south east Asia.

None of these religious adherents have set up faith based terrorist groups.

[Aizoon]

Poverty, oppression and lack of opportunity are there for Catholics in south and central America, Hindus in India, Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, and whatever religions are followed in China and south east Asia.

None of these religious adherents have set up faith based terrorist groups.

Actually, that's not true. The Lord's Resistance Army terrorised Uganda for years.

[Eddie Hitler]

Actually, that's not true. The Lord's Resistance Army terrorised Uganda for years.

There are isolated exceptions of course. Jim Jones springs to mind.

[Aizoon]

A non-believer would not have felt out of place at an RC school 30/40 days, I can assure you. And the level of violence you received was not proportionate to your degree of faith.

Actually, I was knocking the C of E for its inability to argue its case to a ten-year-old. However, I have good friends who had the sh1t beaten out of them for asking the wrong questions - admittedly in Ireland in the 50's.

[Aizoon]

There are isolated exceptions of course. Jim Jones springs to mind.

In South America the Christian terrorists were, by and large, in government. See Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and so forth. It's not terrorism when it's the government, is it? Well, is it?

[Eddie Hitler]

In South America the Christian terrorists were, by and large, in government. See Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and so forth. It's not terrorism when it's the government, is it? Well, is it?

 

What's the point of pulling up loads of minor exceptions to muddy the waters and obfuscate the debate?

 

Do you seriously not recognise that there are multiple terrorist groups across the world, slaughtering at random with extreme cruelty, and all in the name of islam?  You can revert to the "Christianity was as bad 800 years ago" argument or claim that the Northern Ireland troubles were a religious conflict (when they clearly weren't) if you wish to continue to not see the obvious for some perverse reason and that's entirely your choice.

[Aizoon]

I do see the obvious. That religious fanatics will kill and maim without pity because they're doing it "in God's Name". At present it's mostly Muslims doing it. It wasn't always so.

It was C S Lewis, of all people, who described theocracy as the worst form of government. Certainly we are seeing that now in Saudi, Iran and Sudan (to name just a few). Nonetheless, some of us are old enough to remember Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland.

[RedZepperin]

I have good friends who had the sh1t beaten out of them for asking the wrong questions - admittedly in Ireland in the 50's.

The Irish are made of sterner stuff. We didn't dare to in England. But we got beaten up anyway!

 

Happy days.

[RedZepperin]

Nonetheless, some of us are old enough to remember Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland.

An expert on Spanish history as well? Please go on.

[Eddie Hitler]

I do see the obvious. That religious fanatics will kill and maim without pity because they're doing it "in God's Name". At present it's mostly Muslims doing it. It wasn't always so.

It was C S Lewis, of all people, who described theocracy as the worst form of government. Certainly we are seeing that now in Saudi, Iran and Sudan (to name just a few). Nonetheless, some of us are old enough to remember Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland.

 

And the present "killer religion" is islam.  It was Christianity 800 years ago; but we are not living 800 years ago.

[Aizoon]

And the present "killer religion" is islam.  It was Christianity 800 years ago; but we are not living 800 years ago.

 

It was just 10 years ago in Africa and 30 years ago in South America.

 

Incidentally, "800 years ago" is simply ridiculous. The last English execution of a Catholic priest was in 1679  The last "heretic" was executed by the Inquisition in Spain just 188 years ago, in 1826. The atrocities on both sides in the Spanish Civil War were often motivated by religious hatred, and that was in the 1930's. There are good reasons for believing that the motivation for the Holocaust was Catholic hatred of Jews, and the inaction of Pope Pius XII would tend to lend credence to that.

 

Yes, the present "killer" religion is Islam - but don't assume it was so in the past or will be in the future,.

[Aizoon]

[RedZepperin]

[RedZepperin]

There are good reasons for believing that the motivation for the Holocaust was Catholic hatred of Jews, and the inaction of Pope Pius XII would tend to lend credence to that.

So the Pope didn't act because his faith motivated the Holocaust. Is that what you are saying?

[Aizoon]

So the Pope didn't act because his faith motivated the Holocaust. Is that what you are saying?

No, but he didn't rush to condemn it, either, and the Vatican did its level best to help leading nazis escape to South America. Eichmann and Mengele to name but two.

That doesn't make Pius XII a nazi, but it doesn't make his canonisation look good, either.

[Aizoon]

Yes I probably would. Please go on.

I'll politely decline thank you. Having learnt a little more about the behaviour of BOTH sides, I'm less proud of it than I was.

[RedZepperin]

No, but he didn't rush to condemn it, either.

Did he not condemn it in the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" in 1937 (the authorship of which he was credited with)?

[Aizoon]

Did he not condemn it in the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" in 1937 (the authorship of which he was credited with)?

No, he didn't. That was his predecessor, Pius XI. . When push came to shove in the early forties the silence of Pius XII was deafening. I suppose it didn't help that the Fascist puppet regimes in Croatia and Slovakia were headed by Catholic priests. The former even impressed the SS with its brutality.

Pius XI, unlike Pius XII, was never canonised - one wonders why...

[RedZepperin]

No, he didn't. That was his predecessor, Pius XI. .

Signed by Pius XI, drafted by Mr Pacelli who went on to become Pius XII and was in the know, because he had been papal nuncio to Germany. He was credited by Pius XI for having drafted the encyclical ("Mit brennender Sorge") which criticised Nazism. It caused the Catholic Church no end of problems in Germany (a mainly Lutheran country, by the way but it's not fashionable to criticise Lutherans apparently).

[Aizoon]

Signed by Pius XI, drafted by Mr Pacelli who went on to become Pius XII and was in the know, because he had been papal nuncio to Germany. He was credited by Pius XI for having drafted the encyclical ("Mit brennender Sorge") which criticised Nazism. It caused the Catholic Church no end of problems in Germany (a mainly Lutheran country, by the way but it's not fashionable to criticise Lutherans apparently).

 

Undoubtedly but, as I said, totally silent when he was Pope and his voice would have made a difference.

 

Germany is about 30%/30% now, with 5% Muslim and 34% no stated religion, but was about 50:50 when Catholic Austria was part of the Reich and what became the DDR was mostly Lutheran. Mind you, Hitler and most of his closest lieutenants came from the Catholic South. One of the strongest elements in the internal opposition to the Nazis came from Lutherans.

 

However, Luther himself was notorious for the brutality with which he urged the princes to crush the Peasant's Revolt. In the 17th Century Thirty Years' War, Protestants were just as guilty of atrocities as were their Catholic opponents. You will

also notice that I included the 40 English Martyrs in my list of Christian religious oppression.

 

I have no brief for Protestantism and no greater dislike of Catholicism than of any other religion. That is simply what you chose to defend.

[RedZepperin]

Aizoon: I'm still at a loss to see what backs up your assertion that:

 

There are good reasons for believing that the motivation for the Holocaust was Catholic hatred of Jews, and the inaction of Pope Pius XII would tend to lend credence to that.

 

Where is your evidence?

[Aizoon]

I would suggest that you read any standard work on the motivation of the Nazis, and you will find that Catholic anti-Semitism is high up the list. They may all be wrong, of course...

As to the inaction of Pius XII lending credence to that view, what do you think? It may be that he put the preservation of the Vatican above the survival of the Jews. That, in fact, is my belief, because I am deeply cynical about the motivation of religious leaders. However, many would see it the other way.

[RedZepperin]

Just to help you along there, Aizoon. Pope Pius XII (before being Pope) did speak out against Nazism through the encyclical. You didn't know that but chose to attack him anyway. During the war, we all, all let down the victims of the Holocaust. One Archbishop of Canterbury did speak out, his successor (during the war) did not. The US press was extremely quiet on the subject. The list goes on.

 

What baffles me is that the Catholic Church comes in for such a particular bashing on the subject. Also: look up how many members of the Catholic clergy were murdered by the Nazis, and look up the Nazi leaders' views on the Catholic Church.

[RedZepperin]

I would suggest that you read any standard work on the motivation of the Nazis, and you will find that Catholic anti-Semitism is high up the list. They may all be wrong, of course...

As to the inaction of Pius XII lending credence to that view, what do you think? It may be that he put the preservation of the Vatican above the survival of the Jews. That, in fact, is my belief, because I am deeply cynical about the motivation of religious leaders. However, many would see it the other way.

What do I think? I'm in no position to defend the Vatican on that subject as I have insufficient evidence. I'm prepared to admit it. You should have the grace to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to attack it either.

[Aizoon]

What do I think? I'm in no position to defend the Vatican on that subject as I have insufficient evidence. I'm prepared to admit it. You should have the grace to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to attack it either.

I would suggest that neither of the two possible reasons for the Vatican's silence show it in a good light. Anti-Semitism or determination to hold on to its worldly assets? Neither very creditable, I would have thought, when weighed against six million lives.

[The dastardly red]

I couldn't give two steamers what meat subway choose to sell- up to them. Anyway they're a corporate money grabbing machine, the only reason they make any decision is because they think it'll make them more money, this aint no family run bistro we're talking about here. What amazes me most about this non-story is that it gets so many people all of a flutter, knee-jerk little Englanders just love it don't they!?

[Red-Robbo]

Just to help you along there, Aizoon. Pope Pius XII (before being Pope) did speak out against Nazism through the encyclical. You didn't know that but chose to attack him anyway. During the war, we all, all let down the victims of the Holocaust. One Archbishop of Canterbury did speak out, his successor (during the war) did not. The US press was extremely quiet on the subject. The list goes on.

What baffles me is that the Catholic Church comes in for such a particular bashing on the subject. Also: look up how many members of the Catholic clergy were murdered by the Nazis, and look up the Nazi leaders' views on the Catholic Church.

You are quite right, but so is Aizoon when he makes the point that support for the NSDAP was at its highest in Catholic areas of Germany. And let's not forget the informal Catholic clerical network which helped smuggle wanted war criminals to South America.

The 1930s and 40s were a very polarised time and for the Catholic hierarchy Fascism, which allowed a degree of religious freedom was infinitely preferable to Atheistic Communism.

I think the Church needs to come to terms with its rather cosy Co-existence with fascism - particularly in Italy - during the War.

[RedZepperin]

I would suggest that neither of the two possible reasons for the Vatican's silence show it in a good light. Anti-Semitism or determination to hold on to its worldly assets? Neither very creditable, I would have thought, when weighed against six million lives.

I find the insinuation that the Vatican was "anti-Semitic" with regard to the Holocaust outrageous. You have provided absolutely no evidence to prove this. Any theory that Nazism drew some psychological inspiration from Catholic anti-Semitism that I have read or listened to has been extremely flimsy and, by its nature, impossible to prove. To jump along and say that because the Pope did not speak out against the Holocaust, and then join these two ideas together, is scandalously facile.