Pope to lead galaxy of stars in Bible-reading marathon

ironingbored

Maybe this shoudl be over in the Christianity Forum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1002/1222815461281.html


How good to see the Catholic Church upholding its usual high moral standards.

..."Five times prime minister Giulio Andreotti, three former state presidents (Cossiga, Ciampi and Scalfaro) and neo-fascist mayor of Rome Gianni Alemano are among those who will do readings."

Surely this cannot be the same Giulio Andreotti, found guilty of collusion with cosa nostra up until the spring of 1980 (Palermo Court of Appeal 02/05/2003; confirmed by Court of Cassation 15/10/2004). A custodial sentence was avoided only thanks to the statute of limitations.

What a bunch of nice people reading the bible, ahh...:eek:

mewso

I assume they have all asked for and been granted forgiveness.

5uspect

ironingbored wrote: »

What a bunch of nice people reading the bible, ahh...:eek:

They'll be reading the extra nasty bits obviously...

Dades

Moved from A&A...

One for your Christian News thread peeps.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Moved from A&A...

One for your Christian News thread peeps.

You can have it back!

EDIT: Actually I looks like a good idea now that I've read the article.

Mark 2:16 And the scribes and the Pharisees, seeing that he ate with publicans and sinners, said to his disiples: Why doth your master eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 17 Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

EDIT: Actually I looks like a good idea now that I've read the article.

I thought it was up your street!
I don't have the power to merge it with your news thread - just to move it here.

sorella

"Be doers of the word, not hearers..."

ironingbored

kelly1 wrote: »

You can have it back!

EDIT: Actually I looks like a good idea now that I've read the article.

Yeah, a good idea to engage (as it did in the 1930's) with fascists (albeit post) and (as it has done throughout modern Italian politics) mafiosi (Sindona, Calvi, etc.) and shady underworld individuals.

philologos

ironingbored wrote: »

Yeah, a good idea to engage (as it did in the 1930's) with fascists (albeit post) and (as it has done throughout modern Italian politics) mafiosi (Sindona, Calvi, etc.) and shady underworld individuals.

That's funny, because people found fault with the people Jesus associated with too. We all have flaws, none are perfect.

ironingbored

Jakkass wrote: »

That's funny, because people found fault with the people Jesus associated with too. We all have flaws, none are perfect.

That's your justification for the Vatican engaging a man found guilty of mafia association in its bible-reading marathon? Sure, Hitler had his flaws but he was all in all a good catholic. Having said that, Goebbels was excommunicated; his crime? Marrying a protestant.

philologos

If you will you've been born with a Pharasaic mindset. Christianity isn't restricted to anyone. As for the Vatican excommunicating for petty things such as that that is the affairs of Catholicism to deal with, I personally do not subscribe to it.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That's funny, because people found fault with the people Jesus associated with too.

In the NT, Jesus is painted as a man who visited with prostitutes and tax-collectors to cure them -- it's the sick who need the doctor and all that.

But there's no sense of this in Ratzinger having known criminals in his reading group. Instead, I think it's reasonably clear that he's included them so he, his book and his religion can bask in their reflected fame.

He should remember that grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles

Biro

ironingbored wrote: »

That's your justification for the Vatican engaging a man found guilty of mafia association in its bible-reading marathon? Sure, Hitler had his flaws but he was all in all a good catholic. Having said that, Goebbels was excommunicated; his crime? Marrying a protestant.

And Trimble won a Nobel Peace prize. But who am I to judge?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

In the NT, Jesus is painted as a man who visited with prostitutes and tax-collectors to cure them -- it's the sick who need the doctor and all that.

But there's no sense of this in Ratzinger having known criminals in his reading group. Instead, I think it's reasonably clear that he's included them so he, his book and his religion can bask in their reflected fame.

He should remember that grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles

Wow! Well said.

wolfsbane

Biro said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironingbored
That's your justification for the Vatican engaging a man found guilty of mafia association in its bible-reading marathon? Sure, Hitler had his flaws but he was all in all a good catholic. Having said that, Goebbels was excommunicated; his crime? Marrying a protestant.
And Trimble won a Nobel Peace prize. But who am I to judge?

Trimble was confronting fascism, not condoning it:
There are fascist forces in this world. The first step to their defeat is to define them. Let me now, with the help of Burke, Oz and Kennan, locate the dark fountain of fascism from which flows most of the political, religious and racial violence which pollutes the progressive achievements of humanity....

We in Northern Ireland are not free from taint. We have a few fanatics who dream of forcing the Ulster British people into a Utopian Irish state, more ideologically Irish than its own inhabitants actually want. We also have fanatics who dream of permanently suppressing northern nationalists in a state more supposedly British than its inhabitants actually want. But a few fanatics are not a fundamental problem. No, the problem arises if political fanatics bury themselves within a morally legitimate political movement. Then there is a double danger. The first is that we might dismiss legitimate claims for reform because of the barbarism of terrorist groups bent on revolution. In that situation experience would suggest that the best way forward is for democrats to carry out what the Irish writer Eoghan Harris calls acts of good authority. That is acts addressed to their own side.

Thus each reformist group has a moral obligation to deal with its own fanatics. The Serbian democrats must take on the Serbian fascists. The PLO must take on Hamas. In Northern Ireland, constitutional nationalists must take on republican dissident terrorists and constitutional unionists must confront Protestant terrorists....

But common sense dictates that I cannot for ever convince society that real peace is at hand if there is not a beginning to the decommissioning of weapons as an earnest of the decommissioning of hearts that must follow. Any further delay will reinforce dark doubts about whether Sinn Féin are drinking from the clear stream of democracy, or still drinking from the dark stream of fascism. It cannot forever face both ways. Plenty of space has been given to the paramilitaries. Now, winter is here, and there is still no sign of spring. Like John Bunyan's Pilgrim, we politicians have been through the Slough of Despond. We have seen Doubting Castle, the owner whereof was Giant Despair. I can certainly recall passing many times through the Valley of Humiliation. And all too often we have encountered, not only on the other side, but on our own side too "the man who could look no way but downwards, with a muckrake in his hand".
Nobel Peace Prize - Acceptance Speech by Mr. David Trimble, 10 December 1998
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/nobeldt.htm

But read the whole speech - it is a sample ot true statesmanship.

ironingbored

Biro wrote: »

And Trimble won a Nobel Peace prize. But who am I to judge?

Please help me here and forgive my ignorance but are you equating David Trimble with Hitler and Goebells? A comparison between Mr. Ratzinger and the latter gentlemen would seem more appropriate than yours. He was after all a member of Hitler Youth

Fanny Cradock

ironingbored wrote: »

Sure, Hitler had his flaws but he was all in all a good catholic.

Rubbish. Hitler was more likely a pagan than a Christian, and I believe that most of his public pro-Christian utterances can be attributed to dates prior to 1934. Oddly enough, this just so happened to be around the time he was in the run for power. This is hardly hardly the first politician to jump into bed with an ideal merely because it is politically expedient.

ironingbored wrote: »

A comparison between Mr. Ratzinger and the latter gentlemen would seem more appropriate than yours. He was after all a member of Hitler Youth

As was practically every German child brought up in Nazi Germany. I believe that post 1940 it became compulsory to join.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hitler was more likely a pagan than a Christian

Not quite sure what you mean by "pagan" here -- do you mean he believed that gods other than the christian one exist? Anyhow, I don't believe there's much evidence one way or the other to suggest that he accepted christian dogma. Though he was well able to mouth whatever religious platitudes were necessary, whenever circumstances so required.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is hardly hardly the first politician to jump into bed with an ideal merely because it is politically expedient.

He didn't just jump into bed with the idea of christianity, he also formed legal arrangements with various churches including the Vatican, in order to acquire and maintain power.

As I mentioned somewhere here in the last year or so, it was a christian political party under the leadership of a Roman catholic priest, who ensured that Hitler had sufficient votes to allow him to pass the Enabling Act which granted him the dictatorial powers he retained until his death.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As was practically every German child brought up in Nazi Germany. I believe that post 1940 it became compulsory to join.

Ratzinger wrote in his "Salt of the Earth" that while he was in training during the latter part of the war, he manned an active aerial battery in Munich close to his seminary.

That he defended the Third Reich with guns was his choice -- there were conscientious objectors around, but Ratzinger, by his own words, was not one of them.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean by "pagan" here -- do you mean he believed that gods other than the christian one exist?

I retract my statement that Hitler was 'more likely a Pagan' as I think it can't be substantiated. Indeed, I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest what Hitler's beliefs were concerning God(s), but he - along with high ranking members of the party such as Himmler - certainly had a fascination with religions other Christianity.

It seems unlikely that Hitler would ever have been able to truly accept the fundamental requirement of Christianity - accepting Christ as your Lord saviour - given that Jesus was that most despised of all races: Jewish. This would have required some clumsy reworking of the basics both in Hitler's mind and in the history books.

robindch wrote: »

As I mentioned somewhere here in the last year or so, it was a christian political party under the leadership of a Roman catholic priest, who ensured that Hitler had sufficient votes to allow him to pass the Enabling Act which granted him the dictatorial powers he retained until his death.

One could argue that by agreeing to a shameful concordat with Hitler the German Catholic Church had preserved their status in the country. However, I would be inclined to think that any Faustian bargains done with the Nazis would have only delayed the inevitable destruction of the church.

There's an interesting article here on the matter.

robindch wrote: »

That he defended the Third Reich with guns was his choice -- there were conscientious objectors around, but Ratzinger, by his own words, was not one of them.

It's arguable that Ratzingers willingness to fight arouse out of fear of the Red Peril that was bearing down on the country, and not some ideological alignment with the Nazis. I'm not defending what he did. I just wonder if his motivations were different to what is often portrayed.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I retract my statement that Hitler was 'more likely a Pagan' as I think it can't be substantiated. Indeed, I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest what Hitler's beliefs were concerning God(s)

There is, however, plenty of evidence to nail the lie that Hitler was a good Catholic, or a Christian:

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

There is, however, plenty of evidence to nail the lie that Hitler was a good Catholic, or a Christian:

Without wishing to point out the obvious too, er, obviously, these interesting quotes (thanks) simply point out that Hitler had a problem with christianity. He doesn't seem to have rejected the existence of a god itself. You'll recall from Mein Kampf that he claimed he was doing "the Lord's work" in ridding the world of judaism.

In fact, if anything, these rancid quotes suggest two interesting things: (a) that he certainly believed that the idea of a god existed, and by extension presumably, that the god itself did and (b) that his objection to christianity lay largely in its ability to conflict with the interests of the state (by which one can reasonably assume, for the church to divide the absolute loyalty he wanted for himself):

That german guy who shows up in most online debates sooner or later wrote:

We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. [...]
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing to point out the obvious too, er, obviously, these interesting quotes (thanks) simply point out that Hitler had a problem with christianity. He doesn't seem to have rejected the existence of a god itself. You'll recall from Mein Kampf that he claimed he was doing "the Lord's work" in ridding the world of judaism.

In fact, if anything, these rancid quotes suggest two interesting things: (a) that he certainly believed that the idea of a god existed, and by extension presumably, that the god itself did and (b) that his objection to christianity lay largely in its ability to conflict with the interests of the state (by which one can reasonably assume, for the church to divide the absolute loyalty he wanted for himself):

I think you probably need to point out the obvious since I can't figure out the relevance of your point.

Ironingbored raised the issue of Hitler's supposed Christianity. I provided some quotes to demonstrate the falsity of his claim.

The issue of whether Hitler rejected the concept of God or not is surely irrelevant to that? No-one (in this thread) is arguing that Hitler was an atheist. I have no wish to portray Hitler as an atheist.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Ironingbored raised the issue of Hitler's supposed Christianity. I provided some quotes to demonstrate the falsity of his claim.

If you were replying to a point that ironingbored made, then it would have made more sense to quote him, rather than Fanny Cradock who was referring to "God(s)" in the general sense and specifically not the christian one.

PDN wrote:

I have no wish to portray Hitler as an atheist.

Grand, we're agreed then

Fanny Cradock

That german guy who shows up in most online debates sooner or later wrote:

We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. [...]
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery

Austrian surely?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Anyhow, I don't believe there's much evidence one way or the other to suggest that he accepted christian dogma. Though he was well able to mouth whatever religious platitudes were necessary, whenever circumstances so required.

IOWs, a politician.

He didn't just jump into bed with the idea of christianity, he also formed legal arrangements with various churches including the Vatican, in order to acquire and maintain power.

He sure knew how to play them.

As I mentioned somewhere here in the last year or so, it was a christian political party under the leadership of a Roman catholic priest, who ensured that Hitler had sufficient votes to allow him to pass the Enabling Act which granted him the dictatorial powers he retained until his death.

Yes, the folly of 'useful idiots' who think they are doing the manipulating.

That he defended the Third Reich with guns was his choice -- there were conscientious objectors around, but Ratzinger, by his own words, was not one of them.

Fanny responds with a good point:
It's arguable that Ratzingers willingness to fight arouse out of fear of the Red Peril that was bearing down on the country, and not some ideological alignment with the Nazis. I'm not defending what he did. I just wonder if his motivations were different to what is often portrayed.

It is beyond debate that some Catholics were strong Nazi-supporters: the Croat heirarchy, for example, and their Ustashi army. But it certainly seems that fear and hatred of the Reds may have motivated many rather than buying into the anti-christian dogma of Nazism. That and the power and opportunity to smash the non-Catholic elements in their own country.

The South American dictorships, Spain under Franco, Portugal all had Nazi/facist sympathies.

We saw some aspects of this in Ireland: the 1937 Constitution gave a special recognition to the RCC; Ireland's neutrality in WW2; DeValera's expression of sympathy to the German embassy on the death of Hitler; the subsequent sheltering of Nazi war-criminals in Ireland.

There was both a common way of thinking and a common enemy - rule by heirarchy and fear of Communism.

I commend Cathal O’Shannon's excellent series:
IRELAND'S NAZIShttp://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3495.php

sorella

What has happened to this thread please? I thought I had clicked on the wrong title.

PDN

sorella wrote: »

What has happened to this thread please? I thought I had clicked on the wrong title.

It happens with most threads on internet fora. Like an old fashioned 'real' conversation they wander down a fair few cul-de-sacs and detours. Then they fade away.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's arguable that Ratzingers willingness to fight arouse out of fear of the Red Peril that was bearing down on the country, and not some ideological alignment with the Nazis. I'm not defending what he did. I just wonder if his motivations were different to what is often portrayed.

From my memory of "Salt of the Earth", he mentions that he was seconded to an aircraft battery, that his job was to defend the city of Munich and he did whatever he was ordered to by his military superiors. I don't recall that he analyzed this very much, or went into much more detail than that, nor do I recall him referring to the Russians at all. My memory may be faulty in all of this -- it's been six or eight years since I read the book -- but I believe it's not too far from what he wrote.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Austrian surely?

Ok, Austrian by birth, but I suspect his name is more closely associated with Germany

sorella

I see.... sigh...

Of course i knew that but this one is a little extreme...

PDN wrote: »

It happens with most threads on internet fora. Like an old fashioned 'real' conversation they wander down a fair few cul-de-sacs and detours. Then they fade away.