Outrage at Nazi Priest Shocker!!!

nomorebadtown

A priest has shocked parishioners by welcoming them to church wearing a swastika armband.

Fascist Father Angelo Idi, 51 - who once saw off a charity box thief with a truncheon at his church in Vigevano, Italy - confessed: "I am proud of my right wing beliefs. But people shouldn't care about my politics, they should care about how good a priest I am."

In northern Italy where former dictator Benito Mussolini comes from the far right Italian LEGA NORD (Northern League) have their political stronghold - and there have been several instances of priests with far right views that have embarrassed the Catholic Church.

Last month a right wing Italian priest who is a member of Richard Williamson's Pius fraternity was caught giving the Hitler salute at a neo-fascist rally - but claimed he was just trying to bless his flock.

Catholic priest Giulio Tam, well known for his extremist right views, raised his right arm when speaking at a rally of the neo-fascist Forza Nuova party in Bergamo, northern Italy.

The ultra-conservative Pius fraternity hit the headlines recently as British Catholic bishop and Holocaust denier Richard Williamson is a member.

After a picture revealed Tam raising his right hand, he argued: "The young people of the Forza Nuova wanted me to bless them. I'll always be on their side."

Tam regards Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as a martyr and has in the past held masses at Mussolini's grave.

Source: http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=12871

Fanny Cradock

nomorebadtown, you should write tabloid headlines

Anyway, if this is true, and it seems so unbelievable that a man in 2009 would feel the need do this, then a rough shove out the door of the RCC is in order. There should be zero tolerance for this type of hypocritical crap. Does he not realise that Jesus was Jewish.

Some Italians still love their fascism. I don't get it

wolfsbane

nomorebadtown wrote: »

Source: http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=12871

There have been many historic links between extreme nationalism/facism and Catholicism, not just in Italy. The most notorious case I can think of was the Ustashi of Croatia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e

The links with South American dictorships are also well known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history)

Nodin

"No one is innocent" as the song went...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Protestantism

Seaneh

Nodin wrote: »

"No one is innocent" as the song went...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Protestantism

In both counts it was not Christians supporting the Nazi government, it was the Nazi government misusing christian teachings to suck church goers into their ranks by mis representing them.

Hittler himself hated christianity but he knew he needed the support the german chritians so he used mis quoted texts and false information to gain christian support.

O'Coonassa

Every country that has had a Fascist system of government has been overwhelmingly Catholic with the exception of Nazi Germany that had around a 50% Catholic population.

Until the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat with the Nazi's the whole world mis-trusted them. (What follows is ripped from Wikipedia for convenience but can be found and verified elsewhere) After the initialing of the treaty on 14 July, the Cabinet minutes record Hitler as saying that the concordat had created an atmosphere of confidence that would be "especially significant in the struggle against international Jewry." In essence, he was claiming that the Catholic Church had publicly given its blessing, at home and abroad, to the policies of National Socialism, including its anti-Semitic stand.

In the Concordat, the German government achieved a complete proscription of all clerical interference in the political field (articles 16 and 32). It also ensured the bishops' loyalty to the state by an oath and required all priests to be Germans and subject to German superiors. Restrictions were also placed on the Catholic organisations.

Most historians consider the Reichskonkordat an important step toward the international acceptance of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. Guenter Lewy, political scientist and author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote:

"There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."

Hitler's mother was a very devout Catholic. He himself was baptised and raised as a Catholic. He was never excommunicated.

Rev Hellfire

Lets face it in any organisation with a population the size of the RCC you are going to find extremists, its like saying that the Presbyterian church is full of bigots because some of its members have been found to have associations with loyalist paramilitaries, you could extend this logic to any significant group of people.

This is more to do geography and local culture than anything else, unless the organisation in question explicitly supports the questionable activity its just a case of mud slinging.

But I guess the following headline isn't as dramatic.
"Italian fascist found in heartland of Italian fascism, world shocked at bleeding obvious !"

getz

the catholic church never excommunicated or even refused sacraments to adolf hitler or any other high ranking catholics in natzi leadership---if the catholic church opposed hitlers moral policies,why is it that the only records that can be found of german catholics refusing to be part of the natzi military is seven,and all of them[including a priest] were refused sacraments for being bad catholics?----why after the natzis had been defeated, did the catholic church allow the vatican and other important church assets to become one of the most important avenues of escape for natzi war criminals ?

Nodin

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Every country that has had a Fascist system of government has been overwhelmingly Catholic with the exception of Nazi Germany that had around a 50% Catholic population.

And Romania, over 85% Orthodox, Japan - shinto/buddhist, Greece - majority orthodox.

dlofnep

I doubt this is widespread in Catholicism. At least, not anymore prevelant than any other walk of life. Seems to be a witch-hunt against christianity.

signed dlofnep,
devout atheist.

prinz

getz wrote: »

why is it that the only records that can be found of german catholics refusing to be part of the natzi military is seven,and all of them[including a priest] were refused sacraments for being bad catholics?

Would you like to provide any back-up of this? As it happened many, many clergy of all Christian denominations refused to cooperate with the Nazi regime, in a variety of ways.

prinz

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Every country that has had a Fascist system of government has been overwhelmingly Catholic with the exception of Nazi Germany that had around a 50% Catholic population.

Until the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat with the Nazi's the whole world mis-trusted them.

Conveniently omitting the fact that the Nazi-regime had signed various other agreements with other denominations. The Catholic Church was not alone in signing this kind of document.

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

There have been many historic links between extreme nationalism/facism and Catholicism, not just in Italy. The most notorious case I can think of was the Ustashi of Croatia:

Historically speaking, the easiest way to gain legitimacy for mass murder, bloodlust and power-seeking, was to first gain respectability under the umbrella of one sort of -ism or another.More than one is a bonus.

O'Coonassa

prinz wrote: »

Conveniently omitting the fact that the Nazi-regime had signed various other agreements with other denominations. The Catholic Church was not alone in signing this kind of document.

The hugest Christian Church on the planet by far and the subject of this thread IMO. What pacts signed with other faiths added to the global prestiege of the Nazi's in the way the Reichskonkordat did?

prinz

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The hugest Christian Church on the planet by far and the subject of this thread IMO. What pacts signed with other faiths added to the global prestiege of the Nazi's in the way the Reichskonkordat did?

The Reichskonkordat did not apply globally. If anyone outside of Germany inferred something from this that was their issue.

It was an internal German matter, and internally in Germany, the regime signed other agreements with other denominations. It no more added or detracted prestige than the Four-Power-Pact did. The Reichskonkordat was a measure to try to stem or reverse the anti-Catholic measures of the Kulturkampf, and the emerging fascist state. it was not a carte-blanche from the Holy See to garner Catholic support for fascism.

• The right to freedom of the Roman Catholic religion. (Article 1)
• The state concordats with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) remain valid. (Article 2)
• Unhindered correspondence between the Holy See and German Catholics. (Article 4)
• The right of the church to collect church taxes. (Article 13)
• The oath of allegiance of the bishops: "(...) Ich schwöre und verspreche, die verfassungsmässig gebildete Regierung zu achten und von meinem Klerus achten zu lassen (...)" ("I swear and vow to honor the constitutional government and to make my clergy honor it") (Article 16)
• State services to the church can be abolished only in mutual agreement. (Article 18)
• Catholic religion is taught in school (article 21) and teachers for Catholic religion can be employed only with the approval of the bishop (article 22).
• Protection of Catholic organizations and freedom of religious practice. (Article 31)
• Clerics may not be members of or be active for political parties. (Article 32)

As you can see it was merely designed for the protection of German catholics. Should the Vatican have left them to their fate..... or try to do something about it? It's also interesting to note that Hitler broke the concordat before long, as he did many other agreements and treaties.

You may want to check out this:

Mit brennender Sorge (German for "With burning anxiety") is a Roman Catholic Church encyclical of Pope Pius XI, published on March 10, 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, March 14). The encyclical criticized Nazism, listed breaches of an agreement signed with the Church and condemned antisemitism. Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII, who was in Munich at the time of Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch[1], it warned Catholics that the growing Nazi ideology, which exalted one race over all others, was incompatible with Christianity. Pius XI himself had elsewhere condemned anti-semitism in more explicit terms.[2]

The encyclical was written in German and not the usual Latin of official Roman Catholic Church documents. It was addressed to German bishops and was read in all parish churches of Germany. Pope Pius XI credited its creation and writing to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII. There was no pre-announcement of the encyclical, and its distribution was kept secret in an attempt to ensure the unhindered public reading of its contents in all the Catholic Churches of Germany

As this was equally an internal German matter, do you give equal weight to this, in having an effect on Nazi- Germany's global prestige? As it was years before the war even started.

Manach

Based on my reading of Michael Burleigh's 'Sacred Causes', the Concordat was attempt by the Church to protect its adherants from interference from the Nazi interference, which had a stated aim to absorb all competing organisations. Another quasi-faith which signed a treaty before the Concordat was the Soviet Union.

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

"No one is innocent" as the song went...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Protestantism

Yes, one should expect no more from a Protestantism that had long before rejected the Reformation doctrines and become 'modernist'. Just like today, they blow with the wind. Under Communism, as under Nazism, they sucked up to the state. It was not them who suffered prison and death for the gospel.

True Christians, and others who were sincere about their religion, did not share in the sin of the nation. They suffered at thehands of the nation, and later at the hands of the Soviets.

Nodin

O'Coonassa wrote: »

The hugest Christian Church on the planet by far and the subject of this thread IMO. What pacts signed with other faiths added to the global prestiege of the Nazi's in the way the Reichskonkordat did?

Rather ignores certain realities. For one thing theres a vast multitude of protestant churches, so such an agreement with protestantism was impossible.

Additionally, and a point that seems to be missed a lot, is that certain aspects of German life followed along the lines of religous denomination. It is a fact that the catholic parties and unions by and large oppossed the nazi party. This isn't to say that no catholics supported him, or voted for him, but that the social instutions of catholic life in Germany were, in the majority, oppossed to the Nazi party.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, one should expect no more from a Protestantism that had long before rejected the Reformation doctrines and become 'modernist'. Just like today, they blow with the wind. Under Communism, as under Nazism, they sucked up to the state.

Well, that's very much what Luther said that they should do. It's the duty of true christians to do the state's bidding, regardless of the christians own views of the morality of the actions they were required to carry out.

Luther explained this most succinctly in his 1525 pamphlet, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants which appears with a splendidly toned-down title here:

Luther wrote:

Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you.

According to Luther, doing the state's bidding under Communism and Nazism, up to and including murder, seems to have been the solemn duty of a protestant.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's very much what Luther said that they should do. It's the duty of True christians to do the state's bidding, regardless of the christians own views of the morality of the actions they were required to carry out.

Luther explained this most succinctly in his 1525 pamphlet, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants which appears with a splendidly toned-down title here:Doing the state's bidding under Communism and Nazism was the solemn duty of a protestant.

Not unless I fell asleep and missed the bit in Church history classes where Luther was appointed Pope and his opinions binding on all Protestants.

It is the duty of true Christians to obey the government in all areas where there is no conflict with the teaching of Christ.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It is the duty of true Christians to obey the government in all areas where there is no conflict with the teaching of Christ.

Well, Luther's pretty clear that murdering rebellious people as though they were rabid dogs does not conflict with Jesus' message. On the contrary, such murder is explicitly legitimized by the Jesus himself -- see the tract for biblical quotes.

Or are you saying that the founder of Protestantism couldn't figure out whether or not it's ok to kill people?

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

It is the duty of true Christians to obey the government in all areas where there is no conflict with the teaching of Christ.

PDN can I ask do you think of Jesus as an obedient Roman vassal? (If vassal is the right word for a non-citizen subject of the Empire)

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, Luther's pretty clear that murdering rebellious people as though they were rabid dogs does not conflict with Jesus' message. On the contrary, such murder is explicitly legitimized by the Jesus himself -- see the tract for biblical quotes.

Or are you saying that the founder of Protestantism couldn't figure out whether or not it's ok to kill people?

I don't think it's accurate to call Luther 'the founder of Protestantism'. Luther was one in a series of reformers - albeit the most pivotal one. The reason Luther was so pivotal was primarily because he had enough political skill to keep his princes onside - giving him the political protection to protest without getting executed like John Huss and other previous reformers. Part of the price he paid for this political protection was that he was expected to support the prince's position - particularly against any kind of rebellion and insurrection.

BTW, it wasn't just revolting peasants that Luther sanctioned the killing of. He was rabidly anti-semitic and also advocated the drowning of anabaptists in a cruel mockery of their beliefs in baptismby full immersion.

However, Robin, your posts betray a failure to understand one of the basic differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Protestants do not view Luther as some kind of Pope whose opinions and writings are binding on their behaviour. Luther was a man who God used to challenge the dominance of Roman Catholicism and to begin the process of recovering the Gospel from ecclesiastical control. He recovered the vital principles of sola Scriptura and sola fide.

However, Luther still retained many of his beliefs and attitudes from his days as a Catholic monk. In the eyes of most Protestants today he did not go far enough in his reformist views, and he did and said many things that most Protestants would find abhorrent.

His rant against the peasants are of interest historically, but have no bearing on the behaviour of Protestants in the 1930s anymore than the misguided views of any other sixteenth century figure.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

PDN can I ask do you think of Jesus as an obedient Roman vassal? (If vassal is the right word for a non-citizen subject of the Empire)

I must admit that it's not something I've thought about before, since the Christian teaching about obedience to civil powers is based more on the NT epistles than on Christ's words or behaviour.

But, yes, as far as I can see Christ obeyed the laws of the Roman occupiers. He encouraged His followers to go the extra mile (thereby more than complying with oppressive treatment) and His contacts with figures of authority such as army officers seem friendly enough. I see nothing in the Gospels to justify the romantic view of Jesus as some kind of Che Guevara revolutionary - quite the opposite, in fact. I wouldn't be surprised if the Zealots and other revolutionaries saw Jesus as a bit of a collaborator.

Jesus' challenging of law and authority seemed to be more in the ecclesiastical sphere than in the political arena.

getz

prinz wrote: »

Would you like to provide any back-up of this? As it happened many, many clergy of all Christian denominations refused to cooperate with the Nazi regime, in a variety of ways.

it is well known and on record that during WW11 in germany,the catholic church used almost 6,000 forced labourers under the natzis,their excuse was,we dident use as many as the others did--we dident use them as long as others did---and we dident work them as hard as others did.

Rev Hellfire

getz wrote: »

it is well known and on record that during WW11 in germany,the catholic church used almost 6,000 forced labourers under the natzis.

If its well known and on record then you shouldn't have difficultly providing references to backup your claim.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If its well known and on record then you shouldn't have difficultly providing references to backup your claim.

I don't think he'll have any difficulty at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7337748.stm

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

I don't think he'll have any difficulty at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7337748.stm

....because - as I said - no one is innocent.

The Protestant Church in Germany has admitted a similar use of forced labour during the Nazi era.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7337748.stm

getz

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If its well known and on record then you shouldn't have difficultly providing references to backup your claim.

www.clericalwispers-blogspot.com/2008/04/german-catholic-church-used.natzi

prinz

getz wrote: »

it is well known and on record that during WW11 in germany,the catholic church used almost 6,000 forced labourers under the natzis,their excuse was,we dident use as many as the others did--we dident use them as long as others did---and we dident work them as hard as others did.

Your point being? It would be interesting to see how many of those were summarily executed, starved to death, beaten to death at the hands of the catholic institutions they worked in? Oskar Schindler also used many, many slave labourers too. I'd be interested in seeing the reports of those involved tbh.

However nothing you can say can negate the fact that the RCC was the most persecuted Christian Church in Nazi Germany, and particularly in occupied territories.

The clerical block in Dachau comes to mind.Out of the thousands of men of God held there, I believe the percentage of Catholics was in the high nineties.

So accusing the Catholic Church as being some type of mass-collaboration movement is just well wrong.

Phototoxin

St Max was priest who the nazis killed too.

In both counts it was not Christians supporting the Nazi government, it was the Nazi government misusing christian teachings to suck church goers into their ranks by mis representing them.

Hittler himself hated christianity but he knew he needed the support the german chritians so he used mis quoted texts and false information to gain christian support.

also doctors were amongst the largest %age of professionals to join the nazi party... does that mean all doctors are evil too?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's very much what Luther said that they should do. It's the duty of true christians to do the state's bidding, regardless of the christians own views of the morality of the actions they were required to carry out.

Luther explained this most succinctly in his 1525 pamphlet, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants which appears with a splendidly toned-down title here:According to Luther, doing the state's bidding under Communism and Nazism, up to and including murder, seems to have been the solemn duty of a protestant.

PDN puts it exactly as I would have desired. But let me emphasise that Luther's reasoning was not what caused many German Protestants to support Hitler. It was the absence of any belief in the Bible as the word of God. German Higher criticism had done away with such supernatural ideas in the previous generations. All they had left was an empty religiousity.

From German friends I gather that some true evangelicals were happy with Hitler's initial rise to power, seeing an economic solution to extreme need, but when his hatred of the Jews became known, they knew he was a wicked deceiver.