"Stuff" the Pope says

silverharp

The Pope speaking at a youth rally this week, summary below. The bit I found odd was him being critical of the Allies for not bombing the concentration camp rail lines during the war. its a complicated issue that shouldnt be reduced to some bar fly rant. Is he not briefed a bit better?
A minor hoot was when he criticised people who make bombs, given his other statements, did his comments apply retrospectively to the people who were building bombs for the allied airforces during ww2? :pac: he sounded a bit all over the place




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/pope-francis-says-those-in-weapons-industry-cant-call-themselves-christian

People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.

Duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another
Pope Francis
Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a longcommentary about war, trust and politics, after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.


He also criticised those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another.”

Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second world wars. He spoke of the “tragedy of the Shoah”, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

“The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb (the railway lines)?”

Discussing the first world war, he spoke of “the great tragedy of Armenia”, but did not use the word “genocide”. Francis sparked a diplomatic row in April, calling the massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians 100 years ago “the first genocide of the 20th century”, prompting Turkey to recall its ambassador to the Vatican.

am946745

silverharp wrote: »

The Pope speaking at a youth rally this week, summary below. The bit I found odd was him being critical of the Allies for not bombing the concentration camp rail lines during the war. its a complicated issue that shouldnt be reduced to some bar fly rant. Is he not briefed a bit better?
A minor hoot was when he criticised people who make bombs, given his other statements, did his comments apply retrospectively to the people who were building bombs for the allied airforces during ww2? :pac: he sounded a bit all over the place

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/pope-francis-says-those-in-weapons-industry-cant-call-themselves-christian

The Pope Criticised those who profit from gun trade. Morally there is nothing wrong stopping an aggressor. That may mean killing a aggressor.

Many have spoke about Pope Pius XII silence, yet many countries who had power did nothing to stop the movement of jews.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

The Pope Criticised those who profit from gun trade. Morally there is nothing wrong stopping an aggressor. That may mean killing a aggressor.

Many have spoke about Pope Pius XII silence, yet many countries who had power did nothing to stop the movement of jews.

Pope Piux XII may well have personally saved upward 800,000 Jewish people. In fact the number saved is probably far higher.

Pius XII allowed Castel Gandolfo to be used to hide and take care of Jewish refugees.
In fact his personal rooms there were used to deliver newly born children of those same refugees.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=nvOInjiJxjQC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=castel+gandolfo+was+used+to+hide+refugees&source=bl&ots=pe3xUuWpPe&sig=3SzC-qkdIN4F9CU-AtOC1lmjFNY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mjuLVbWlF8j87AbLq6boCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=castel%20gandolfo%20was%20used%20to%20hide%20refugees&f=false

Peregrinus

The pope's comments were given off the cuff, in response to (and immediately after) talks given by three members of the youth group he was visiting ("Chiara, Sara and Luigi"). So if they're not fully researched and entirely coherent that's understandable.

You don't want to over-analyse this line by line; look for the broad messages running through it. The Vatican has so far only issued this in Italian. When it comes to Italian, as it says in Blackadder, I can order a beer and make sexy chit-chat with the girls, but don't ask me to deliver a lecture in physiology or direct a light opera. So, with that limitation in mind, I think on the subject of armaments/war the pope is essentially saying this:

- The politics of our world are driven by material, financial and commercial interests, not by concern for humanity or the human person.

- This is especially true of war.

- The failure to use military force to impede the holocaust is cited to illustrate this (although, as silverharp points out, you can offer other accounts of that decision. Nevertheless, even if you think the example is not a particularly good one, I think the point it's trying to illustrate is still valid).

- This is still true today.

- Hence, investment in armaments tends to be immoral. Although armaments can be use morally, in reality they overwhelmingly aren't, and in any event the investor has no control over whether they are or not.

That, I think, is his basic thrust. The use of arms to disrupt or prevent the holocaust would be virtuous, and arguably morally obligatory, but that's not enough to "moralise" the arms industry.

silverharp

I dont mind the spending on arms and that side of things , its just the Monday morning quarterbacking on history I thought was weak.

ScumLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

- The failure to use military force to impede the holocaust is cited to illustrate this (although, as silverharp points out, you can offer other accounts of that decision. Nevertheless, even if you think the example is not a particularly good one, I think the point it's trying to illustrate is still valid).

It would have been pointless focusing a dwindling military on attacking unimportant military targets. First of all, as far as I know the holocaust wasn't widely known about until after the war. Any intel the military got would have been relating to significant military targets. focusing on concentration camps (which there were many, not only jewish) would have done nothing but use up valuable resources on missions that would not affect the Germans ability to wage war. The most important thing was to stop the Nazis, once that happens everything else get's sorted out.

Maybe if the Pope is so concerned about militaries he should disband his own personal militia. Or at least buy them some new equipment.

smacl

am946745 wrote: »

The Pope Criticised those who profit from gun trade. Morally there is nothing wrong stopping an aggressor. That may mean killing a aggressor.

Many have spoke about Pope Pius XII silence, yet many countries who had power did nothing to stop the movement of jews.

Whatever happened to 'thou shalt no kill', 'turn the other cheek', etc...? I thought that was a pretty basic part of Christianity at all levels. Never quite understood the 'Praise the lord and pass the ammo' brigade.

am946745

smacl wrote: »

Whatever happened to 'thou shalt no kill', 'turn the other cheek', etc...? I thought that was a pretty basic part of Christianity at all levels. Never quite understood the 'Praise the lord and pass the ammo' brigade.

You have a moral right to your life and you are morally obliged to protect people under your care.

Benny_Cake

smacl wrote: »

Whatever happened to 'thou shalt no kill', 'turn the other cheek', etc...? I thought that was a pretty basic part of Christianity at all levels. Never quite understood the 'Praise the lord and pass the ammo' brigade.

Well, the idea of the "Just War" goes right back to Augustine and holds that violence can be justified in a certain set of circumstances. In tension with that has been a nonviolent/pacifist current which is usually associated with Anabaptists, Quakers, and other smaller groups, though there are pacifists in most churches, including the Catholic Church.

Manach

A good historian on that period would be Michael Burleigh. He does critise where applicable the actions of national churches when they became too politicised during that period and supported regimes whose rights record was wrong - eg in Croatia. But overall, given the morally ambigous landscape that existed in great part in that era, the actions overall of the Church as an institution surrounded by hostile forces he gave a qualified support to.

smacl

Manach wrote: »

A good historian on that period would be Michael Burleigh. He does critise where applicable the actions of national churches when they became too politicised during that period and supported regimes whose rights record was wrong - eg in Croatia. But overall, given the morally ambigous landscape that existed in great part in that era, the actions overall of the Church as an institution surrounded by hostile forces he gave a qualified support to.

Interesting. I wonder is he anything to Bennet Burleigh who wrote an entertaining first hand account of the Sudan campaign in the 1880s.

Edit: Turns out Bennet was Michael's grandfather. Good article here.

smacl

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Well, the idea of the "Just War" goes right back to Augustine and holds that violence can be justified in a certain set of circumstances. In tension with that has been a nonviolent/pacifist current which is usually associated with Anabaptists, Quakers, and other smaller groups, though there are pacifists in most churches, including the Catholic Church.

Learn something new every day. I always assumed the commandments were absolute rather than contextual, particularly in terms of killing. Makes sense of course from a pragmatic standpoint, particularly for empire builders, though I'd probably favour the Quaker stance myself.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Interesting. I wonder is he anything to Bennet Burleigh who wrote an entertaining first hand account of the Sudan campaign in the 1880s.

Edit: Turns out Bennet was Michael's father. Good article here.

Bennet was Michael's grandfather. As Bennet died in 1914, and Michael wasn't born until 1955, Michael couldn't be his son.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bennet was Michael's grandfather. As Bennet died in 1914, and Michael wasn't born until 1955, Michael couldn't be his son.

Yep, had edited the post since.

silverharp

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Well, the idea of the "Just War" goes right back to Augustine and holds that violence can be justified in a certain set of circumstances. In tension with that has been a nonviolent/pacifist current which is usually associated with Anabaptists, Quakers, and other smaller groups, though there are pacifists in most churches, including the Catholic Church.

in fairness shouldnt it go all the way back to Jesus?. Mohammed seems like your man for "Priase the Lord and pass the ammo". Jesus didnt seem to have any interest in building states and empires. I'd picture it more like some sort of Left Libertarian commune setup.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness shouldnt it go all the way back to Jesus?. Mohammed seems like your man for "Priase the Lord and pass the ammo". Jesus didnt seem to have any interest in building states and empires. I'd picture it more like some sort of Left Libertarian commune setup.

Jesus didn't have any interest in building states and empires, but he also didn;'t enjoin absolute pacifism. He certainly indicated that people should not resist force offered to them, and he himself modelled that behaviour, of course, but he never said that, for instance, we shouldn't use force to defend others. Should the police use force to keep order, for example, or to defend individual rights? It's one thing for me to say that I won't defend myself with force; it's another for me to say that I won't defend you with force, but will stand by wringing my hands while you are oppressed.

For what it's worth, a signficant element of contemporary Christian pacifism argues that questions like "would it be acceptable (or morally obligatory) to assassinate Hitler?" are the wrong question. The aim of Christianity is not to create a world in which Hitlers don't get assassinated; it's to create a world in which Hitlers don't need to be assassinated. If we're at the point where we have to contemplate assassinating Hitler, we have already failed. At that point we do, of course, have to offer an answer to the question, but we shouldn't let that distract us from the questions more long-term interest, like "Why are we at this point? Could we have made different choices, some way back, which would have avoided it? Next time, should we handle things differently?" And a constant theme, in answers offered to those questions is, as long as we put our faith in violence to solve our problems, then we are leading ourselves into situations and places were our problems demand violent solutions. Which is a mistake since, fundamentally, violence doesn't solve any of our problems; it just kicks them into touch for a while.

This isn't a thousand miles, in some ways, from what Francis is saying. His critique of violence is that we mostly resort to it to protect and defend wealth and power. While there might be good reasons for practising violence, the defence of wealth and power is not one of them But its our idolatrous faith in wealth and power which lead us to accept and practice violence which, in fact, is not justified.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Jesus didn't have any interest in building states and empires, but he also didn;'t enjoin absolute pacifism. He certainly indicated that people should not resist force offered to them, and he himself modelled that behaviour, of course, but he never said that, for instance, we shouldn't use force to defend others. Should the police use force to keep order, for example, or to defend individual rights?

But did he say you should? The logical extension of your argument is that anything that Jesus didn't explicitly state as wrong is ok, though I would have thought the commandments would have resolved any ambiguity of the acceptability of killing people regardless of context.

It's one thing for me to say that I won't defend myself with force; it's another for me to say that I won't defend you with force, but will stand by wringing my hands while you are oppressed.

Unless of course its the law doing the oppression...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

But did he say you should? The logical extension of your argument is that anything that Jesus didn't explicitly state as wrong is ok, though I would have thought the commandments would have resolved any ambiguity of the acceptability of killing people regardless of context.

No, that's not the logical extension of my argument. If Jesus (or any other ethicist) didn't explicitly condemn or approve any particular action, then the status of that action in the moral system he proposed is something that has to be arrived at by reason and reflection. (For instance, "What values do the moral rules given reflect? Applying those values, can we make any judgement about this new issue?") And this is a process in which reasonable people will sometimes disagree.

So Christians disagree, for example, about whether children should be baptised. Jesus certainly encouraged baptism, and he said a number of things about children, but he didn't specifically address the question of whether it was appropriate to baptise them. Which means that to answer the question you have to ask yourself why Jesus encouraged baptism - what is its role, its signficance, its effect? And once you have answers to those questions, that might point you to a particular view about infant baptism.

Pretty well all ethical systems work like this.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty well all ethical systems work like this.

Fair enough, but I thought the Christian ethics were guided by the ten commandments, which I gather are the direct word of God, in addition to the specifics taught be Jesus.

Peregrinus

Well, couple of points:

The ten commandments never existed in isolation. They're really just sound bites extracted from a much more fully developed moral system (the Mosaic code). Sound-bites always have to be understood as qualified in the real world.

Secondly, there's debate about whether "thou shalt not kill" is an accurate translation of the Hebrew original. I don't speak Hebrew, but I have heard it said that "thou shalt not murder" is closer to the sense of the original text. And of course if that's true it implies a distinction between murder - killing that is never acceptable - and killing that, in some circumstances, for some reasons, may be acceptable, e.g. when necessary to defend the otherwise defenceless against unjust attack.

Thirdly, even if we take the 10 commandments as "the direct word of God", there is no reason to think that God is incapable of the kind of nuanced moral reasoning that we ourselves employ. "Thou shalt not kill" (or "murder") is a commandment that you have to take seriously, but the Jewish tradition, which of course the Christians inherit, is that taking it seriously involves more than just obeying it. It involves reflecting on it, interrogating it, learning from it. ("Why did God command us not to kill? What did He hope to achieve? If we do kill, what will happen? If we are not to kill, how are we to respond in situations where, but for this commandment, we would have killed?" etc, etc.)

smacl

So the ten commandments are no more than poorly translated sound bites open to further interpretation to allow for the nuance introduced by a given context? Thou shalt not kill actually means Thou ought not murder unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The gates to heaven just got wider

hinault

smacl wrote: »

So the ten commandments are no more than poorly translated sound bites open to further interpretation to allow for the nuance introduced by a given context? Thou shalt not kill actually means Thou ought not murder unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The gates to heaven just got wider

You make a valid point.

The only time one is justified in taking another life is when ones own life is being attacked and under the real risk of being killed.
That's how I read the commandment "Thou shall not kill"

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

You make a valid point.

The only time one is justified in taking another life is when ones own life is being attacked and under the real risk of being killed.
That's how I read the commandment "Thou shall not kill"

So if somebody else's life is under attack, some wholly innocent and defenceless person, you're not allowed to intervene in a way that might kill the attacker?

I don't say this to get at you, hinault; just to point out that Christian morality (or any morality worth the name) can't be reduced to simplistic claims.

Besides, we have a terrible temptation to reduce morality to a series of "thou shalt nots" - don't to this, or this, or this, and you're fine. The truth is that morality is mainly concerned not with what we don't do, but with what we do do, and why we do it.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

So the ten commandments are no more than poorly translated sound bites open to further interpretation to allow for the nuance introduced by a given context? Thou shalt not kill actually means Thou ought not murder unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The gates to heaven just got wider

If you think the ten commandments are about getting into heaven, you clearly haven't read the book! Another error that comes from treating them as soundbites.

And another error is the one you fall into here; attempting to replace one soundbite with another, of our own devising. As I say, I don't speak Hebrew, but my guess would be that someone who did would say that your alternative formulation is an even worse translation of the Hebrew text,

You're very focussed on trying to find the right moral soundbite, smacl. It's possible to reduce the Christian moral tradition to soundbites, if you're really determined to but, honestly, what you end up with is nothing like a true presentation of Christian ethics. Those who take this approach generally reveal more about themselves in the attempt than they do about Christianity.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Well the Pope is certainly right in criticizing the arms manufacturing industry - "Turn your swords into plowshares.." is a line from the Old Testament I believe. A burgeoning armaments industry can lead to what is called "the military industrial complex", where huge war industries profit from war and therefore push for it. Eisenhower's farewell speech was quite poignant on this issue.

However, it must be remarked that the policy of deterrence is often the most effective way of securing peace in geopolitics ("Being unarmed causes you to be despised" holds some truth). Perhaps the best way is to have sufficient stockpiles of war material and then just leave the industry dormant until needed. I definitely see where the Pope is coming from though, it appears most immoral to make profit from war. But is the Pope really saying that any sort of an arms industry is a big no-no?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you think the ten commandments are about getting into heaven, you clearly haven't read the book! Another error that comes from treating them as soundbites.

True, as an atheist it wasn't one I had much interest in. We did get taught the ten commandments at some point in school, as I guess most kids do. Talking to my peers then and religious friends since, I always got the impression they were absolute rules with no room for manoeuvre. Cast in stone, so to speak... (Wonder where we get that saying from?)

And another error is the one you fall into here; attempting to replace one soundbite with another, of our own devising. As I say, I don't speak Hebrew, but my guess would be that someone who did would say that your alternative formulation is an even worse translation of the Hebrew text,

I wasn't even aware that 'thou shalt not kill' meant anything other than you're not allowed kill people up until the start of this thread. It was your suggestion that it should really read as 'thou shalt not murder', which may very well be the case, but I'm not sure that it is typically taught as such over here. It would be interesting if you took a bunch of Irish people and asked them what the ten commandments were, how many would include 'though shalt not murder'. I'm guessing few to none, in which case it is not the commonly understood meaning, regardless of how theologians might frame it.

You're very focussed on trying to find the right moral soundbite, smacl. It's possible to reduce the Christian moral tradition to soundbites, if you're really determined to but, honestly, what you end up with is nothing like a true presentation of Christian ethics. Those who take this approach generally reveal more about themselves in the attempt than they do about Christianity.

I'm not sure Christianity has any single morality per se, in that opinions are very diverse and commonly contradictory. For example, I'm quite taken with Bishop Michael Burrows take on Christian morality, but it appears to run contrary to what is taught by the Catholic hierarchy. I think the attitudes of the majority of Irish Catholics are more typical of Burrows' take on things, particularly considering the outcome of the recent same sex marriage vote. I suspect the current pope is aware of changing attitudes and is taking quite a strong revisionist stance, which doubtless is not endearing him with many other colleagues in Rome.

Peregrinus

Madalyn Silly Eyeliner wrote: »

Well the Pope is certainly right in criticizing the arms manufacturing industry - "Turn your swords into plowshares.." is a line from the Old Testament I believe. A burgeoning armaments industry can lead to what is called "the military industrial complex", where huge war industries profit from war and therefore push for it. Eisenhower's farewell speech was quite poignant on this issue.

However, it must be remarked that the policy of deterrence is often the most effective way of securing peace in geopolitics ("Being unarmed causes you to be despised" holds some truth). Perhaps the best way is to have sufficient stockpiles of war material and then just leave the industry dormant until needed. I definitely see where the Pope is coming from though, it appears most immoral to make profit from war. But is the Pope really saying that any sort of an arms industry is a big no-no?

Well, again, I think it's a mistake to try to reduce Christian morality as presented by the pope to a series of prohibitions. I think he is saying that, with contemporary values and attitudes to power, most instances of recourse to force are morally problematic. But I don't think that the take-away message from that is "don't buy shares in arms companies!" That might be a corollary of what the pope is saying, but presumably the real point is a call is to act - to remake the unacceptable values and attitudes.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Jesus didn't have any interest in building states and empires, but he also didn;'t enjoin absolute pacifism. He certainly indicated that people should not resist force offered to them, and he himself modelled that behaviour, of course, but he never said that, for instance, we shouldn't use force to defend others. Should the police use force to keep order, for example, or to defend individual rights? It's one thing for me to say that I won't defend myself with force; it's another for me to say that I won't defend you with force, but will stand by wringing my hands while you are oppressed.

For what it's worth, a signficant element of contemporary Christian pacifism argues that questions like "would it be acceptable (or morally obligatory) to assassinate Hitler?" are the wrong question. The aim of Christianity is not to create a world in which Hitlers don't get assassinated; it's to create a world in which Hitlers don't need to be assassinated. If we're at the point where we have to contemplate assassinating Hitler, we have already failed. At that point we do, of course, have to offer an answer to the question, but we shouldn't let that distract us from the questions more long-term interest, like "Why are we at this point? Could we have made different choices, some way back, which would have avoided it? Next time, should we handle things differently?" And a constant theme, in answers offered to those questions is, as long as we put our faith in violence to solve our problems, then we are leading ourselves into situations and places were our problems demand violent solutions. Which is a mistake since, fundamentally, violence doesn't solve any of our problems; it just kicks them into touch for a while.

This isn't a thousand miles, in some ways, from what Francis is saying. His critique of violence is that we mostly resort to it to protect and defend wealth and power. While there might be good reasons for practising violence, the defence of wealth and power is not one of them But its our idolatrous faith in wealth and power which lead us to accept and practice violence which, in fact, is not justified.

I dont think catholics at the time were too worried about trying to kill Hitler. the catholic chruch ddint exactly come out squeaky clean from WW2 or the lead up to it , it wouldnt take too long to come up with a bunch of videos of Priests blessing Italian troops before slaughtering civilians in Africa. Below is a prayer introduced praying for German victory by Catholic bishops. The absurdity of catholic priests I assume in Allied countries praying for Allied victory

(cool website name eh?) this was an article
http://jesuswouldbefurious.org/NaziMartyrFranz.html

Dec. 7, 1941 (page 33)
War Prayer
For Reich

---

Catholic Bishops at Fulda
Ask Blessing and Victory

---

by telephone to the New York Times.
Fulda, Germany, Dec. 6 -- The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special

"war prayer" which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services.
The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops further instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday sermon at least once a month German soldiers "on land, on sea and in the air."
The German Catholic clergy, while strongly objecting to certain aspects of Nazi racial policy, has always taken care to emphasize the duty of every Catholic to his country as loyal Germans in the present war.

smacl wrote:

, as an atheist it wasn't one I had much interest in. We did get taught the ten commandments at some point in school, as I guess most kids do. Talking to my peers then and religious friends since, I always got the impression they were absolute rules with no room for manoeuvre. Cast in stone, so to speak... (Wonder where we get that saying from?)

the Jewish translation is along the line of unlawful killing , but in any case they obviously knew what that meant so not exactly revolutionary. More fertile ground for dodgy commandments is the one on adultery where the prohibition was on married women having affairs. This didnt include married men having concubines, it was about protecting men's property rights :pac:

ectoraige

hinault wrote: »

You make a valid point.

The only time one is justified in taking another life is when ones own life is being attacked and under the real risk of being killed.
That's how I read the commandment "Thou shall not kill"

Out of curiousity, where in the bible is the right to protect one's own life bestowed? Does god not work in mysterious ways?

Peregrinus

I'm not sure what point you're making here, silverharp. Not all Catholics at all times have been in lockstep on all points of the ethics of warfare? We knew that already and, even if we didn't, it's what we would have expected, isn't it?

What of it?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're making here, silverharp. Not all Catholics at all times have been in lockstep on all points of the ethics of warfare? We knew that already and, even if we didn't, it's what we would have expected, isn't it?

What of it?

do you not think it is absurd to have catholic priests on both sides of a conflict praying to the same god looking for victory? or that they back where applicable the obvious aggressor .?

Peregrinus

I think it's absurd to have humans on both sides of a conflict praying to the same god for victory. Or, for that matter, praying to different gods for victory. Or not praying at all, but still looking for victory.

Absurd and obscene. But not at all surprising. Does it surprise you? And do you find it whatever the opposite of "absurd" is?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's absurd to have humans on both sides of a conflict praying to the same god for victory. Or, for that matter, praying to different gods for victory. Or not praying at all, but still looking for victory.

Absurd and obscene. But not at all surprising. Does it surprise you? And do you find it whatever the opposite of "absurd" is?

If you can see the absurdity of it , why couldn't the brain trust in the catholic church see it. I can forgive a soft drinks company supporting multiple teams in a world cup where its down to profit , but if an entity sets themselves up as having some form of universal authority and morality they ought to be see the big picture and play the long game. To do a bit of Popeing of history, shouldn't every priest in Germany have been defient to the point of ending up in the gas chambers themselves?

Peregrinus

I don't see that priests have a particular obligation to be (a) morally insightful, or (b) courageous and self-sacrificing any more than other people. Should, perhaps, every single person in Germany have been defiant to the point of ending up in the gas chambers themselves? And were there no tough questions that every single person in the UK or the US should have been asking themselves at the time about the way the war was being conducted?

You're pointing to a failure of the church in its response to German Naziism. And my answers is yes, there was a failure. And it's not difficult to find other failures from other historical periods. Or today.

The question is, what do we do about this? The very fact that you point to the failure of the church or of churchmen, and not to the failure of other organisations or individuals, suggests that for all its failures the church is filling an important role here by articulating a competing viewpoint and at least attempting or aspiring to live up to it. (If they weren't suppose to be trying, we couldn't criticise them for failing.) And if we conclude that the church is useless and might as well disappear, are we then any better off? Were there others lining up to died in the camps rather than accede to Naziism?

It seems to me that the logic if this argument is not that we should be dismissing the church, but calling for a stronger, better church.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that priests have a particular obligation to be (a) morally insightful, or (b) courageous and self-sacrificing any more than other people. Should, perhaps, every single person in Germany have been defiant to the point of ending up in the gas chambers themselves? And were there no tough questions that every single person in the UK or the US should have been asking themselves at the time about the way the war was being conducted?

You're pointing to a failure of the church in its response to German Naziism. And my answers is yes, there was a failure. And it's not difficult to find other failures from other historical periods. Or today.

The question is, what do we do about this? The very fact that you point to the failure of the church or of churchmen, and not to the failure of other organisations or individuals, suggests that for all its failures the church is filling an important role here by articulating a competing viewpoint and at least attempting or aspiring to live up to it. (If they weren't suppose to be trying, we couldn't criticise them for failing.) And if we conclude that the church is useless and might as well disappear, are we then any better off? Were there others lining up to died in the camps rather than accede to Naziism?

It seems to me that the logic if this argument is not that we should be dismissing the church, but calling for a stronger, better church.

but start from the top down why was the German catholic leadership praying for a German victory? was Rome not looking at this and saying its immoral to support the aggressor. ought not the position of Rome have been to urge priests to give anti war sermons? ye are quick enough to tell people what to do in other public spheres.
calling for a stronger church? well at least one that looks like it believes what it preaches and to the outsider looks like its channeling a higher power and doesnt have the appearance of a group of middle age conservative men who are on their own.

Peregrinus

Because, amazing as it may seem, Rome doesn't micro-manage local churches and dictate every view on every question to them.

It's easy for me; I generally take a very strongly anti-war position. That does tend to simplify specific questions about specific conflicts. But Catholicism is wider than that and incorporates a variety of perspectives about this, including the "just war" tradition which takes quite a nuanced approach to question of when recourse to force is justified, and what measures may and may not be used in any particular circumstance. And these are judgments that have to be made by the people who are faced with the ethical decision. Its not the pope who has to decide whether I am, or am not, justified in using force in any particular situation; it's me. It's me partly because I'm the one who has to act or not, and partly because I'm closer to the situation and know more about it than the pope does. In general, in relation to disputes between states, popes do not take sides. That doesn't suddenly change if the dispute involves the use of force. Popes offer guidance, call attention to principles, etc, etc but its the people who have to make the decisions to take responsibility for the decisions they have to make.

It's all very well for us to say that Germany was the agressor. It was in fact Britain and France who declared war on Germany. And, yes, they did so because Germany invaded Poland, but a German might point out that Germany did that because Poland was occupying historically German territory, taken from Germany by force of arms and still largely populated by Germans who wished to be part of Germany. The pope had, of course, condemned Naziism in strong terms, but it doesn't follow that. once a country has a vile government, the country no longer has any right under just war theory to have recourse to the use of force. In general under just war theory the moral calculations about the use of force don't depend at all on whether your government is nice or not.

And so it goes. Every injustice is attributed to the preceding injustice, and will be followed by a succeeding injustice. Once you buy into just war theology as a way of confronting that you're faced with a lot of situation-specific nuanced decisions which the pope has no particular authority or competence to make, and certainly no ability to enforce. So he doesn't make them.

silverharp

Let's even assume ww2 was ambiguous. One thing that wasn't was the deportation of Jews. It would have been clear in catholic countries especially in places like Poland where they didn't even bother hiding the brutality that what was going on was evil. All this information would have been fedback to Rome. Or in Germany itself euthanasia was being practiced not in secret. There was enough there to have a unified position.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Let's even assume ww2 was ambiguous. One thing that wasn't was the deportation of Jews. It would have been clear in catholic countries especially in places like Poland where they didn't even bother hiding the brutality that what was going on was evil. All this information would have been fedback to Rome. Or in Germany itself euthanasia was being practiced not in secret. There was enough there to have a unified position.

Yes, there was, certainly by late 1943 or early 1944.

But what would a "unified position" have achieved? A ringing denunciation of Naziism would give you the smug and gratifying feeling of being in the right, but anything more? And what would it cost? At the time Italy was under German occupation. There were tens of thousand of Jews sheltering in church-owned and Vatican-owned properties. Piss off the Germans enough, and they would mostly die. It wasn't a given that the Germans in 1944 woudl continue to respect the sovereignty of the Vatican. And the Germans had killed people in response to church denunciations before. For example, in July 1942 the Dutch Catholic bishops issued a statement condemning Nazi racism. In reprisal, the occupying authorities arrested about 250 Dutch Catholics of Jewish descent; they were all dead within a fortnight. Now scale that up to the Italian situation. Would you make the decision to sacrifice those lives?

I'm not saying the church authorities took the right decision; just that what faced them was not the ethical no-brainer that you present. Denunciation of Nazi atrocities generally wasn't effective to mitigate them; it more usually made them worse.

And it didn't do much to weaken support for the Nazis; those motivated by patriotism or racism or anything else to side with the Nazis could usually find justifications to dismiss the denunciation. In particular, a denunciation resting on a claim that the Nazis were systematically murdering millions of people in camps erected for the purpose would have been easily dismissed as not credible, even by many on the Allied side. What the Nazis were doing was literally unthinkable, which meant that claims that they were doing it would not be easily believed. It was for the same reason that, even when the Allied governments had a pretty good idea of what was going on in the camps, they didn't make it public. Although they would have been telling the truth, in the short term they wouldn't have been beleived and of course they couldn't prove it, so the only effect would be to damage their own credibility. So they said nothing.

In short, there were real costs, that would mostly be born by innocent people, to the course you suggest, and rather uncertain benefits.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, there was, certainly by late 1943 or early 1944.

But what would a "unified position" have achieved? A ringing denunciation of Naziism would give you the smug and gratifying feeling of being in the right, but anything more? And what would it cost? At the time Italy was under German occupation. There were tens of thousand of Jews sheltering in church-owned and Vatican-owned properties. Piss off the Germans enough, and they would mostly die. It wasn't a given that the Germans in 1944 woudl continue to respect the sovereignty of the Vatican. And the Germans had killed people in response to church denunciations before. For example, in July 1942 the Dutch Catholic bishops issued a statement condemning Nazi racism. In reprisal, the occupying authorities arrested about 250 Dutch Catholics of Jewish descent; they were all dead within a fortnight. Now scale that up to the Italian situation. Would you make the decision to sacrifice those lives?

I'm not saying the church authorities took the right decision; just that what faced them was not the ethical no-brainer that you present. Denunciation of Nazi atrocities generally wasn't effective to mitigate them; it more usually made them worse.

And it didn't do much to weaken support for the Nazis; those motivated by patriotism or racism or anything else to side with the Nazis could usually find justifications to dismiss the denunciation. In particular, a denunciation resting on a claim that the Nazis were systematically murdering millions of people in camps erected for the purpose would have been easily dismissed as not credible, even by many on the Allied side. What the Nazis were doing was literally unthinkable, which meant that claims that they were doing it would not be easily believed. It was for the same reason that, even when the Allied governments had a pretty good idea of what was going on in the camps, they didn't make it public. Although they would have been telling the truth, in the short term they wouldn't have been beleived and of course they couldn't prove it, so the only effect would be to damage their own credibility. So they said nothing.

In short, there were real costs, that would mostly be born by innocent people, to the course you suggest, and rather uncertain benefits.

thats fine for secular groups but this life is just a trial run for you guys right? martyrdom is the express train to heaven and sainthood so catholics should have embraced doing the right thing?

I'm assuming nobody knew about the gas chambers for the purpose of this and just focusing on the fact that that the Catholic church did not take a strong position on European Jews being relocated and maltreated or killed in the Ghettos, nor during the 1930's before the war started, also I remember reading that London didnt believe Russian reports when they overran the camps and thought it was propaganda, so It didnt seem like the Allies were being told stuff they already knew.

oldrnwisr

am946745 wrote: »

The Pope Criticised those who profit from gun trade. Morally there is nothing wrong stopping an aggressor. That may mean killing a aggressor.

Many have spoke about Pope Pius XII silence, yet many countries who had power did nothing to stop the movement of jews.

hinault wrote: »

Pope Piux XII may well have personally saved upward 800,000 Jewish people. In fact the number saved is probably far higher.

Pius XII allowed Castel Gandolfo to be used to hide and take care of Jewish refugees.
In fact his personal rooms there were used to deliver newly born children of those same refugees.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=nvOInjiJxjQC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=castel+gandolfo+was+used+to+hide+refugees&source=bl&ots=pe3xUuWpPe&sig=3SzC-qkdIN4F9CU-AtOC1lmjFNY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mjuLVbWlF8j87AbLq6boCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=castel%20gandolfo%20was%20used%20to%20hide%20refugees&f=false

To be fair, Pius XII wasn't the problem, Pius XI was.

By the time Pacelli came to power the damage had already been done. The church made some really bad decisions in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, a time when they could have used their influence to much greater effect than what actually transpired.

It took four years from the Nazi rise to power for the Church to start making official protest noises with Mit Brennender Sorge and even then the church made a fairly limp-wristed gesture with Brennender because they released Divini Redemptoris five days later and consequently nobody noticed Brennender. The further irony is that Brennender mentions: "that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect." How come it took the church four years to recognise this. When these same rights were taken away in the fire decree in February 1933, why didn't the church speak out then. Why did the church go on to act selfishly and sign the Reichskonkordat in September? Did they not notice people's rights being taken away. Not only did the konkordat miss an opportunity to speak out earlier but it also, in the eyes of many, lent the Nazi rise to power an air of moral legitimacy.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

thats fine for secular groups but this life is just a trial run for you guys right?

Actually, no, not really. But that's a discussion for a separate thread, I think.

silverharp wrote: »

martyrdom is the express train to heaven and sainthood so catholics should have embraced doing the right thing?

Doing something which will result in a bunch of other people dying is not martyrdom, silverharp.

silverharp wrote: »

I'm assuming nobody knew about the gas chambers for the purpose of this and just focusing on the fact that that the Catholic church did not take a strong position on European Jews being relocated and maltreated or killed in the Ghettos, nor during the 1930's before the war started, also I remember reading that London didnt believe Russian reports when they overran the camps and thought it was propaganda, so It didnt seem like the Allies were being told stuff they already knew.

The Allies had in fact been told (by the Polish resistance) what was going on in the camps some time in 1942, though it's not clear how much of what they were told they actually believed or regarded as credible. FWIW, I don't think you blame them for treating at least some of what they were told as incredible. In December 1942 they did issue a rather vague proclamation condemning the "extermination" of the Jews, but this could have been understood as a reference to deportations, disruption and suppression of Jewish communal life, etc, rather than organised mass murder. I think they were still uncertain as to exactly what was going on, and didn't want to commit themselves too explicitly about that.

As for the Catholic church, from 1933 onwards Pope Pius XI was pressing Mussolini to use his influence with Hitler to abate antisemitism in Germany, and also publicly repudiating antisemitism as incompatible with Catholicism. In 1937 the same pople issued an encyclical ("Mit Brennder Sorge") in 1937. Written rather tellingly in German rather than the usual Latin, it was smuggled into Germany and read from all pulpits. It didn't particularly focus on antisemitism, but it was a ringing and explicit denunciation of Naziism - according to one historian, it's generally recognised as the first official public condemnation of naziism from any source. It's also generally recognised that it didn't do much good. It had "little positive effect, and if anything only exacerbated the crisis", according to a historian quoted here.

The same pope also began drafting an encyclical condemning racism, but died before it was issued. His successor, Pius XII, elected in March 1939, decided not to issue it. His background and career was in diplomacy; by then war seemed imminent and he hoped to act as a peace broker either to avoid it, or to help end it if it started. He felt his ability to do that would be compromised if he was seen to align himself publicly against either side.

Was he wrong to take that line? Possibly. But I don't think it was the ethical no-brainer that some assume. And he had observed the basically useless results of his predecessor's more explicitly condemnatory approach. No lives at all had been saved; every public intervention simply seemed to put people in more danger.

hinault

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To be fair, Pius XII wasn't the problem, Pius XI was.

By the time Pacelli came to power the damage had already been done. The church made some really bad decisions in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, a time when they could have used their influence to much greater effect than what actually transpired.

It took four years from the Nazi rise to power for the Church to start making official protest noises with Mit Brennender Sorge and even then the church made a fairly limp-wristed gesture with Brennender because they released Divini Redemptoris five days later and consequently nobody noticed Brennender.

You continue to engage in revisionism throughout these threads.

Mit Brennender Sorge is the only papal encyclical of modern times to be written first hand in German.
Every single papal encyclical issued in modern times is written first hand in Latin.

Mit Brennender Sorge is too the only papal encyclical to be issued which explicitly criticises a specific country's political regime, that regime being Nazi Germany.

Mit Brennender Sorge was written by Pope Pius IX.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It took four years from the Nazi rise to power for the Church to start making official protest noises with Mit Brennender Sorge and even then the church made a fairly limp-wristed gesture with Brennender because they released Divini Redemptoris five days later and consequently nobody noticed Brennender.

Nazi Germany was extremely adept at fooling in the international community.

Nazi Germany managed to fool the international community in to staging the
Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, despite the fact that we know that widespread discrimination had been practised in Germany between 1933-1936.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.:rolleyes:

oldrnwisr

hinault wrote: »

You continue to engage in revisionism throughout these threads.

Mit Brennender Sorge is the only papal encyclical of modern times to be written first hand in German.
Every single papal encyclical issued in modern times is written first hand in Latin.

Mit Brennender Sorge is too the only papal encyclical to be issued which explicitly criticises a specific country's political regime, that regime being Nazi Germany.

Mit Brennender Sorge was written by Pope Pius IX.

Revisionist how exactly?

Firstly I think that Mit Brennender Sorge was a laudable move by the Vatican. They published it in German to reach as wide an audience as possible and they finally stuck their head above the parapet and criticised the Nazis.
Unfortunately it was on the back of some really bad decisions. Firstly, they themselves sabotaged the full impact of Mit Brennender Sorge by releasing Divini Redemptoris just a few days later, a move which newspapers at the time reported completely overshadowed the impact of Mit Brennender Sorge. So either the release of Redemptoris was wrought out of stupidity or malice. Take your pick.

Secondly, Mit Brennender Sorge was four years too late. Even when, soon after signing the Reichskonkordat, the Nazis began to double cross the Vatican, they could have spoken out then. They could have spoken out even before the Reichskonkordat. They could have spoken out when the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act brought in massive civil rights abuses. But they didn't.

hinault wrote: »

Nazi Germany was extremely adept at fooling in the international community.

Nazi Germany managed to fool the international community in to staging the
Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, despite the fact that we know that widespread discrimination had been practised in Germany between 1933-1936.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.:rolleyes:

Ah, whataboutery, never gets old. So your defence of the Vatican is that other people made mistakes too? Not really a defence is it?

hinault

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Revisionist how exactly?

Firstly I think that Mit Brennender Sorge was a laudable move by the Vatican. They published it in German to reach as wide an audience as possible and they finally stuck their head above the parapet and criticised the Nazis.
Unfortunately it was on the back of some really bad decisions. Firstly, they themselves sabotaged the full impact of Mit Brennender Sorge by releasing Divini Redemptoris just a few days later, a move which newspapers at the time reported completely overshadowed the impact of Mit Brennender Sorge. So either the release of Redemptoris was wrought out of stupidity or malice. Take your pick.

Secondly, Mit Brennender Sorge was four years too late. Even when, soon after signing the Reichskonkordat, the Nazis began to double cross the Vatican, they could have spoken out then. They could have spoken out even before the Reichskonkordat. They could have spoken out when the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act brought in massive civil rights abuses. But they didn't.

Ah, whataboutery, never gets old. So your defence of the Vatican is that other people made mistakes too? Not really a defence is it?

A papal encyclical written in German issued solely to Nazi Germany by the Vatican, is unprecedented.

Yes, you can argue that the signing of the Reichskonkordat should not have happened. One could also argue that the concordat was the church's attempt to try to protect the Catholic population in Germany too.

Lots of different organisations were lulled in to a false sense of security by Nazi Germany.
The International Olympic Committee being one such organisation, despite the fact that the activities of the Nazi government were widely known.

Hindsight is no sight. And that includes your repeated attempts at revisionism.

am946745

oldrnwisr wrote: »

They could have spoken out when the Fire Decree and the Enabling Act brought in massive civil rights abuses. But they didn't.

What would you have done in Pope Pius XII position. (placing yourself in the mindset of the late 30's).

Do you think any priests who spoke up against Hitler would have survived in Nazi Germany? What would have happened the German Bishops if the Pope had called them to resist? Between 1939 and 1945 over 3,000 members of the Polish clergy were killed; 1,992 of them died in concentration camps, 787 of them at Dachau. 411 German priests went to concentration camps.. Now what would the Pope speaking out have done? Make Catholic Bavaria the enemy of Germany?.

Hitler also hated Pius XII, the fact remained he did what he could, he helped the jews that he could, walking a tight rope.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

What would you have done in Pope Pius XII position. (placing yourself in the mindset of the late 30's).

Do you think any priests who spoke up against Hitler would have survived in Nazi Germany? What would have happened the German Bishops if the Pope had called them to resist? Between 1939 and 1945 over 3,000 members of the Polish clergy were killed; 1,992 of them died in concentration camps, 787 of them at Dachau. 411 German priests went to concentration camps.. Now what would the Pope speaking out have done? Make Catholic Bavaria the enemy of Germany?.

Hitler also hated Pius XII, the fact remained he did what he could, he helped the jews that he could, walking a tight rope.

oldrnwisr :rolleyes:, would do well to read the life story of Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty.

Father Rupert Mayer of Munich is worth researching too.

oldrnwisr

am946745 wrote: »

What would you have done in Pope Pius XII position. (placing yourself in the mindset of the late 30's).

Do you think any priests who spoke up against Hitler would have survived in Nazi Germany? What would have happened the German Bishops if the Pope had called them to resist? Between 1939 and 1945 over 3,000 members of the Polish clergy were killed; 1,992 of them died in concentration camps, 787 of them at Dachau. 411 German priests went to concentration camps.. Now what would the Pope speaking out have done? Make Catholic Bavaria the enemy of Germany?.

Hitler also hated Pius XII, the fact remained he did what he could, he helped the jews that he could, walking a tight rope.

OK, perhaps you didn't read my earlier posts on this thread. Let me restate what I said.

Pope Pius XII was not the problem. In fact Pius XII did some noble and highly commendable work in saving as many people as he did. However, by the time Pius XII was elected the damage was already done. The person I was referring to was Pius XI and specifically his actions, or lack thereof, during the Nazi rise to power in 1933. I'm not even talking about the War yet.

am946745

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, perhaps you didn't read my earlier posts on this thread. Let me restate what I said.

Pope Pius XII was not the problem. In fact Pius XII did some noble and highly commendable work in saving as many people as he did. However, by the time Pius XII was elected the damage was already done. The person I was referring to was Pius XI and specifically his actions, or lack thereof, during the Nazi rise to power in 1933. I'm not even talking about the War yet.

Ok. I honestly don't think anybody knew what the Nazis were going to do in 1933. Italy wasn't in a great position either.. not Spain.

You have to set this in the Political Mindset of the time.