Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
ISAW are you saying that unless a state believes in a higher power it will cause atrocities ?0
-
-
-
ISAW are you saying that unless a state believes in a higher power it will cause atrocities ?
Where did I State that?
I suggest you look up affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
You fing also look up false attribution.
It was Morbert who stated all Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power not me.0 -
I am going to go ahead and suggest "No True Scotsman."
MrP
Thats "only true Scotsman" I think. No?
Anyway I 'd have to look at each of these regimes. I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.
Ill have to go from memory.
Pinochet was hugely supported by the USA. The CIA were up to their gills in Chile. Actually it was on 9/11 they assisted in deposing Allende. Does that mean Chile was a Capitalist Republican Democracy like the US?
As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Salazar_and_the_Catholic_ChurchThe relationship of Salazar with some sectors of the Catholic Church, more in accordance with the social doctrine of the Holy See, worsened after World War II. Some prominent oppositionist priests, like Abel Varzim and Joaquim Alves Correia, openly supported the MUD in 1945 and the granting of more social rights to the workers. Abel Varzim, who had been a supporter of the regime, had his newspaper closed, while Joaquim Alves Correia was forced into exile in the United States, where he died in 1951. The Democratic Opposition main candidate in the 1958 Presidential Elections, General Humberto Delgado was a Roman Catholic and a dissident of the regime, who quoted Pope Pius XII to show how the social policies of the regime were against the social teachings of the Church. The same year, Salazar suffered a severe blow from the bishop of Porto, Dom António Ferreira Gomes, who wrote a critical letter to the Council President in July 1958 being forced to exile for 10 years. After the Second Vatican Council, a large number of Catholics became active in the Democratic Opposition.
If you look you will find similar I'm sure for Hitler Mussolini etc. The church didn't approve or back terror torture or slaughter by these people. Similarly for the Spanish inquisition ( which was backed by some pope). It was limited in the damage done and the spread of its influence during the Spanish Preponderance within the Church. It is frequently overhyped and compared to atrocities of the Nazis Mao Stalin etc. Yes it was wrong but it was in no way "widespread" and tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes. That does not dismiss it , it just puts it in context.
We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.
A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit.
On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense.
The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".
It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.
Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?0 -
Advertisement
-
A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit.
On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense.
The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".
......
What?0 -
-
I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.
...
As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimesWe all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.
A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit.
On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense.
The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".
It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.
Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?0 -
Is that story/parable a well known one or did you make it up yourself as an example to prove your point? Because honestly, it's nonsense. It makes no sense. And my intention isn't to troll or insult you, I honestly mean, that story makes no sense. I have no idea how it relates to anything previously discussed0
-
Where did I State that?
I suggest you look up affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
You fing also look up false attribution.
It was Morbert who stated all Totalitarian regimes do not believe in a higher power not me.
I don't know who suggested it originally ISAW but in some of your recent posts you seem to be saying that as atheistic/totalitarian regimes don't belive in a higher power they are prone (like the sun rising) to atrocities.
And than Christians - because they do believe- do not.
I am in a rush now , but I will try and get the posts numbers later.
While I am looking up those terms you listed can I suggest you look up pompous/condescending/ tunnel vision/the right man syndrome0 -
Advertisement
-
Thats "only true Scotsman" I think. No?
Anyway I 'd have to look at each of these regimes. I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.
Ill have to go from memory.
Pinochet was hugely supported by the USA. The CIA were up to their gills in Chile. Actually it was on 9/11 they assisted in deposing Allende. Does that mean Chile was a Capitalist Republican Democracy like the US?
As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Salazar_and_the_Catholic_Church
If you look you will find similar I'm sure for Hitler Mussolini etc. The church didn't approve or back terror torture or slaughter by these people. Similarly for the Spanish inquisition ( which was backed by some pope). It was limited in the damage done and the spread of its influence during the Spanish Preponderance within the Church. It is frequently overhyped and compared to atrocities of the Nazis Mao Stalin etc. Yes it was wrong but it was in no way "widespread" and tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes. That does not dismiss it , it just puts it in context.
We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.
A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit.
On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense.
The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".
It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.
Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?
Who said anything about the Vatican ? Correct me if I am wrong but you have said either here on on the Child Abuse thread than every Bishop manages an autonomous unit. That it is not centralised like a corporation.
But even were that so that it not the point I was asking- would you accept that these men infused as they were with the catholic faith and that this was responsible for the regimes the controlled ? I can list lots more but that is not the issue.
Forget the CIA/Allende - this is well known but has little to do with how Pinochet ran the country thereafter. They were fellow travellers for a period of time- but lets not get sidetracked on that one.
I am sorry but I just don't understanded your speeding son analogy and its relevance.
By the way I agree with you on the Inquisition , poorly understood and greatly exagerated- more a product of Elizibethan England propaganda , which by todays standards was little more than a rogue state. Obviously I am not saying it was right though.0 -
ISAW, with all respect, but isn't this ^^ a classic "true Scotsman" example? Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
"...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.
Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.0 -
Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
"...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.
Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?
For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism. At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.
Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?
When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.
Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.
Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.0 -
ISAW, you responded to my post #1822 twice, with the exact same silly straw men, unreasonable inferences, and irrelevancies. My latest post was #1830. That is the one you need to respond to.0
-
Why?
Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.
Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.
Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?
Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"
I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.
Look again.For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism.
To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic
Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself?
Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.
I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.
Not by the Catholic church!
your source begins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_SerbsThe Serbian Genocide refers to the attempt in extermination made towards ethnic Serbs in 1939-1945 by predominantly ethnic Croat Fascists and Nazi (Axis) occupational forces.
the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.0 -
ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism. Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism. Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.
Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings, however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.
Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism. Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.
Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.0 -
ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?0
-
Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?
Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.
Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)
Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"
I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?
Look again.
To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic
Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?
And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?
I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?
Not by the Catholic church!
your source begins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs
the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.
the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings , that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic0 -
ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?
Yes.
Are you suggesting there is none?
Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?
Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
As many as possible please.0 -
irishh_bob wrote: »the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings ,
You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.
They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic
I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.
In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes.
Are you suggesting there is none?
Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?
Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
As many as possible please.
again you are positing an either or situation ISAW ( which along with ''more or less'' seems to be your method of analysing everything).
As I said before history is a continuum and in the western world in particular I believe we are into an age of secular humanism so we will have to wait and see how it plays out. But you can see humanist contributions all over the place if you care to look.
There is little point yet again listing a load of fascist regimes that were predominantly catholic. All I ask is that you be consistent in your arguments. If in your view the catholic church and catholicism is not responsible for all those dictators then I don't see how you can abandon that position when it comes to atheism.
Fascist/totalitarian regimes are about the pursuit and maintenance of power at any price- that is the only belief system than they are imbued with.0 -
I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts
None the less;Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?0 -
I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts
HAve I?
Consider yourself proved wrong again.
And don't presume to speak for me.
And if you claim to represent reason then well...The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values.
Oh did they? But they didn't have "Christian " values?In spite of the fact that ALL were founded by Christians and atheists and humanists represented a tiny minority of the people framing these core values?Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant.We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion.
Nope. the discussion is who framed their constitutions. Not atheists. Christians. The "secularists" in the Us for example were predominantly Christians who didn't want inter denominational rows which they knew of based on the European experience of that time.Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.
And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?0 -
You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.
They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.
I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.
In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church
neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment0 -
irishh_bob wrote: »neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment
No it was a tribal war. A war against xenophobia, supposed superiority and inferior beings, forced occupation and the brutality that ensues from same - we have a pretty crap history - and equally a pretty cool one too!!
There was a time when fighting was necessary imo absolutely, not anymore - thank God. Leaps and bounds, but we still retain that distinct Irish rebel thing, although it's got very pacifist, we fight with words now - we just have to learn where to engage that passion for Irish people as a whole, we were always unique, not the same as northern europe or south europe - I like that we are ourselves.
I hope we always remember that we fought to be ourselves - that's my hope.0 -
And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?
What exactly is your point?
All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.0 -
So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
What exactly is your point?
All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.
Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? no?
I like reading through anyways.
It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -
It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.
All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.0 -
Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?
Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic
Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?
Do you realise that by following your logic you will never be able to clam any atrocities to be the consequence of Atheism simply because there is no Atheistic Pope and there is no global Atheistic organisation in charge of guarding true Atheism? Also there it would not be right to say that, for example, Communists atrocities in Russia in 1918-1938 are the consequences of Communism because in fact Comintern did not sanction them.Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?...If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.
Then a lot of Catholic clergy were involved not just in force-conversions but in mass slaughtering of civilians. Many of them were Ustaša officers. With the extremely rare exceptions no action were taken by their bishops. Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Also let's not forget that the Catholic press and pulpits were widely used to spread fascist, anti-Semitic and ant-Serbian propaganda.the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.0 -
he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.
Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
Not for His sake but ours.
Not for our sake but His on our side.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not to rule but to guide.
Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
Not for His sake but ours.
Not for our sake but His on our side.
Exactly! It's the beginning of a journey, the joy is immeasurable!..and not a little inexplicable. The best of luck on yours.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement