Catholic faith

[Elysian]

is better than other Abrahamic faiths, since they've always stood against death penalty, exploitation, poverty, and war. They are progressive. Baptists are the worst, and I say this even though I am a Calvinist.

In dharmic faiths, buddhism is most compatible with communism, whereas Hinduism with its idolatry is least compatible.

[Nox]

All the Abrahamic faiths are just as bad imo. They are all supposedly "against war" but will happily make excuses for it when they want to go to war.

Also the Catholic Church is a paedophile ring and the world's largest business.

[#FF0000]

i am pretty sure OP is talking about Catholicism from a "philosophical" standpoint, or something. no ones saying the Church isn't a bunch of dumbness

[Blake's Baby]

Yup, all that oppressing peasants, massacring the Albegensians, the Spanish Inquisition, anti-semitism, starting the crusades, Augustinian predestination/original sin, mysogeny, enslavement of South America and all that was extremely tolerant and progressive.

[#FF0000]

i am pretty sure OP is talking about Catholicism from a "philosophical" standpoint, or something. no ones saying the Church isn't a bunch of dumbness


.

[Franz Fanonipants]

the thing is bros that the catholic church is a like 1,000 year old institution so like any institution there are problems in matching the message. for example i fucking hate the US Conference of Bishops for their ridiculous, misogynist bullshit one note anti-abortion crap. who fucking cares let women decide, offer an infrastructure for adoption, and shut the fuck up.

as nox, our modern victorian who is Sick of All This Roman Popery pointed out, the church continues to make mistakes. hopefully in the future it won't.

p.s. marxists repping for the Albigensians owns. its just like marxists repping hard for the Roman Empire.

p.p.s. the spanish inquistion was all the church, not an early modern nation state consolidating power. jesus christ why do you fuckers insist on being so fucking terrible about history. its like your understanding of history begins and ends c. 1900. apparently revleft's historical consciousness p. much is edwardian.

[Black_Rose]

Yup, all that oppressing peasants, massacring the Albegensians, the Spanish Inquisition, anti-semitism, starting the crusades, Augustinian predestination/original sin, mysogeny, enslavement of South America and all that was extremely tolerant and progressive.

I wasn't aware that Augustine was a predestinationist.

[Prometeo liberado]

the thing is bros that the catholic church is a like 1,000 year old institution so like any institution there are problems in matching the message. for example i fucking hate the US Conference of Bishops for their ridiculous, misogynist bullshit one note anti-abortion crap. who fucking cares let women decide, offer an infrastructure for adoption, and shut the fuck up.

as nox, our modern victorian who is Sick of All This Roman Popery pointed out, the church continues to make mistakes. hopefully in the future it won't.

p.s. marxists repping for the Albigensians owns. its just like marxists repping hard for the Roman Empire.

p.p.s. the spanish inquistion was all the church, not an early modern nation state consolidating power. jesus christ why do you fuckers insist on being so fucking terrible about history. its like your understanding of history begins and ends c. 1900. apparently revleft's historical consciousness p. much is edwardian.

I'm not sure how any discussion that includes shut the fuck up can be constructive but whatever.

Anyways getting back to the subject, the Church Universal has produceda great many people that defend and promote revolutionary change around the world. The Sandanista Revolution and the cultivation of Liberation Theology are two examples. Institutions such as the Catholic Worker also do some good work. Having said that, there is a huge disconnect between those clergy who beleive in the practice of humility and love versus those who see the existance of said practices only in the context of blind loyalty to the wants and desires of old men trying to keep their place in the world.

[brigadista]

i remember when the pope visited nicaragua and asked the sandinista priests to rationalise their position after publically slapping them all.

[Prometeo liberado]

i remember when the pope visited nicaragua and asked the sandinista priests to rationalise their position after publically slapping them all.

This a perfect example of the very real disconnect :thumbup1:.

[Zealot]

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." - POPE PIUS XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html), 120

[Lenina Rosenweg]

We have to take a historical materialist view of religion. All religions exist within the context of the society they arose in.They change. Talking about "religion" itself is meaningless.

The Catholic Church helped to devastate and destroy indigenous cultures around the world. At its height it was possibly the most intolerant human institution which has ever existed, with the possible exception of Nazi Germany.

The Church has created a world of guilt and sexual repression. The Church has retarded education, subjugated women, treated lgbt people like animals, preyed on possibly tens of thousands of young boys around the world.

on the other hand....the Church today opposes the death penalty, has helped people fleeing oppression in Latin America (as well as helping Nazis escape). The Church has worked to protect indigenous peoples in South and Central America from exploitation, although in a paternalistic way. The Church has worked to hold back some of the worst excesses of the Spanish Empire.Catholic Liberation Theology has played a progressive role.

Overall its been a mixed bag.The Church, like any institution, has some good people, some bad, who reacts to material forces.

Overall though the Catholic Church is an archaic instition. I don't see it existing a hundred years from now.

[hatzel]

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." - POPE PIUS XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html), 120

And?

"Socialists cry 'Power to the people', and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State." - Margaret Thatcher.

See, I can quote reactionaries talking shit, too. So what's your point?

[Zostrianos]

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." - POPE PIUS XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html), 120

They're not contradictory at all, but the Church and socialism are indeed contradictory - the Popes were often allied with monarchs and nobility, and socialism is a break with that.
What's interesting is that the first socialists in the 19th century were Christians and saw Christianity (not the Church) as a good basis for socialism. A good example is the "Bible de la Liberté" ("Bible of Freedom") by Abbé Constant (1841), who was also a Catholic priest (he is best known as Éliphas Lévi, and later in his life became an occultist, but at this point he was still a priest with radical ideas). The full text is here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k117377b/f6.image

Reportedly, his superiors in the Church were profoundly offended by this text.

[Zostrianos]

Another link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37260366/Eliphas-Levi-La-Bible-de-la-Liberte

[Prometeo liberado]

We have to take a historical materialist view of religion. All religions exist within the context of the society they arose in.They change. Talking about "religion" itself is meaningless.

The Catholic Church helped to devastate and destroy indigenous cultures around the world. At its height it was possibly the most intolerant human institution which has ever existed, with the possible exception of Nazi Germany.

The Church has created a world of guilt and sexual repression. The Church has retarded education, subjugated women, treated lgbt people like animals, preyed on possibly tens of thousands of young boys around the world.

on the other hand....the Church today opposes the death penalty, has helped people fleeing oppression in Latin America (as well as helping Nazis escape). The Church has worked to protect indigenous peoples in South and Central America from exploitation, although in a paternalistic way. The Church has worked to hold back some of the worst excesses of the Spanish Empire.Catholic Liberation Theology has played a progressive role.

Overall its been a mixed bag.The Church, like any institution, has some good people, some bad, who reacts to material forces.

Overall though the Catholic Church is an archaic instition. I don't see it existing a hundred years from now.

Better written than I could have done. The Catholic church is already seeing its last days. In a symbolic move Ireland has closed its embassy in the Vatican for "austerity" reasons(it cost Ireland less than $3 million U.S. annually to operate). Yet the real reason seems to be over calussion and accountability in the ever growing molestation scandal. That and the fact that the clergy are retiring at a pace far quicker than new recruits are ordained make for an unsubstainable church in the form that the world now knows it.

[Zostrianos]

They're not contradictory at all, but the Church and socialism are indeed contradictory - the Popes were often allied with monarchs and nobility, and socialism is a break with that.
What's interesting is that the first socialists in the 19th century were Christians and saw Christianity (not the Church) as a good basis for socialism. A good example is the "Bible de la Liberté" ("Bible of Freedom") by Abbé Constant (1841), who was also a Catholic priest (he is best known as Éliphas Lévi, and later in his life became an occultist, but at this point he was still a priest with radical ideas). The full text is here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k117377b/f6.image
Reportedly, his superiors in the Church were profoundly offended by this text.

PS: he was also a defender of women's rights, and wrote a text on the emancipation of women, calling for equality and condemning discrimination against women that was rampant back then, both in the Church and in society

[Belleraphone]

I was just thinking about what revleft thought of the catholic church.

Well, the OP has some points. They were involved in the civil rights movement, many leftist bishops were killed in central America by US backed forces (Oscar Romero), many of them serve as credible sources as reports of US imperialism. They also do a lot of work for charity in the third world. Catholicism is probably why Evolution is still legal to teach in Texas though, since the church has now recognized Evolution as credible. Obviously the pedophilia is unacceptable and their totally backwards position on birth control. In the end, they're a mixed bag.

[Zostrianos]

Nowadays the Catholic Church is one of the more moderate denominations - it committed countless crimes in the past, but today they've kinda settled down a bit. Nowadays, when you hear of Christians doing bad things it's usually Evangelicals and fundies, who travel the world with their false charity simply as a ploy to convert others and destroy cultures. The modern catholic charities I've read about are mostly real charities, i.e. they don't provide charity in exchange for conversion, unlike the fundies who won't be happy until the planet becomes a theocracy.

I think a lot of it has to do with the Catholic church losing power and followers, and no longer having the power to rule its flocks by force, they had to become more open, moderate and tolerant in order to preserve their appeal.

[Blake's Baby]

I wasn't aware that Augustine was a predestinationist.

'Original sin' was condemned by some church writers as late as the 450s... from the Gaulish Chronicle for 418 (of course, they didn't use AD dating at this point): 'the year in which Augustine of Hippo is said to have invented the heresy of predestination' (he meant, the Doctrine of Original Sin).

The argument is that, if we are all born in sin, we must have God's grace to be saved; because God is all powerful, we cannot compel God; therfore our salvation depends only on God not our own efforts or actions; therefore good works are useless, because by our actions we cannot make God extend grace, and therefore original sin removes the necessity of good works, as grace comes only from God; therefore we are predestined for salvation or damnation.

Check out the Pelagians, specifically the writings ascribed to 'The Sicilian Briton'. They were declared heretical in AD418.

[Ocean Seal]

is better than other Abrahamic faiths, since they've always stood against death penalty, exploitation, poverty, and war. They are progressive. Baptists are the worst, and I say this even though I am a Calvinist.

In dharmic faiths, buddhism is most compatible with communism, whereas Hinduism with its idolatry is least compatible.
I'm going to say that this is kind of ridiculous. As someone who is formerly Catholic, I can tell you that many Catholics are pro-exploitation, and don't really care much for poverty or preventing war. From a philosophical standpoint they are all pretty much the same thing.

Also this post is pretty meaningless given that there are about 1,000 different interpretations of each faith. Claiming that one is more progressive than others alienates people. Baptism if I recall correctly was the faith which catalyzed Black Liberation Theology.

[Black_Rose]

I'm going to say that this is kind of ridiculous. As someone who is formerly Catholic, I can tell you that many Catholics are pro-exploitation, and don't really care much for poverty or preventing war. From a philosophical standpoint they are all pretty much the same thing.

Also this post is pretty meaningless given that there are about 1,000 different interpretations of each faith. Claiming that one is more progressive than others alienates people. Baptism if I recall correctly was the faith which catalyzed Black Liberation Theology.

Did you read my post?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/compatible-revolutionary-leftism-t166023/index.html

Are those people really explicitly "pro-exploitation" or they naively support the political economy of capitalism? I suppose most people don't care about exploitation and prefer to ignore it, although that can be construed as a pro-exploitation attitude since it is tacit support for exploitation, assuming that they indirectly benefit from it (such as consuming domestic cheap labor/services or foreign goods).

I think most people in the parish that I attended are ignorant about the precise causes of exploitation. It seems that the Church is not a vehicle for any progressive change or dissemination of progressive ideas. Most people view their piety with signs that says "Keep Christ in Christmas" rather than giving a shit about the poor.

[Zostrianos]

I think most people in the parish that I attended are ignorant about the precise causes of exploitation. It seems that the Church is not a vehicle for any progressive change or dissemination of progressive ideas. Most people view their piety with signs that says "Keep Christ in Christmas" rather than giving a shit about the poor.

US fundies are generally like that. They're rich, capitalist hypocrites, who condemn abortion as a crime against human life, but fully support America's wars and the death penalty; who claim to be true, pious Christians, but don't give a damn about the poor and fiercely oppose any kind of social programs or aid to the poor and destitute; who think societal evils are caused by the lack of Biblical or Christian influence in society, and who are more concerned about whether political candidates are devout Christians rather than what practical ideas they may have. And last but not least, they have unlimited monetary resources and power, but go out of their way to scream how they're being persecuted any time someone disagrees with them, or gives equal rights to any other group.

[The Young Pioneer]

Originally Posted by Elysian:

[The Catholic faith] is better than other Abrahamic faiths, since they've always stood against death penalty, exploitation, poverty, and war. They are progressive.

What the actual fuck?

Are you completely unaware of Catholic history from World War II and before?? Or do you count Papal State collaboration with fascism as progressive? Read a fucking history book.

And as far as personal experience with their "progressiveness," I was recently laughed out of a Catholic church for asking to attend service with them as an Orthodox Christian. To quote the chaplain, they couldn't really kick me out, "Because there's not an Orthodox Church near here, but if there was, we'd tell you to get out." So such "progressiveness" is not all across the board. (Though I will say, other Catholic churches have referred to me as their brother and welcomed me to their service as an Orthodox person with open arms.)

I'd encourage OP -and anyone else- not to make such sweeping statements about one faith being better than another, as there are PEOPLE in every faith and there are PEOPLE who support anti-progressive ideals in each.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Or do you count Papal State collaboration with fascism as progressive? Read a fucking history book.

yes, hitler's pope, a very solid wwii tradepress bo

[#FF0000]

Are you completely unaware of Catholic history from World War II and before?? Or do you count Papal State collaboration with fascism as progressive? Read a fucking history book.

lol

[The Young Pioneer]

yes, hitler's pope, a very solid wwii tradepress bo

No? Then you and Elysian enlighten me, plz.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No? Then you and Elysian enlighten me, plz.

wtf do i have to do w/elysian?

no bro, hitler's pope is a pretty broadly methodologically debunked book that makes the same connections you do. of course i won't argue that there probably were fascist-admiring clergy in austria or even that the church may have seen fascists as preferable to soviets, whatever, but its really difficult to talk about the church in a monolithic manner. as someone posted earlier, the vatican has been avowedly anti-communist in the past. i believe that was a mistake and a major part of the church existing during the cold war rather than an eternal and historical aspect of the plural church.

this is all not to defend the structure of the church, i have huge problems with it.

[The Young Pioneer]

Okay, then you and I are in agreement about not making sweeping statements about a faith.

Regardless, my statement stands. I was not the one who alluded to the Church supporting Hitler, you made that assumption that that's what I meant. (Never even heard of whatever book you're referring to.) Rather, my statement was concerning support for fascism, and I did not specify where/what. There were indeed as you say, Catholics who supported one side or another during that time but the fact still stands- What was the last war deemed "just" by the Catholic Church? A fascist one in Spain in the 1930s, that had Italian and German fascists on their side.

[Franz Fanonipants]

its a fair cop.

[dodger]

It took the Britons a few hundred years to rid itself of the pope. Part of the problem was the bible was written in Latin. So we did not know what the hell they were on about. The church knew the game was up when an Englishman translated it . His body, 44yrs ,after his death, was dug up, with the Archbishop of Canterbury looking on. The bones were burnt and the remains chucked into a river. Now we can all read the bible we can all rip it to shreds. Hooray !! John Wyclifffe and his diligent band of monks who handwrote 16 bibles. Quite an achievement, it must be said.

[Zostrianos]

It's interesting that Hitler was a devout Catholic, and the Church never excommunicated him.

[Zealot]

And?

"Socialists cry 'Power to the people', and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State." - Margaret Thatcher.

See, I can quote reactionaries talking shit, too. So what's your point?

The big difference is that, you see, we're talking about Catholics in this thread and their relation to progress and Socialism.

[hatzel]

The big difference is that, you see, we're talking about Catholics in this thread and their relation to progress and Socialism.

And?

"The denunciation of injustice implies the rejection of the use of Christianity to legitimise the established order." - Gustavo Gutiérrez.

See, I can quote Catholics talking about progress and socialism, too. So what's your point?

[Zealot]

And?

"The denunciation of injustice implies the rejection of the use of Christianity to legitimise the established order." - Gustavo Gutiérrez.

See, I can quote Catholics talking about progress and socialism, too. So what's your point?

You're making an issue out of a non-issue and trying to pass off the Pope as just another Catholic. The problem is that I didn't just quote a Catholic, I quoted the Bishop of Rome, the head of Vatican City state, successor of Peter, the self-fucking-proclaimed Vicar of Christ. With such lofty titles I can only assume that his word is to be followed and those that don't, good for them, it doesn't mean the Vicar of Christ agrees with them though.

[hatzel]

You're making an issue out of a non-issueActually I'm just pointing out that posts that consist of nothing but some quote with absolutely no commentary are boring as and shouldn't be posted. Not least when these quotes claim that Christian socialism is an impossibility (your posting this seemingly suggesting you agree with the sentiment), which is often used to justify the denial of these individuals' revolutionary credibility and complete indifference to their various grievances. And if you are not claiming that Christian socialism is an impossibility - that these individuals either aren't socialists so there's no need for us to care what they say or they're not Christian so there's no need for them to care what we say - then you should probably accompanying your explicitly saying that with a comment that you don't personally toe that line.

However, given your quoting Lenin [oh, I'll come back to this in a snarky manner later on, if you don't mind] recently in another thread, claiming that socialist propaganda "necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism," I have taken the assumption that you are personally of the opinion that socialism is an inherently anti-religious, anti-Christian current, and as such Christian socialist (or religious socialist) is a contradiction in terms. In that respect you appear to be of the same opinion as elements of the Catholic Church, and support its attempts to weaken the appeal of socialism amongst the religious masses.


and trying to pass off the Pope as just another Catholic. The problem is that I didn't just quote a Catholic, I quoted the Bishop of Rome, the head of Vatican City state, successor of Peter, the self-fucking-proclaimed Vicar of Christ.You do realise Pope Pius died over 70 years ago, right, and as such his views aren't exactly topical? If you're going to go quoting Popes, how about citing Ratzinger's pre-papal tirades against left-leaning currents of Catholicism? And making a comment about them, like "the Vatican had strong ties to the very 'third-world' governments that these left-leaning currents sought to oppose, and it was therefore expedient that it criticise said currents." This would a) be half-relevant to the present day; b) acknowledge that the Church has a tendency to ally itself with whoever is in power, and whichever system they have a comfortable position in, hence their earlier support of feudalism over capitalism, and current support of capitalism over socialism; and c) show a realisation that the Catholic Church is not even a monolithic entity amongst the clergy, let alone the flock. The lattermost bringing us on to:



With such lofty titles I can only assume that his word is to be followed and those that don't, good for them, it doesn't mean the Vicar of Christ agrees with them though.Aww, cute. So you actually believe that a billion-odd people are irresistibly compelled to agree with every utterance of every Pope to have ever lived? Or that said utterances define the Catholic faith, as if Jesus himself ascended the mount to declare "thou shalt not be both Christian and socialist, for this is an abomination unto your father in heaven"?

As promised, here's the snarky bit: whilst some of us might go around quoting long-dead 'socialist' leaders and saying "well he was a major socialist and he said this so this is socialism amirite?" and long-dead Popes saying "well he was a major Catholic and he said this so this is Catholicism amirite?" others aren't so foolish as to fall into this trap. Though one can only assume that the former is somehow linked to the latter.

[Zealot]

Actually I'm just pointing out that posts that consist of nothing but some quote with absolutely no commentary are boring as and shouldn't be posted. Not least when these quotes claim that Christian socialism is an impossibility (your posting this seemingly suggesting you agree with the sentiment), which is often used to justify the denial of these individuals' revolutionary credibility and complete indifference to their various grievances. And if you are not claiming that Christian socialism is an impossibility - that these individuals either aren't socialists so there's no need for us to care what they say or they're not Christian so there's no need for them to care what we say - then you should probably accompanying your explicitly saying that with a comment that you don't personally toe that line.

Where did I say that? This is a quote from the Pope. It's their own internal contradiction which in some cases may or may not mean they can be both.


However, given your quoting Lenin [oh, I'll come back to this in a snarky manner later on, if you don't mind] recently in another thread, claiming that socialist propaganda "necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism," I have taken the assumption that you are personally of the opinion that socialism is an inherently anti-religious, anti-Christian current, and as such Christian socialist (or religious socialist) is a contradiction in terms. In that respect you appear to be of the same opinion as elements of the Catholic Church, and support its attempts to weaken the appeal of socialism amongst the religious masses.

You obviously haven't read the paper by Lenin I was talking about nor have you understood the point I made.


You do realise Pope Pius died over 70 years ago, right, and as such his views aren't exactly topical? If you're going to go quoting Popes, how about citing Ratzinger's pre-papal tirades against left-leaning currents of Catholicism? And making a comment about them, like "the Vatican had strong ties to the very 'third-world' governments that these left-leaning currents sought to oppose, and it was therefore expedient that it criticise said currents." This would a) be half-relevant to the present day; b) acknowledge that the Church has a tendency to ally itself with whoever is in power, and whichever system they have a comfortable position in, hence their earlier support of feudalism over capitalism, and current support of capitalism over socialism; and c) show a realisation that the Catholic Church is not even a monolithic entity amongst the clergy, let alone the flock. The lattermost bringing us on to:

Ratzinger is just as much a cretin as the rest of them. I quoted this piece because I remembered reading it when I was taking a biblical criticism class.


Aww, cute. So you actually believe that a billion-odd people are irresistibly compelled to agree with every utterance of every Pope to have ever lived? Or that said utterances define the Catholic faith, as if Jesus himself ascended the mount to declare "thou shalt not be both Christian and socialist, for this is an abomination unto your father in heaven"?

Of course not, and that's part of the reason that the Pope(s) is a complete idiot for making such a statement. But as a general rule, this gives a good idea of what is being indoctrinated into Catholics at their schools and churches.


As promised, here's the snarky bit: whilst some of us might go around quoting long-dead 'socialist' leaders and saying "well he was a major socialist and he said this so this is socialism amirite?" and long-dead Popes saying "well he was a major Catholic and he said this so this is Catholicism amirite?" others aren't so foolish as to fall into this trap. Though one can only assume that the former is somehow linked to the latter.

Lenin was a materialist expounding on scientific socialism while the Pope rejects things out of hand simply because it doesn't agree with his interpretation of the Bible. If Catholics find the Vicar of Christ to be out of touch with reality then they should take the next step, drop their religion and accept the truth instead of ruining their mental health trying to reconcile their views. If they haven't found this to be a problem then it's not directed towards them.

[Prometeo liberado]

It's interesting that Hitler was a devout Catholic, and the Church never excommunicated him.

From all that I have read it seems that Hitler stopped being active in the Church as soon as he could make that choice for himself, hardly in the same ballpark as devout. The fact that he sent Catholics to the gas chambers along with anyone else who didn't fit into the idea of a New Germany should put the whole "devout" thing to rest. Yet the hypocrisy of the Church never ceases to stop. How in the hell can you excommunicate clergy for working in the Sandinista government but leave Hitler on your roster?

[El Chuncho]

If you think mainstream Catholicism is truly compatible with Communism, you should go and read about Salazar and Franco and all their supporters in the Vatican. :rolleyes:


is better than other Abrahamic faiths, since they've always stood against death penalty, exploitation, poverty, and war.

I don't think all the Mexican serfs during the years prior to and during the Mexican revolution would agree with that. Neither would many Spanish socialists who fought against the largely Catholic backed Falangist forces.

Catholics can be good socialists, but the Catholic Church has a history of supporting oppressive regimes in Europe and Latin America. It also excommunicates Liberation Theologists traditionally.

[Zostrianos]

From all that I have read it seems that Hitler stopped being active in the Church as soon as he could make that choice for himself, hardly in the same ballpark as devout. The fact that he sent Catholics to the gas chambers along with anyone else who didn't fit into the idea of a New Germany should put the whole "devout" thing to rest. Yet the hypocrisy of the Church never ceases to stop. How in the hell can you excommunicate clergy for working in the Sandinista government but leave Hitler on your roster?

Hitler and the Nazis did have a soft spot for the Church. They viciously persecuted the Church in occupied countries (Poland especially), but this was mainly because the Church often went hand in hand with Slavic\Eastern European nationalism, and persecuting the church was part of Hitler's strategy to decapitate occupied nations by eliminating upper classes (he collaborated with Stalin on this after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when the 2 dictators terrorized Poland into submission).

That the Nazis wanted the support of the Church in Germany itself is evident when you look at the euthanasia program (when the Nazis were eliminating disabled, elderly and homeless people from German society by killing them); as soon as the Churches complained, the Nazis ended the program inside Germany itself. There was also an incident where a secularist Nazi officer wanted crucifixes removed from public schools in Bavaria in 1941, and when the people complained, the Nazis backed down.

[eyeheartlenin]

[Catholicism] is better than other Abrahamic faiths, since they've always stood against death penalty, exploitation, poverty, and war. They are progressive. Baptists are the worst, and I say this even though I am a Calvinist....

I don't see how any anyone can write that the Roman Church was "always" opposed to the death penalty. Ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? And there were plenty of other instances where governments carried out executions of individuals who declined to profess Catholicism. Milton's unforgettable sonnet, On the Late Massacre in Piedmont, inspired by the massacre of Waldensians in Piedmont by Charles Emmanuel II, Catholic Duke of Savoy in April 1655, tells how "... the bloody Piedmontese .. rolled Mother with infant down the rocks...."

To be quite fair, the Roman Church was not alone in its enthusiasm for capital punishment. It is still remembered how the Unitarian Servetus, upon visiting (the Protestant theologian) John Calvin's Geneva, was executed as a heretic (on 27 October 1553), with Calvin himself having brought the complaint against Servetus.

A little research discloses that the Church was not "always" opposed to war, either. According to wikipedia.org, the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) "was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire ..."

Interestingly, the first Jewish settlers came to continental North America, in flight from the Spanish Inquisition. If I remember correctly, they originated in Portugal, had to flee, went to Brazil, had to flee, and ended up in Peter Stuyvesant's New Amsterdam. This is off the top of my head, so it may be less than completely accurate.

In Henry Roth's distinguished novel about early twentieth-century Jewish immigration to the US, Call It Sleep (1934), the immigrants are transported from Ellis Island to Manhattan in the ship Peter Stuyvesant, which is funny because Stuyvesant was originally opposed to allowing Jews in "his" New Amsterdam.

[Zostrianos]

I think the catholic opposition to the death penalty is a very recent development. The Church heartily embraced the death penalty for centuries.

[Zostrianos]

The death penalty was supported by church doctors as well.
Thomas Aquinas on heretics and the death penalty:

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3)

4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment. 5. He also is subject to legal punishment whose property, although without his knowledge butby negligence, has become an abode of heretics. 1. The house where a heretic is found must be torn down and the property must be confiscated. 2. The bailiff who lives in a suspicious place and is not diligent in searching for heretics loses his office and is not permitted to be employed either there or in any other place.....
12. All members of a parish shall vow to the bishop under oath that they will preserve the Catholic faith and will persecute heretics according to their power. (http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Aquinas-Heretics.html)

[RGacky3]

You don't judge a religion on how well it vibes with your progressive/socialist ideals or values, you judge a religion by its truth value.

[Blake's Baby]

Truth value of catholicism = question of how often a stopped clock tells correct time.

[black magick hustla]

the church in latin america played almost completely a negative role since its inception and it was the greatest bastion of reaction. the church as an institution has been in general a bastion of reaction because it has almost always been thourougly integrated with the order of things and a protector of priviliege etc. who cares about shitty catholic theology in the abstract. there was a reason why people who fought in the mexican revolution were fond of putting bullets in the heads of priests and spanish anarchists had a field trip with burning churches and killing clergy. i mean, i am generally pretty tolerant about beliefs in general but i can't see why would a "leftist" defend the institution of the church. for most of its lifespan in capitalism it played a similar role to cops, school, social workers, bureacrats etc - an organ of capital used to justify the repression and the misery of the underclasses.

[Elysian]

The death penalty was supported by church doctors as well.
Thomas Aquinas on heretics and the death penalty:

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3)

4. Whoever, allowing a heretic to stay on his property either for money or any other cause, if he confesses or is convicted, loses his property forever and his body is handed over to the civil authority for punishment. 5. He also is subject to legal punishment whose property, although without his knowledge butby negligence, has become an abode of heretics. 1. The house where a heretic is found must be torn down and the property must be confiscated. 2. The bailiff who lives in a suspicious place and is not diligent in searching for heretics loses his office and is not permitted to be employed either there or in any other place.....
12. All members of a parish shall vow to the bishop under oath that they will preserve the Catholic faith and will persecute heretics according to their power. (http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Aquinas-Heretics.html)

See proper historical context. In those days, the masses were unruly and to maintain some order in society, the authorities had to impose very, very strict standards. It's not like today where people have technology.

[Elysian]

the church in latin america played almost completely a negative role since its inception and it was the greatest bastion of reaction. the church as an institution has been in general a bastion of reaction because it has almost always been thourougly integrated with the order of things and a protector of priviliege etc. who cares about shitty catholic theology in the abstract. there was a reason why people who fought in the mexican revolution were fond of putting bullets in the heads of priests and spanish anarchists had a field trip with burning churches and killing clergy. i mean, i am generally pretty tolerant about beliefs in general but i can't see why would a "leftist" defend the institution of the church. for most of its lifespan in capitalism it played a similar role to cops, school, social workers, bureacrats etc - an organ of capital used to justify the repression and the misery of the underclasses.

The reason the church never aligns with leftists is because the latter (in the real socialist world of china, ussr etc., not the 'ideal' socialist world that never existed) have always persecuted them. At least in capitalist societies, religious institutions are free to do as they please, but socialists in ussr, north korea etc. made it a point to actively persecute them, stop religious gatherings, destroy institutions, and so on.

[eyeheartlenin]

...
Ratzinger is just as much a cretin as the rest of them. I quoted this piece because I remembered reading it when I was taking a biblical criticism class....


Ratzinger is an interesting and contradictory figure, with a long career in the Church. According to wikipedia.org, he "served as a peritus (theological consultant) to Cardinal Frings of Cologne. He was viewed during the time of the Council as a reformer, cooperating with theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx," two prominent progressive theologians.

However, during Ratzinger's subsequent career, as the Prefect, head, of the Vatican's doctrinal "congregation" (department) (1981-2005), he silenced, or otherwise punished, a large number of progressive theologians in the Church. In the book, Against Ratzinger, it takes roughly five pages of small print to list all the theological scholars who were somehow victimized by the future Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger did one progressive thing, that cannot be taken away from him. Having been conscripted into the German army in 1943, while he was still a seminarian, Ratzinger deserted in 1945, a very gutsy act, given that the German army shot deserters. As I remember reading, the 18 year old deserter Ratzinger walked across Germany to return to his family in Bavaria; it should be added that, as a Catholic, Ratzinger was always opposed to the Nazis.

[Prometeo liberado]

the thing is bros that the catholic church is a like 1,000 year old institution so like any institution there are problems in matching the message. for example i fucking hate the US Conference of Bishops for their ridiculous, misogynist bullshit one note anti-abortion crap. who fucking cares let women decide, offer an infrastructure for adoption, and shut the fuck up.

as nox, our modern victorian who is Sick of All This Roman Popery pointed out, the church continues to make mistakes. hopefully in the future it won't.

p.s. marxists repping for the Albigensians owns. its just like marxists repping hard for the Roman Empire.

p.p.s. the spanish inquistion was all the church, not an early modern nation state consolidating power. jesus christ why do you fuckers insist on being so fucking terrible about history. its like your understanding of history begins and ends c. 1900. apparently revleft's historical consciousness p. much is edwardian.

Please read what you write before you send it, and at the very least take a trip down Wikipedia lane.

Your first guess that the Catholic Church is like 1,000 years old is only off by about another 1,000 years give or take. But I quote you "why do you fuckers insist on being so fucking terrible about history. its like your understanding of history begins and ends c. 1900"Do I need to say more?

So the Spanish Inquisition was all Church, right? The Church refused to get their hands that dirty. The Church handed over people to the state for the final coup de' grace. The Church had the network to monitor the masses while the State had the muscle to back that up. If this was not the Church and State consolidating power then what is? But I quote "why do you fuckers insist on being so fucking terrible about history. its like your understanding of history begins and ends c. 1900"


But I do enjoy like the like style bro' that like it was like written bro'.:confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

But I do enjoy like the like style bro' that like it was like written bro'.:confused:


no maaanches wey

p.s. "GOTCHA" is no way to run rhetoric on someone esp. since the "church and state" reifying the state and church's power is still a mat'l cause and not some intellectual silly shit about proving which idea is superior etc.

[Prometeo liberado]

no maaanches wey

p.s. "GOTCHA" is no way to run rhetoric on someone esp. since the "church and state" reifying the state and church's power is still a mat'l cause and not some intellectual silly shit about proving which idea is superior etc.

Dont understand this at all.


p.s. No mammis wey!

[bcbm]

See proper historical context. In those days, the masses were unruly and to maintain some order in society, the authorities had to impose very, very strict standards. It's not like today where people have technology.

violence against the lower classes from the elite is necessary to maintain order... um that is still the case today. proper historical context would be seeing the class interests of the two parties. the 'masses' were unruly because they were getting fucked by the powerful.

[Balaer]

The Catholic Church used to be a very open institution until around 1050, as I have seen in university. Society changed that. We turned into a persecuting society, and the Church began to follow that. It's especially clear in the relationship with the Jews.

If the Church remained true to its doctrine, and society had followed that doctrine, there probably wouldn't have been any modern capitalism. According to Max Weber, protestant asceticism was crucial for capitalism, and the banks were too. Usury was in fact forbidden according to Catholic (and also Muslim) doctrine, but greedy rulers didn't really care about that.

From 1050 onwards, everything slowly went downhill, hitting rock bottom with the Council of Trent, in my opinion.

[Elysian]

violence against the lower classes from the elite is necessary to maintain order... um that is still the case today. proper historical context would be seeing the class interests of the two parties. the 'masses' were unruly because they were getting fucked by the powerful.

That's just a dreamy, romantic view of the masses - that they heroically fought the elite. No, they did not. They were fighting and killing each other. They didn't even see the elite as the enemy, just as today workers don't see the capitalist as the enemy (instead they see fellow workers as the enemy).