removed by mod
That’s not the worst thing they did.
Ask yourself: why did the Holocaust happen exactly? Who is responsible for almost all antisemitism, from past to present?
That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think. I don’t like the church either but saying they’re responsible for the Holocaust is quite a leap lmfao
They are unquestionably responsible for helping a load of high level Nazi murderers to escape after the war, so maybe it’s not too much of a leap considering how pervasive the Nazi message has remained after all these years
That’s helping them escape, not being responsible for what nazis did. I mean it’s irreparably damaging to their already abominable image but it wasn’t their fault Hitler rose to power.
I wasn’t offering that as evidence that they were responsible for the Holocaust, I was offering it as an example of their close ties with the church. Unless you think they just became buddy buddy with them after the war ended? Considering we’re only just learning about the large part they played helping these criminals escape justice, it might not be so far fetched of an idea that the Catholics had a larger role in the Holocaust than we know.
Perhaps but the problem is that we don’t know how deep their role was. There plenty of reasons hate on the catholic church without inventing things.
The problem here is that you don’t know how deep their role was. Nothing is being made up. Pope John XXIII even wrote about the role Catholic antisemitism played in the lead up to the Holocaust.
https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/catholic-church-and-holocaust?language_content_entity=en
So did the US government, in Operation Paperclip. Arguably worse was the protection that the US government gave towards Japanese war criminals in Unit 731. The US govt has protected / harbored some of the most evil people to have lived in the past century.
Nice whataboutism!
Not directly, no.
But would you mind exlaining to me why the Nazi’s social darwinism heavily focused on Jews?What’s the root cause of antisemitism?
I can answer it: the church’s centuries of antisemitism. There’s a reason antisemitism was this extremely widespread in Europe.
Antisemitism was prevalent long before the Catholic Church, and was prevalent outside of the church. Unfortunately it’s one of those things that is just shitty behavior, and not exclusively a shitty church thing
Because Adolf Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat for post-WW1 financial troubles and used phrases like “Bolsheviks” and “Marxism” to convince right leaning German citizens that the Jews were not only the cause of their problems but actively working to destroy their way of life.
This instilled a belief system in the fundamentalist “patriots” that it was up to them in order to fix the issues by standing against the Jewish population, this lead to events like Kristallnacht where businesses and homes were violated and destroyed in an attempt to make Jews fear for their lives.
Eventually when the Nazis started rounding up the Jews, not only were most of their neighbors okay with it happening, it wasn’t uncommon for them to assist in reporting and turning them in.
So you could say social engineering and propaganda over the course of years were the primary reason why the holocaust occurred, as it would face too much push back from an unprimed group that hasnt been molded over time to assess said group as “the enemy.”
But why did Hitler pick Jews? And why was tbe public so receptive?
Completely unrelated quote from Wikipedia’s article about antisemitism:
The Enlightenment adopted some anti-Judaic stereotypes, such as the juxtaposition of a supposedly nationally limited and materialistic Jewish religion of hate against a universal and idealistic Christian religion of love. In the 19th century, Christian and racist hostility toward Jews merged. Thus, Christian and racist enemies of Jews together revived the medieval ritual murder legends. Since 1900, nationalist Christians were at the same time anti-Semites, such as the Protestant church party “German Christians” of the Nazi era.
And why was tbe public so receptive?
Reread my previous comment.
its not like the protestant were famous for being projew.
deleted by creator
Annnnnd We all think you’re being very disingenuous with your veiled claim, because of your own vested interest in your creepy religion…
to deny what is a fact, because you have an anecdotal experience, does not absolve the entire religion, it’s participants and it’s leaders of its atrocious behavior and criminal acts… a good person would abstain from the chruch and practice in private z like Christ told you to do… he told you not be like the heathens in the streets, praying loud so the world would hear them… they have their reward… he told you and all his followers to be of quiet cheer and practice alone. You will find no sympathy here for your pathetic excuse of your pedophile religion
FO
Please feel free to point out any specific statements they made which are inaccurate.
The Vatican teaches that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”
Isn’t it weird how Catholic “radical inclusion” is wildly insulting and still less inclusive than secular society?
Love thy neighbor. Except this one. And this one. And those over there. And so on.
No, no. Love them, but look down on them like the sinner that they are.
deleted by creator
I take your meaning, but the amount they’ve spent lobbying various governments on the issue does make it literally their business.
They’re acting like the schism isn’t already guaranteed. A not insignificant portion of Catholics look to the episcopal church as leaders on issues like lgbt treatment and women’s leadership. Meanwhile another not insignificant portion of Catholics look to the medieval church as a role model on such issues and have issues with Catholic stances on things like the death penalty, global poverty, and the environment.
The fact is that the liberation theologists, Catholic workers, and other branches of the Catholic left are just not following the same religion as groups like the Catholics who control the American Supreme Court, the neofrancoists, and those who still say mass in Latin. And stuck in the middle are folks like Joe Biden, many Jesuits, and pope Francis who understand that the Catholic Church has a lot of value in its stability but does need to change to reflect the times and isn’t in a stable position.
The schism is all but official. The question is which side gets to keep the pope, how many pieces are left, and how radical each is.
Anecdotal but all of the Catholics I know have either converted to the episcopal church or they just never go to mass or talk about it but say they’re catholic so grandma doesn’t get sad. You go to mass, and there are no young people whatsoever. I don’t have hard data to back this up but it seems like the Catholic Church in the US could just collapse before a significant schism reaches us.
Oh full agreement, I’m ex Catholic myself (pagan now but it wasn’t a direct conversion). And yeah that’s what Francis was for and what he’s trying to do. There are still young Catholics and I’d break them into two groups: religiously inclined people who like theological rigor or ritual and were probably raised Catholic, and those who find value in regressive traditionalism. The former tend to convert to something like episcopalianism if their values drive them from the church. The latter on the other hand drive more people from regular Catholic attendance
The question is which side gets to keep the pope,
I propose King Solomon’s solution.
You jest, but I do think that violence and papal assassination are absolutely on the table here. I suspect we’re going to enter a second warring popes period or simply have a tense situation where both sides claim to hold a pope. Most likely Francis will fall left or liberal. Benedict just died otherwise I could see him providing legitimacy to the conservatives. But enough cardinals will probably split to pick a new pope.
If the conservatives get the Vatican it’ll probably be through Italian intervention and I would suspect that the liberals/left leaning will set up in France, South America, Ireland, or attempt to bargain for a square mile or so of Jerusalem.
If the liberals/left get the Vatican it’ll likely be thanks to pope Francis and I suspect the conservatives will set up in the United States, elsewhere in Italy, Spain, or attempt to get a small portion of Jerusalem.
There’s also a chance both are theologically stubborn enough to insist that their bishop of Rome is their leader and thus they either split the Vatican or attempt to get more of Rome.
I thought they claimed the pope is infallible so how can they challenge him?
Some people are nuts, if Jesus came down and told them to help the poor foreigners. They’d challenge his interpretation of tbe Bible im sure:C
I’m sure they would censor him for missinformation since his message would be detrimental to economic growth.
by the old and trusted “Screw you and your church. I’ll go make my own own but with straight people and alter boys”
Only in special circumstances of speaking “ex cathedra”
Because they know it’s all a lie?
but people are going to call them out on the bullshit. if they didn’t care about appearances they would probably show up more frequently in close proximity to childrens.
NB: The current title of the article is :
Pope suggests blessings for same-sex unions possible in response to 5 conservative cardinals
Changed the title. Long live Lemmy, it’s not perfect but at least we can do this haha
😉
Indeed, death to Reddit, long live Lemmy! 😛 It’s gotten really awesome for a decentralised volunteer run & donations based system. 👏👏👏
deleted by creator
Will be interesting to watch the discussion to this in the comments. Especially as an atheist.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It calls for a “radical inclusion” of LGBTQ+ Catholics and others who have been marginalized by the church, and for new accountability measures to check how bishops exercise their authority to prevent abuses.
The cardinals are among those who have issued such warnings, and their questions to Francis asked him to affirm Catholic doctrine lest the synod undue the church’s traditional teaching.
In particular, they asked Francis to affirm that the church cannot bless same-sex couples, and that any sexual act outside marriage between man and woman is a grave sin.
The signatories were some of Francis’ most vocal critics, all of them retired and of the more doctrinaire generation of cardinals appointed by St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI.
Brandmueller and Burke were among four signatories of a previous round of “dubia” to Francis in 2016 following his controversial opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried couples receive Communion.
The cardinals didn’t publish his reply, but they apparently found it so unsatisfactory that they reformulated their five questions, submitted them to him again and asked him to simply respond with a yes or no.
The original article contains 626 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is a bad summary. It is the meeting agenda that is calling for the radical inclusion of LGBTQ+ members, and a group of five conservative cardinals who are fighting against this inclusion.
You can just about extract this meaning from the text. Admittedly the grammar and structure of the article could use some work.
Isn’t the Pope’s word unchallengeable according to Catholic doctrine? I might be naive about this, but it seems like these cardinals could face ex-comunication for insubordination? If that doesn’t happen wouldn’t this public challenge weaken his power?
I guess maybe that is the point for these cardinals, but maybe they’re cutting off their nose to spite their faces.
The Pope is only infallible under certain conditions. That anything he declares is infallible is a misunderstanding. Not a surprising one since Catholicism is stupid and complicated and full of magical mumbo-jumbo bullshit.
The Catholic church exists to control, undermine, bully, abuse and extract money from their members.
If the pope threatens those endeavors he is very likely to find himself no longer the pope. The rules will bend to the values because the values dictate the culture. The Jesus and love parts are just for decoration.
pope infallibility is like the supreme court. The is right until another pope is says otherwise. And yes the catholic church can excommunicate them, and they have for similar issues.
deleted by creator
Because of those pesky human rights that mandate “freedom of religion” or whatever.
deleted by creator
I mean it kinda does with the whole “freedom of expression” thing it has.
I could be wrong on this, but that’s how I interperted it.
deleted by creator
No clue about the constitution, since I am not american, but it would be logical to think that the religous can rule as long as they don’t break other human rights.
This just in: Easter bunny says same sex unions can also receive blessings
Do gay people really care about being blessed by the Pope? Pedos I can imagine might have some affinity towards the Catholic church, but gays, Nah.
