Why I'm an "anti-Catholic bigot"

I "hate Catholics" for the same reason that you "hate America", if you have ever disagreed with and publicly expressed any criticism of George W. Bush or anybody in his administration, in the presence of a Conservative.

What's the difference between "Liberal" DUers being accused by Conservatives that they are "unpatriotic" and/or "traitors" for "bashing America", because they disagree with the current administration, and people who dare to criticize those who abuse their positions of authority in the Roman Catholic Church being similarly smeared by Catholic DUers who cannot distinguish themselves from the administration of their church?

Since when has "criticism" become synonymous with "hatred", "bigotry", "treason", "bashing", or "anti-whatever"? May I submit that smearing people with the latter terms, instead of calling it what it IS, i.e. "criticism" is a CONSERVATIVE tactic, and should be unworthy of Liberals !

A big part of the problem, IMHO, is confusion over terms. What IS "the Roman Catholic Church" ?
1) Is it the one and only Church that Jesus Christ instituted, meaning that it is what the Scriptures referring to as "the Mystical Body of Christ" and/or "the Bride of Christ" ?
(if so, then all the other Christian "churches" are nothing but duds.)
2) Is it only that part or Christendom that submits to the authority of the bureaucracy centered in Vatican City in Rome? (in which case, the R.C. church needs to develop a lot more humility and respect for its many peer churches.)
3) Is it a body consisting of many passive entities whose main purposes is to "pay, pray and obey" and a very small clique of active entities (mostly clergy & males) who dictate what the rest must do to be members of the church?
4) Is it a body in which the entire membership are what go to make up "the church" as "equals", and the bad actions of the hierarchy need not reflect badly on the church as a whole?

While its defenders may believe the "RC Church" to be 1) & 4), it's critics believe it to be 2) &3).

If I criticize the Catholic hierarchy more than most, is it because I "hate" Catholics, or the Catholic Church? Or is it because, as one who has been allowed into the "inner sanctum" of the R.C. priesthood, I know the Catholic Church more than any lay Catholic can EVER know it. As a member of a very large family, most of whom are still members of that church, I have lots and lots of Catholic relatives and friends. I know how great Roman Catholic lay people and clergy can be. But I also know and feel obliged to share what I have learned about the truth of Lord Acton's principles when it comes to the Roman Catholic papacy and the "Holy See": "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The reason that I criticize the papacy and the hierarchy here in the DU forums is that they are powerful forces in U S and World politics and Liberals and Liberal Catholics in particular need to understand why their church leaders tend to roar like lions when they oppose gay rights, birth control and abortion and talk about but peep like mice when they are on our side regarding the death penalty and war.

Unlike the Conservative leadership of the R C Church, in addition to strenuously opposing senseless wars, the death penalty and policies that hurt the poor, we "Liberals Like Christ" argue in favor of gay rights & women's rights http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays , http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChristianChoice & http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Feminism .
And we show why the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not entitled to its claims of moral authority on these or any other controversial issues because of its demonstrated incompetence in these areas : http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal &
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist .

If these sites were "bigotry" they would have to contain false and fictitious charges. If my critics can show that any of the material on my web site is false or erroneous, I will promptly remove it. (Proof requires more than a contrary opinion.) If, on the other hand, if it is plain historic fact, however unpleasant, is the remedy to attack "Liberals Like Christ" for exposing those facts to the light of day? Or is it to address those RESPONSIBLE for the behavior that has brought shame on the church?

during a Republican administration is probably partly because the church shifted lots of assets and is now ready to settle, but also because the Republicans don't like what the Catholic Church is about to become.

I've read that the Catholic Church is shrinking in most parts of the world, but it's growing rapidly in south and central America. The next pope will almost definitely be a latino and with that the church will probably shift its focus to supporting the increasing economic empowerment of a lot of people who are poor. Republicans aren't looking forward to that. So they're trying to undermine the church's legitimacy in anticipation of the day when it becomes a serious force for liberalism.

I think it's important for liberals to be on the good side of this inevitable conflict. That's why I support the Catholic Church.

You are not going to see any sort of renegade pope being chosen. Those who will select the Pope were put into their positions by John Paul II.

From what I have read, the African and South American contributions will move the Catholic Church toward greater "mysticism" rather than rationality and toward more CONSERVATISM in the long run.

The next pope would be African, and charismatic. Its where the church is going as a whole

Forget his name, but he is from either Guatamela or Honduras.

Stated that America fought the war in Iraq purely for economic reasons.

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you saying Catholicism is bad because it's too dogmatic, or not dogmatic enough? Would you argue mysticism would make it worse or make it better? Or are you just implying that whatever brown people do to religion will make it worse?

500 years ago the Mass was said in Latin. Period. Everywhere. And nobody but the priests knew what they were saying (hence the derivation of the magical term "hocus pocus"). Others who are more knowledgeable may correct me, but I THINK that since the Second Vatican Council, the Mass is now said in the language of the people, wherever that may be. But I'm Baptist. What do I know?

Bake

...doesnt' understand Latin. That person didn't miss a cue the entire mass and said that, no matter where in the world that person attended mass, regardless of language, it was exactly the same.

Incidentally, I read an article which said that religioun was good because it encouraged mobile work forces who felt comfortable travelling to new communities where the anxieties of being among strangers were offset by the comfort of religioun. Being able to go anywhere in the world and go into a Catholic church and feel at home allows progress by helping people travel the world taking their hard work and genius wherever it's needed and rewarded the most, which is the sentiment my friend expressed.

Incidentally, I see a lot of criticism of religion here from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

"But I'm Baptist. What do I know?" Sorry, but really not much- just as I won't pretend to understand your Church's rituals. The mass is the same everywhere. Even today when it's said in the vernacular, Catholics can go anywhere in the world and understand all but the homily. Hacing it in Latin only made it a lot easier to understand and expect what was coming when where.

And, not only that, it conflicts with the fact of the nature of Catholicism.

Catholicism has been around for centuries and, basically, the only change in the religiou is that now they do the service in English and not Latin, and that change came pretty late in the game. Go anywhere in the world today and the service is exactly the same. It's ridiculous to think that it's going to become more mystical just because it's growing in countries with brown skinned people (and, note, it's been in those countries for years already and the religioun hasn't changed).

And, more importantly, you sound like you're philosophy of the world is informed by Rudyard Kipling. Brown people are savages and irrational thinkers. Man, that's outrageous!

What I have been taught is that protestant, charismatic Christianity is exploding in South and Central America. In a few decades, Catholicism is going to be a minority faith.

before it becomes a minority religion.

Bob Jones University?

the countries where it's growing most (Africa and Latin America) have very conservative strains of Catholicism. Also, the Vatican is now full of Opus Dei types and other radical conservatives. They are NOT in favor of economic empowerment (or any kind of empowerment) of the people. They prefer a very hierarchical, patriarchal, feudalistic type of society.

Unfortunately, I don't see hope for what used to be my Church.

If its members are poor and oppressed by globalism, the church is going to do what's needed to put money in their pocket (which is, basically, ensure they get social justice). To do otherwise -- to be more concerned about pushing a conservatism that doesn't serve their members -- will doom the religion to failure, which is fine, if that's what they're going to do. However, there are just too many smart people.... It will be more like the Catholicism of Bishop Romero and less like the anti-communism of the current Pope.

expresses HATRED for anything.
I thought that was anti-thetical to his message.

My statement "I hate Catholics" isn't a quotation from MY mouth. It's a quote of a CHARGE against me. Please read the original post before responding to it.

is it because I hate catholics or the catholic church? Perhaps in misinterpreted your meaning. I do note that you claim they spoke like peep mice opposing war. That certainly wasn't my take on the Pope's statements about the Iraq war but you obviously reached that conclusion.

There is great collusion between many major churches and politics world wide...why do you think missionaries are targetted for kidnapping in countries where there is strife? ( As in the Baptist missionaries kidnapped in Columbia and the Phillipines) It certainly isn't because terrorists want to win the hearts and minds of the downtrodden by interrupting their "good works."

The Catholic church does have its problems and deceptions.

Catholics are dealing with it and calling for greater accountability.

Either way, I do read your posts as invoking animosity rather than helping Catholics to heal any perceived slights.

Catholics, he was making a point about how any criticism at all of Catholics is being labeled "anti-Catholic bigotry" instead of being dealt with and addressed, just like the repukes smear all those who are against the war or who criticize Bush as "unpatriotic" and "anti-American", and say that they then must "hate America." He was also saying that to smear those who express any criticism at all of a group as "anti-whatever bigots" who "hate _______" is a repuke conservative tactic unworthy of liberals and DUers.

Thanks LiberalHistorian for setting the record straight and so clearly.

n/t

There are other churches with nasty conservative elements. What about the nasty people in the episcopalians that spread the awful rumors about thet gay bishops. Many mainstream protestant churches still don't ordain women.

Your premise is just plain wrong "Why is the focus exclusively on Catholics?" It isn't. Most of the "Liberals Like Christ" web site is about Fundamentalism. But in case you hadn't noticed, fundamentalists are criticized PLENTY here at DU, and when I feel I need to contribute to that criticism, I do. But the Catholic Church deserves special attention in my view because
1) It is the most powerful single church in American and throughout the world, in large part because of its centralization and its having a single spokesman.
2) Unlike many other churches, it likes to push its weight around and to tell NON-CATHOLICS what they can and cannot do, what the civil laws should require OF NON-CATHOLICS AS WELL AS Catholics.

For example, my own United Methodist Church has Conservative policies regarding gay ordination and marriage of its own members (with which I happen to disaggree, but have tried in vain to change). But our church has the good sense to advocate for the rights of gay Americans to have all the benefits of CIVIL MARRIAGE, the very opposite of the Catholic Church position.

but then that goes against your generalization that the Catholics are the only church that throws there weight around, and tries to tell noncatholics what to do. The Southern Baptists look pretty bad in this reguard actually.

What I said was "Unlike many other churches, it(the RC Church) likes to push its weight around and to tell NON-CATHOLICS what they can and cannot do, what the civil laws should require OF NON-CATHOLICS AS WELL AS Catholics."

Maybe I should have said "Unlike the more Liberal churches" instead of "many other" which is still technically accurate.

It is constructive criticism. I like that you are trying to get Evangelicals to think about the Liberalism of Christ.

For example, my own United Methodist Church has Conservative policies regarding gay ordination and marriage of its own members (with which I happen to disaggree, but have tried in vain to change).

Oh this is a thigh-slapper!! You mean the heirarchy of your religion holds views and perpetuates doctrine you disagree with???? How can you stay in such an organization?!?!?!? Bwaahahaahaaaahaa!!!!!!!! Just the same piece of feces you throw at Catholics! Poor, blind hypocrite.

Oh! Hold the phone!!!

But

Did you know that the word "but" negates all that came before it? haha

our church has the good sense to advocate for the rights of gay Americans to have all the benefits of CIVIL MARRIAGE, the very opposite of the Catholic Church position.

Nice play on words. Civil marriage??? lol <snort> There's no such thing. And here I thank you for so clearly demonstrating a point I have made repeatedly about you and your agenda. My church (god?) is better than your church (god?).

It's nonsense like yours that makes me so glad I saw the light and got out of religion period. The Falwells and Friends are not the most dangerous kind of Christian out there. You and your ilk are. Coming in under the guise of "Christian love". hahaha!! Hate-mongering is more like it.

I cannot believe DU lets you get away with this crap.

Julie

I don't know what your problem is, Julie, unless it's some unresolved fear of going to hell if you don't defend the church of your youth.

You have a habit to telling people what THEY believe, and when you say you're an atheist and then talk as though you know everything theere is to know about every religion, I wonder if you think there is no OTHER God but yourself. (You said for example that all religions believe like that Catholic Church that they are the one and only true church. As a U.M.C. clergyman that comes as news to me. Unlike you, I haven't got a clue about the beliefs of even the hundreds of other Protestant Churches and didn't even know my church had that view. I thought we United Methodists (outside of the Bible belt at least) had a very Liberal and humble respect for other religions, even the Non-Christian ones.
=====================================
Who says you have to get out of imperfect institutions? Not ME. I don't recall EVER telling Catholics that they should LEAVE the Catholic Church because of its failings. I do think, however, that anyone who stays in a corrupt institution (as we American Liberals are all doing NOW) should only do so while OBJECTING to the corruption and doing their best to clean it up.

Your answer is so often a cheap shot or insult, like "Ray is a defrocked priest" rather than dealing with content. Actually, I rather like your posts, because they make me look that much better than my opposition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

furthers the cause of the right wing.

Check out the history of his posts at DU. Gotta go... Love chatting with you but not in this thread.

mean that is not also his agenda. If you look at his website it very clearly is his agenda.

You have expressed some criticisms that the Catholic religion is not very egalitarian or democratic. My question:

How do these perceived faults make you feel about the Catholic people?

Do the faults of the Catholic religion make you feel an intense hostility and aversion towards all or most Catholic people?

The tone of your postings really makes me wonder whether hostility and aversion is indeed lurking in your heart. :shrug:

How is anybody supposed to respond to
"The tone of your postings really makes me wonder whether hostility and aversion is indeed lurking in your heart. :shrug:"?

I literally have hundreds of Catholic cousins and other close family members and have far more love for "Catholic people" than most American non-Catholics who may have a few dozen Catholic acquaintances.

What's so difficult to understand about the distinction between "Catholic people" (who are virtual nobodies when it comes to the policies advocated by their church) and the "administration", i.e. the hierarchy headed by their absolute monarch the pope????

My comment "The tone of your postings really makes me wonder whether hostility and aversion is indeed lurking in your heart." was not the question. That assertion was something I was telling you, not asking you.

The question for you was:

"Do the faults of the Catholic religion make you feel an intense hostility and aversion towards all or most Catholic people?"

To help you answer my specific question, please understand that I am not talking about Catholic family members of yours or long-standing friends -- your feeling toward these people would be understandably biased by family ties and friendship.

The answer to your question, calm_blue_ocean, is "NO".

Now please answer my question about your post "The tone of your postings really makes me wonder whether hostility and aversion is indeed lurking in your heart."

If there is something so compelling about my posts that forces you to feel such sinister emotions about me, then surely you can produce the evidence from my posts, which we can then discuss intelligently.

Else logic might compel the rational person to conclude that there may be something compulsive about your own personality that is responsible for such feelings welling up from the depths of your soul for no objective reason.

Is there a psychiatrist in the house???

If I understand your question, you want to know what it is in your tone that initially aroused my suspicion. It was things like needless underlining, needless CAPS, needless bold text, emotionally charged language (eg, "absolute corruption") and ad hominem attack (eg, "is there a psychiatrist in the house?").

Regardless of your tone, I strongly prefer to base my ultimate judgements on direct answers, rather than trying to read into a writer's tone.

I am glad that you have now taken a clear position on whether you hate Catholics and I am glad that your position is one of not hating.

I'm not answering Tinoire directly, as she has stated that she doesn't read what I say which explains why she make such insulting and baseless comments as

"There is no content in your posts."
"They're as laughable as Jack Chick comics."
and
"I shall no longer be stooping to the level it takes to feed the existence of a defrocked priest with an agenda that only furthers right-wing aims."

I have confidence that DUer's (other than her brother here at DU who shares at least some of her sentiments) know the falsehood of the first two statements.

As for the third, Tinoire keeps asserting that I am a "defrocked priest", when the truth is that I am proud to be an EX Catholic priest and I left the priesthood on my own terms when I discovered how wrong the Catholic Church was on so many sexual issues.

I've placed a sermon which I preached in several Catholic churches the year in which I made my decision on my web site. That was a most unusual sermon addressed on behalf of the people in the pews to the Pope and Bishops of the church : http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/rcsermon.html. When I mailed that sermon to the popes ambassador to the U.S. and to every Catholic bishop in America, I fully expected to be "defrocked". I was shocked to learn that the hierarchy didn't care enough about the issues I was raising to respond either to me directly or to my superiors. So I left on my own and on such good terms with my immediate superiors that when I was appointed to my first United Methodist parish, they came to the open house when invited to meet my wife and family and give me their blessing.

Until early this year, the last of these living superiors was the spiritual director at the National Catholic Shrine in D.C., but when I challenged Catholic critics like Tinoire to write to him, they wouldn't accept the challenge.

that you didn't believe in "turn the other cheek." Why should I listen to your rantings about the Catholic heirarchy, then?

Read this

http://www.pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=959

Is this the LAST WORD for you?

So when the media in this protestant country attacks the church, that's considered unbias. But a catholic paper is too bias to be trusted.

Please. Most of the change in the church has been caused by pressure coming from congregations. The opinions of those outside the church have never and will never mean anything to the Vatican.

Distinctions fly HIGH above the head of the illierati pushing their agenda and purposefully mixng fact and fiction. Gee, what a surprise!! But you are wasting your breath- easier to turn the other cheek my friend amd let the "good reverend' spew his filth as the ignore lists get fatter and fatter.
_______________

Responding to news reports, Donohue said that “the document did not apply to sexual misconduct — it applied only to sexual solicitation. Second, the only venue the document addressed was the confessional. … Third, because the policy was specifically aimed at protecting the secrecy of the confessional, it called for an ecclesiastical response: civil authorities were not to be notified because it involved a sacrament of the Catholic Church, not a crime of the state. Fourth, if a priest were found guilty, he could be thrown out of the priesthood.”

The 1962 document dealt with the procedures to be followed when a priest was accused of soliciting sex in the confessional.

The document concerned violation of church law, not criminal law. It was meant to outline the procedures to be used for those accused of violating church law as spelled out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

<snip>

http://www.pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=959

1- You spin facts far to often for me to believe you simply have problems with the church. You claim Hitler was a Catholic which is as honest as saying Reagan was a democrat, it's purposely misleading.

2- You take cheap shots such as stating "who is the patron saint of pedophilia". Not something a man of God interested in promoting the integrity of his own church would do.

3- You refuse to argue any point, you only point fingers. I have asked you many questions in response to your attacks on a the stance of the Catholic Church. Such as how do you justify your support for 'safe sex' when we all know most uses of contraception are for sex out of wedlock hoping to avoid pregnancy. While I support it's use I don't understand how a church can. Same with homosexuality, I think the church's view on legal recognition of gay marriage is wrong but I don't question their right to state it. You have failed to answer how you stand on the subject and how you justify it with your faith.

Basically I don't believe for a second that you are any sort of 'Rev' as you never once make a biblical argument in your defense. You only attack and judge others. You show up and increase tentions in threads meant to unite us. Your actions show hypocrisy not morality.

Blue_Chill,
By listing MANY false charges against me, you hope that some of them will stick, and that will work for those who WANT to believe them, but not for honest people interested in THE TRUTH:

You claim:
"1- You spin facts far to often for me to believe you simply have problems with the church. You claim Hitler was a Catholic which is as honest as saying Reagan was a democrat, it's purposely misleading.

2- You take cheap shots such as stating "who is the patron saint of pedophilia". Not something a man of God interested in promoting the integrity of his own church would do.

3- You refuse to argue any point, you only point fingers."

Well I'll answer all three of these charges. First it's "utter nonsense that I refuse to argue any point". Being outnumbered overwhelmingly by Catholics I can't answer ALL of them, but I answer plenty of them. And I'll answer TWO of YOUR points in the next two posts.

BTW - #3 was very specific and you will fail once again to answer the questions. I am asking how you justify your stances on specific issues with your faith. Not how you as a person feel about them.

I will dance in the street when the ^%$()(*%#@@!$%
Catholic Church goes down.

Only true church of God indeed! Any church that makes this kind of claim should be immediately suspect!

I'm for spirituality and a more or less common set of ethical standards (which I have found among intelligent people of many faiths), not religion - which has and will continue to separate people.

As with Bush, churches, including the RCC, are dividers, not uniters!

look at your supporters! Look how you inspire those that despise religions!

Congrats, you must be proud.

Others are evil, I am good.
Follow me.
Same mantra, different messenger.
So, Rev? What sins have you committed?
I bet there are a few planks in your eyes.

In response to your post # 36, Blue_Chill, where you claim that I don't answer the arguments made against my positions and where you again deny that Hitler was a Catholic, here is the proof that Hitler was a Roman Catholic throughout his life (maybe not one YOU would be proud of NOW, but one who was never repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church when it would have mattered:)
The following is from my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/HitleraCatholic.html page:
Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy

Every time Christian soldiers put their NAZI
uniforms on, they were repeatedly told that
"God is with us".
In George Orwell's 1984, it was stated, "Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past." Who is going to control the present-fundamentalism or freedom? History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolf Hitler was one.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church.
Its worst doctrines never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words "perfidious jew." This hateful statement was not removed until 1961. "Perfidy" means treachery. In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by two major religions of Germany, Catholicism and Lutheranism.
He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he called the Jews in his book Table Talk.
Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938. Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him. Great literature was banned by his church, but his miserable Mein Kampf never appeared on the index of Forbidden Books. He was not excommunicated or even condemned by his church. Popes, in fact, contracted with Hitler and his fascist friends Franco and Mussolini, giving them veto power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain, and Italy. The three thugs agreed to surtax the Catholics of these countries and send the money to Rome in exchange for making sure the state could control the church.
Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and microphones. Acclaimed Hitler biographer John Toland explains his heartlessness as follows: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite the detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jews was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god . . . "
Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Hitler, like some of the today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it.
The author is a retired attorney in Colorado Springs who writes a weekly column for an alternative newspaper. { from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 2 }
And here is a translation of part of a speech that Adolf Hitler gave in April, 1922. It was then published in "My New Order" :
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."


I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work.
Adolf Hitler, Reichstag Speech, 1936]

One of the most frightening quote from one of Hitler's Tischgespräche:
"If there is a God, then he gives us not only life but also consciousness and awareness. If I live my life according to my God-given insights, then I cannot go wrong, and even if I do, I know I have acted in good faith."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"While we destroyed the (Catholic) Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions."
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934
{ Although Hitler took credit for destroying the Catholic Centre Party, the way he killed this party which might have preventing his taking over Germany, was to persuade the future Pius XII to destroy the party for Hitler.}
"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie. "
Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted in John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" )

"Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church."
-Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

"I believe in Providence and I believe Providence to be just. Therefore I believe that Providence always rewards the strong, the industrious, and the upright."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech to National Socialist women at the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1936 <11 Sept. 1936>

"We National Socialists, too, have deep in our hearts our own faith. We cannot do otherwise. No man can mould the history of peoples or of the world unless he has upon his will and his capacities the blessing of Providence."
Adolf Hitler, to Nazi leaders on 2 June 1937, as reported by a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph"

"In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty.... If Providence had not guided us I could often never have found these dizzy paths.... Thus it is that we National Socialists, too, have in the depths of our hearts our faith. We cannot do otherwise: no man can fashion world-history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence. "
Adolf Hitler, in a speech at Wurzburg on 27 June 1937

" Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views (Einstellung), nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted....
2. The Churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the State... Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favoured in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, &c., it enjoys immunity from taxation.
It is therefore, to put mildly-- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich....
I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?
3. The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion....
There are ten thousands and ten thousands of priests of all the Christian Confessions who perform their ecclesiastical duties just as well as or probably better than the political agitators without ever coming into conflict with the laws of the State....
But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy. "
Adolf Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939


"If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbour, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work."
Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the "Old Guard" at Munich on 24 Feb. 1939

to say and do anything to attain and justify that power? and how, anyway, does hitler's association with the catholic church do anything to bring christians together, or act for justice? no reasonable person can say that hitler was a catholic in anything but name and for any reason but political expedience. by the same token, i know very few catholics with a high opinion of hitler's pope.

" are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."
~ Pius in an address at Lourdes in April 1935, before he was elected pope

Also of interest - the conference of German bishops excommunicated all Nazis in 1930, and in the 1932 elections forbade Catholics to vote for a Nazi. By being the leader of the Nazi party, Hitler had already put himself outside of the Church.

Now let's let Hitler Speak for himself........

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," -- Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," -- Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things
~ Hitler Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.
~Hitler 10th October, 1941

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.
~Hitler 14th October, 1941

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
~Hitler 19th October, 1941

Like I said in another post Rev, you spin facts in an effort to attack the church.

You constantly accuse me of refusing to answer your arguments. What have you said about MY post? Nothing. You've just posted other quotes.

What I quoted was what Hitler said FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. What you quote is for the most part what he said in the inner circle of his friends.
What PROOF do you have for your claims " the conference of German bishops excommunicated all Nazis in 1930, and in the 1932 elections forbade Catholics to vote for a Nazi. By being the leader of the Nazi party, Hitler had already put himself outside of the Church."

The book "Hilter's Pope" documents the fact that the future Pius XII acceded to Hitler's request that he dismantle the Catholic Center Party, which was larger than the Nazi's at the time and could have stopped Hitler if it joined with the leading party (name escapes me).

Here's proof that the Catholic Bishops DIDN'T treat "all NAZI's as excommunicated:

from the N.Y. Times:

Sept. 25, 1939 (page 6)
German Soldiers Rallied
by Churches
---------------------------------------------------
Protestant and Catholic (churches)
Exhort to Reich Victory and Just Peace
----------------------------------------------------
Wireless to the New York Times.
Frankfurt-on-the-Main, Germany, Sept.24. Periodicals of the German Protestant and Catholic churches are now publishing many exhortative articles explaining the duties of soldiers fighting in the defense of their country and admonish in the German soldiers to fight in the spirit of St. Michael for a German victory and adjust peace.
The archangel is shown, brandishing a battle sword and piercing a dragon with a holy lance, on the front page of Catholic papers.
In the Western and Southern German Catholic dioceses, the clergy headed by the Archbishop and bishops, are actively engaged in work for the welfare of refugees evacuated from the western frontier districts. Many cloisters have been transformed into hospitals and the monks and nuns are working under the direction of the Red Cross.
The Catholic bishops of Germany have issued a pastoral letter stating:
"In this decisive hour we admonish our Catholic soldiers to do their duty in obedience to the Fuëhrer and be ready to sacrifice their whole individuality.
"We appeal to the faithful to join an ardent prayers that the divine Providence of God Almighty may lead this war to blessed success and peace for our fatherland and nation."
Each Bishop in addition has issued a special message to his own diocese, including the Bishop of Ruertemberg, who was expelled from his diocese last year for refusing to vote in a National Socialist election.
Cardinal Archbishop Burtram, head of the German Episcopal congregation, has similarly issued a patriotic message to his flock urging that all "be strong in your heart, all you who confide in God all mighty."

You stated Hitler was a Catholic, I allowed Hitler to speak for himself. Face it, you lose.

More quotes for you.

Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty"
~Ablert Einstein (Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, pg 251)

"The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to ... 860,000."
~Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide (Pinchas E. Lapide, 'Three Popes and the Jews', pp 227-228)

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community--however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things--whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds." (Section 8)
"Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world: he denies his faith in the true Christ" (Section 16)
(On the Church and the German Reich, by Pope Pius XI, March 1937).

Brilliantly argued and well to the point...
I, too, have been critical of, well faith-based systems in general, and the catholic church in particular...and well, like any 'lefty' you come up with this arg, that historical fact, this reasoning and still it's a situation where your being accused of 'burning' catholics in the 18th century or being a 'bigot' (I presume being a Protestant...which I am NOT)
I can think of no other human institution with so much blood on its hands that has survived so long with a 'prolonged' and vigourous 'criticism'

Maybe that should be a thread...
The Most reviled human recognized institutions?
1) Nazism
2) Catholicism
3) 'human' chattel
4) arms industry
5) etc etc

Damn it, Ray! You sure do know how to stir up a fuss!

I think I understand you a little bit better by now. Seems to me you're trying to be what Ross Perot called that "irritating piece of sand in the oyster shell that winds up producing the pearl."

There is no question whatsoever that the wholesale Catholic ass-kissing of the Vatican is not only sad, it is profoundly wrong--even sinful. God gave human beings brains to think with. He/She did not give us knees so we can worship dried-up, octegenarian, semi-celibate, sheltered, inbred, isolated, old fools living in an estate in the middle of Rome. Those guys are a bunch of right wing old codgers who have misruled the Catholic Church for centuries.

I have to laugh when I read posts on this forum from Catholics who are hoping the Church will become more liberal with the next Pope! Oh, PLEASE! Have you learned nothing from the Papal history of the past few centuries? The chance of a liberal surviving in the Catholic Club of Rome is smaller than the chance of Ken Lay passing through the eye of a needle. The Vatican is an absolute hot bed of rigid right wing radicalism.

Much of what is wrong with it was done many years ago but still has an impact on Catholics all over the world today. Historically, the Papacy perpetrated an unforgivable, ongoing hoax upon all of Catholicism with it's proclamation of Papal "Infallibility" in 1859. Can you imagine that! Nearly two thousand years after Christ, this tightly knit, bunch of old curmudgeons declares that their elected Pontiff is the one and only Voice Of God On Earth! Then this old fool with the pointy hat inspires an era of Jew-baiting and pograms and ultimately human extermination without so much as a whimper of public objection. Does any Catholic in his or her right mind believe this is what God wanted?

But where are the Catholics who dare to speak up and say this claim of Papal Infallibility is preposterous!? Where are they? They do not exist. Catholics are wholly and completely cowed into silent obedience. They are sheep, governed by a pack of wolves.

Christ Himself would scream bloody murder at these continuing Papal travesties, just as He railed against those misusing the temple.

So JP did one good thing recently. He spoke out against the war. Bravo! I salute him for standing up for a Christian, liberal principal for once in his 30 year reign.

But then, shortly thereafter, what do we hear? A Papal Proclamation ORDERING American politicians to support conservative Papal positions in their roles as elected US public officials! UNDER PAINS OF EXCOMMUNICATION! Can you believe it!!! It's the very thing JFK assured America would never happen--the Pope telling elected Catholic public officials what to do! And this order is still in effect! Where is the outrage! Damn it! Where the hell are the Catholics to protest this incredible proclamation?!

Soon thereafter, the boys in Rome followed with their current assault on "Gay Marriage"--as if that were the issue (it's not; Gay Civil Unions are the issue). Clearly this was and is part and parcel of an effort coordinated with the American right wing which launched a similar, near simultaneous campaign.

Listen, I grew up a Catholic, went to a Catholic college, am keenly interested in church developments, and am part of a large Catholic family network. There is nothing wrong with believing in Jesus and the things Jesus taught. There is nothing wrong with going to church and Confession and Communion. There is nothing wrong in helping the poor, God knows. But there is something terribly wrong with blindly accepting proclamations from the Vatican when they are so clearly wrong headed and reactionary and anti-Christian.

It's long past time for Catholics to wake up and begin to challenge this group of horses asses in the Vatican. What the hell is it going to take? How much evidence do Catholics need that the Papacy is in the hands of an ultra-conservative cabal? Do you think for a minute this is what Christ had in mind?

with this post and it makes me pity you.

This boys and girls is the picture of an ancient art. That art is to criticize the former in favor of the new in order to legitimize the new (often in the mind of the follower of the new).

How sad Rev. to see you stoop to this. "Stoop to this????" you say? Yes, you fool me not. This is not a post about being a wrongly accuse Catholic hater. No, your deception is clear to me when I read this:

A big part of the problem, IMHO, is confusion over terms. What IS "the Roman Catholic Church" ?
1) Is it the one and only Church that Jesus Christ instituted, meaning that it is what the Scriptures referring to as "the Mystical Body of Christ" and/or "the Bride of Christ" ?
(if so, then all the other Christian "churches" are nothing but duds.)

Ooooh, ouch! Freuedian slip showing here. All your life you musta been told this. You leave. Now you must undo all those years of this teaching. Besides, show me a faith that doesn't think it is the one true faith. Legitimacy in one's own mind can be painfully elusive, no?

2) Is it only that part or Christendom that submits to the authority of the bureaucracy centered in Vatican City in Rome? (in which case, the R.C. church needs to develop a lot more humility and respect for its many peer churches.)

To me this screams "I am somebody!! I am NOT on the outside looking in!! Take that RCC!" Sad indeed Rev.

3) Is it a body consisting of many passive entities whose main purposes is to "pay, pray and obey" and a very small clique of active entities (mostly clergy & males) who dictate what the rest must do to be members of the church?

Ok, you have gripes with the whole set-up, fine. Why do you feel the need to bring it here and beat run-of-the-mill Catholics with it? Does it give you some sort of satisfaction to carry out your vendetta on a religion here on a political board? Do you feel your posts discussing doctrine/dogma here is in any way going to help the Dem party win the Christian vote?

4) Is it a body in which the entire membership are what go to make up "the church" as "equals", and the bad actions of the hierarchy need not reflect badly on the church as a whole?

What you write about here is applicable to every religion on earth.

What you gripe about is closely copied by Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses just to name two sects of Christianity. When can we look forward to your attacks, er, discussion of those?

What a sad little man you are. Regardless, I hope you one day find the peace you are so obviously seeking.

Julie--who thinks believers criticizing the faith of other believers is laughable

You ask: "Since when has "criticism" become synonymous with "hatred", "bigotry", "treason", "bashing", or "anti-whatever"? May I submit that smearing people with the latter terms, instead of calling it what it IS, i.e. "criticism" is a CONSERVATIVE tactic, and should be unworthy of Liberals !"


Ray, the things you say about the Roman Catholic Church go far beyond criticism. Here is a dictionary definition of the verb "criticize" and what you do only meets definition 2 -- you find fault with the Church and point out the faults of the Church. Your posts (and the material on your website) are not concerned with evaluating the Church by considering the meris and demerits of the Church and judging accordingly, and thus do not meet Definition 1.

Main Entry: crit·i·cize

transitive senses
1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE
2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of

Many of us at DU (some Catholic, some Protestant, some agnostic or atheist) find that "bash" is a more accurate description of what your posts do than "criticize" is.

Below is a dictionary definition of the verb "bash." Definition 1 refers to a physical act of striking, which is not applicable. Definition 2 describes what you do in your posts "attack verbally." You go beyond criticizing to attacking or bashing.

Main Entry: 1bash

transitive senses
1 : to strike violently : HIT; also : to injure or damage by striking : SMASH -- often used with in
2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>


You don't post these threads to evaluate the Church but only to talk about its faults and to attack. You attack the hierarchy, including various popes, reporting only what *you* see as "wrong." You attack Catholic beliefs, doctrines, and teachings, claiming that they are "wrong" because *you* disagree with them. You attack Catholic laity for defending their faith. You accuse us of not wanting to face the truth, wanting to protect the evil hierarchy, and so forth.

That's bashing, not criticism, and certainly not honest debate or discussion. You insist that what *you* say is right and what millions of Catholics believe is wrong, and then are aggrieved when we speak up in our own defense. In this post you suggest that we're incapable of distinguishing ourselves from the hierarchy, which implies that we're not too bright.

It seems to me that you lost your faith and are now engaged in a crusade to destroy the faith of others. And that brings me to the last of three definitions:


Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

As you see, a single definition is given for the word "bigot" -- a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Despite all your talk of liberalism, you *are* a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices, and therefore you are a bigot. You exhibit bigotry towards Catholics, fundamentalists, and Republicans.

As Christians, though, we are supposed to obey the two great commandments that Christ gave, the second of them being "to love our neighbors as we love ourselves". I've never seen any translation of the Bible that adds "unless they're Catholic, fundamentalist, or Republican."

In the Lord's Prayer, we say "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who have trespassed against us" and Jesus said we are to forgive "seventy times seven." He didn't say "unless they're Republicans, fundamentalists, or Catholics."

Thus we're back to the substance of our first conversation at DU, namely, that I believe that your stated goals (convincing Christians to be liberal and vote Democratic and convincing liberals and Democrats to be Christian) are not well-served by your site. Some of your site is good, the problem areas are the pages where you are neither loving your neighbors nor forgiving them their trespasses. If you could learn to see and talk about the good as well as the bad in the Catholic Church, the fundamentalist churches, and the Republican Party, I believe your online ministry would be much more effective.

Peace be with you.

When words have several definitions, you need to CHOOSE the most appropriate definition given, not apply ALL of them.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary , for example, reports:
"38 entries found for bar."
The first 3 are listed below.
1 a : a straight piece (as of wood or metal) that is longer than it is wide...
2 : something that obstructs or prevents passage, progress, or action...
3 a (1) : the railing in a courtroom that encloses the place about the judge where prisoners are stationed or where the business of the court is transacted in civil cases.

As for the definition of "bigot",
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
bigot noun reports: "a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong"

just change "person" to "institution" and it sounds like a definition of the Roman Catholic Church!

Yet another irresponsible and malevolent use of "free speech" to promote a personal agenda not necessarily in keeping with Democratic or progressive goals and principles.

Otherwise known as stirring shit.

Here are some useful definitions for Political Discussions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=191873

P.S. Please take particular note of "liberal", "bigot", "tolerance", "respect", "courteous, and "polite"

I've several times alerted and complained about how sad it is that ONE poster who only has ONE agenda on this board is allowed to spew like this,

I know, I know. "Tinoire, please check your in-box" probably coming. "This is Free-speech DU" but no, this is NOT free speech. This is hate speech. Only when Jews for Jesus show up will people understand this. I hope it won't be too late by then.

I'm weary of deliberate flame bait too. No "free speech" argument from me. I think that's an argument made irresponsibly when used as a weapon to deliberately provoke animosity and consternation for those with an honest disagreement. Just isn't necessary.

Pots need to be stirred regularly...brings all the hidden stuff to the surface.

:D

advertisements for your church(see the constant linking to your church)but wouldn't this be better placed in a religion forum and not in a political forum?

Y'know, if ya stir up a little fuss here...and a little there...sooner or later some jerk judge will move a 5000 pound monument into a courthouse to save all our souls.

Perhaps a corner downtown.

Haven't you ever heard one of those raving preachers, testifying on & on & on, for who knows what? A bit scary but usually harmless.

Generally, I just keep reading my paperback & hoping my bus is not late.

Bash other faiths so you look good.
Funny how you fail to state the Catholic Church really looks down on this behavior, because it states that one should respect all religions, because they all come from God.


You are a fraud, Rev. Holy man, no way. Jerry Falwell wannabee, you betcha! As Rummy would say.

Democratic Sen. Daschel has been warned by his Bishop to stop supporting Liberal causes like a woman's right to choose, or to stop calling himself a Catholic.

The Cardinal of New York authorized the distribution of the Christian Coalitions "Voter Guides" in 1993.

The Vatican is again telling Catholic politicians not to support Liberal causes like abortion & gay rights, OR ELSE.

YOU DON'T THINK THIS IS AMERICAN POLITICS !

Lib_Rev sounds a lot more convincing (not to mention a lot less hysterical) than his detractors who seem to be doing a lot of projecting (not to mention attacking)...

in any case...

"The earth has people of two kinds, the ones who think, have no religion, the others do, and have no minds." - the 11th-century Syrian-born poet, Abu al-Ala al-Maarri...

When discussing topics of a religious nature, I think we can be a little more sensitive, and a little less inflammatory.

Skinner
DU Admin