Pesky Tories.

[Parklife]

 

It is not archaic to respect human life

He respects human life, except when it comes to bombing brown muslims, then he's all fucking for ending it.

[craegDAMH]

 

1) Women have a "right to choose". This is false, the law as it stands grants no such right. What kind of beastly society would legislate to allow women a choice of killing their own children? The law permits abortion when a woman's life is at risk, in what were thought to be very rare circumstances. It wasn't introduced as retrospective contraception, which represents the vast majority of abortions.

 

 

 

This just isn't true. Why do you insist on posting lies and just hoping no-one notices or checks?

[Old manny]

 

Rees-Mogg is not a bigot. His views are fact based and wholly reasonable.

 

When people start name-calling, its because they have no arguments to respond with. If they have no arguments, its because the other party is in the right.

If you had half a brain you would be a mere idiot. If Rees-Mogg was the paragon of virtue that you suggest then he could surely live up to his convictions by trying to change the law on abortion through introducing a private members bill in the House of Commons. Of course he is well aware that it would be kicked out without a second reading. It is obvious that the fool has ambitions to lead the Tory party and by putting it out there that his personal views on abortion will not be compromised he hopes that his fellow MPs will see him as a man of principle and vote for him. Oldest trick in the book.

[manboobs109]

 

This just isn't true. Why do you insist on posting lies and just hoping no-one notices or checks?

Is it not only allowed if it's a risk to the mother's health?

[craegDAMH]

Is it not only allowed if it's a risk to the mother's health?

 

• Risk of injury to the physical or mental health of pregnant women or any existing children or her family
• To prevent permanent physical or mental injury to the pregnant woman
• Risk to the life of the pregnant woman
• Risk of the child being born with sever physical or mental disabilities

 

It's a broad as fuck law, rightly, to make sure decisions are made by medical professionals.

[manboobs109]

It's just given on demand though. I'd imagine the 'mental health' angle is exploited. It's a cruel business.

[craegDAMH]

What a poverty of both intellectualism and principle there is in secular thought. I often wonder what people of the WW2 generation would think, if they could come back and see how Nazi ideas / eugenics have ultimately triumphed in society, despite the sacrifice of their youth to prevent this.

 

Is that the same nazis that were supported by the catholic church...?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

 

Also, you should make your mind up. Is it people lacking morality and responsibility for themselves or is it eugenics? Can't be both.

[robbojunior]

 

Why do you think the minority dissenting views, which are fully in line with what we know from science, are "not thinking for themselves".

 

Surely people who glibly hold the majority views without thought, views which are based on bullshit, are the ones not thinking?

 

In fact there is no such thing as "free thought" - there are only facts which bind us all.

 

At atmospheric pressure, water boils at 100 deg C. That's a fact. No amount of "free thought" will change it.

 

The Catholic Church didnt invent the truth, it just professes it. Anyone can do so, if they have the will.

 

There are no articles of faith in morality, which is based on universal reason.

 

Well done you've just disproved your own point. This statement is nonsense. There are lots of conditions under which water does not boil at 100 dec C at atmospheric pressure.

 

The beauty of science, as opposed to the idiocy of religion, is that it is able to be refined as new information is obtained.

Religion is fixed mindset, inflexible and therefore fucking stupid.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Is that the same nazis that were supported by the catholic church...?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

 

 

No, the Nazis were not supported by the Catholic Church.

 

Your link clearly shows that the concordat was signed by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII, on behalf of Pope Pius XI and Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen on behalf of President Paul von Hindenburg and the German government.

 

The agreement was made with President Hindenburg's Government, not Adolf Hitlers later dictatorship.

 

That's an embarrassing one, even by your own standards.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

This statement is nonsense.

It is not nonsense to state that water boils at 100 C, at atmospheric pressure. it is a basic fact.

 

I am of course referring to pure water, at 1 atm (1.013 bara). I would have thought that was obvious.

 

Yer clutching at straws, as usual!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

It's just given on demand though. I'd imagine the 'mental health' angle is exploited. It's a cruel business.

 

Exactly.

 

"But doctor, Its bad for my mental health to take responsibility for my own actions"

[craegDAMH]

 

No, the Nazis were not supported by the Catholic Church.

 

Your link clearly shows that the concordat was signed by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII, on behalf of Pope Pius XI and Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen on behalf of President Paul von Hindenburg and the German government.

 

The agreement was made with President Hindenburg's Government, not Adolf Hitlers later dictatorship.

 

That's an embarrassing one, even by your own standards.

 

Not embarrassing, just factually accurate. You again, either through ignorance or malice, have taken a snippet of something, told a lie and expect people not to check.

 

You don't seem to understand the political system in pre-war Germany. President Hindenburg's government was Hitler's Dictatorship. Hindenburg was President and Hitler was Chancellor.

 

The Catholic Church signed it's treaty in September 1933, after Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 and after the Enabling Act of March 1933 which saw powers taken away from the parliament and given to the cabinet (ie. Hitler)

 

The Catholic Church signed a treaty with Hitler's government 6 months AFTER Hitler's government had stolen dictatorial powers from the German Parliament and 2 months AFTER the Nazi party had outlawed ALL OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES IN GERMANY.

 

How embarrassing.....

[robbojunior]

It is not nonsense to state that water boils at 100 C, at atmospheric pressure. it is a basic fact.

 

I am of course referring to pure water, at 1 atm (1.013 bara). I would have thought that was obvious.

 

Yer clutching at straws, as usual!

Still not a fact. Do your research. I can give you examples of pure water at 1 atm not boiling at 100 degrees C.

 

No such thing as absolute Truth

[Clydeside_Sheep]

He respects human life, except when it comes to bombing brown muslims, then he's all fucking for ending it.

 

Who is? Me? If so, that's news to me!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Not embarrassing, just factually accurate. You again, either through ignorance or malice, have taken a snippet of something, told a lie and expect people not to check.

 

You don't seem to understand the political system in pre-war Germany. President Hindenburg's government was Hitler's Dictatorship. Hindenburg was President and Hitler was Chancellor.

 

The Catholic Church signed it's treaty in September 1933, after Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 and after the Enabling Act of March 1933 which saw powers taken away from the parliament and given to the cabinet (ie. Hitler)

 

The Catholic Church signed a treaty with Hitler's government 6 months AFTER Hitler's government had stolen dictatorial powers from the German Parliament and 2 months AFTER the Nazi party had outlawed ALL OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES IN GERMANY.

 

How embarrassing.....

 

Waffle as usual.

 

The pact was signed by Germany on behalf of President Hindenberg - a fact - not on behalf of Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party. Hindenberg was not a member of the Nazi party and only reluctantly accepted Hitler as his chancellor.

 

The deplorable state of Germany's internal politics at that point is neither here nor there. Why? Because the nature of the Pact was not about "supporting the Nazis" as you falsely and maliciously claimed - distorting history for your own purposes, as usual - but about guaranteeing the rights of the Church* in Germany. This can clearly be seen by the fact that the agreement is still in force today, whereas the Nazi party hasn't held sway in Germany since 1945.

 

The Government of the Holy See (that is, the governance of the Church which conducts its affairs as a Sovereign State, not a religious body) can only deal with whomever secular societies sets in front of it - like any other Government. If Secular society fronts up dubious characters of whom you disapprove, then that is unfortunate, but ultimately meaningless.

 

Ultimately you put forward the concordat as evidence of the Church "supporting the Nazis" - and that claim is demonstrably false. You were talking pish, which surprised no-one I am sure.

 

*for the record I do not like the arrangements between the Church and the German State. Catholics in Germany are essentially taxed by the local Church, (and I believe members of other religions are similarly taxed by their outfits). This is a typically German way of doing things. Whereas I believe contributions to religious bodies should be wholly discretionary / voluntary, as in most places. This guaranteed income has made the German part of the Church very wealthy indeed and accordingly it behaves far more like a money-driven protestant body than it does the spotless bride of Christ. It makes the German part of the Church pander to secular values, so it can retain half-hearted worshippers and so maintain its income. This is wrong, but it was never anything to do with "supporting the Nazis".

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

This just isn't true. Why do you insist on posting lies and just hoping no-one notices or checks?

 

Ok, I should have said a grave risk to "health" , not "life" (although there is obviously an overlap).

 

Its ultimately semantics, given the system is unquestionably run as abortion on demand in contravention of both the law and human decency.

 

Nevertheless, I will grant you this minor, semantics based victory, you doubtless need it after your "supporting the nazis" embarrassment.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

If you had half a brain you would be a mere idiot. If Rees-Mogg was the paragon of virtue that you suggest then he could surely live up to his convictions by trying to change the law on abortion through introducing a private members bill in the House of Commons. Of course he is well aware that it would be kicked out without a second reading. It is obvious that the fool has ambitions to lead the Tory party and by putting it out there that his personal views on abortion will not be compromised he hopes that his fellow MPs will see him as a man of principle and vote for him. Oldest trick in the book.

 

If had half a brain, it would be a half more than you.

 

I believe Mogg might well attempt to make moves on abortion, if he became leader. Ensuring the current law is enforced would be a major coup in its own right, in that regard.

 

He is obviously making an impression. The Guardian is now featuring regular articles attacking him. Not with any worthwhile arguments, of course, but the usual ridiculous hyperbole / name-calling one can expect from that worthless rag.

 

They fear him. This pleases me.

 

It would be very refreshing indeed, if we the British public had a choice between an actual conservative (mogg) and an actual socialist (corbyn).

 

What a difference between a non-choice between (eg) a smarmy capitalist clown (Cameron) and another smarmy capitalist clown (milliband).

 

If the tories aren't prepared to be conservative, then they should be honest and change their name to the capitalist party.

 

And they can boot out that bull dyke they have running the party in scotland and the cohort of hun b's she surrounds herself with.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

It's a broad as fuck law, rightly, to make sure decisions are made by medical professionals.

 

Nigga, please.

 

Permission forms are pre-signed in bulk, and granted without barely a glance. We have seen repeated evidence of this.

 

You are not so daft, surely, as to believe each case is carefully considered on its own merits?

 

Being pro-life is an argument based on reason, not on faith. And so even you can do the right thing.

 

A secular pro-life position rests mainly, although not exclusively, on the following convictions,

1) Human beings have human rights

2) A foetus is a human being

3) There is no objective distinction between ‘human being’ and ‘person’

4) Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify abortion.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/09/13/opposing-abortion-is-a-matter-of-reason-not-religion/

 

Come on man, do the right thing. I have confidence in you!

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Still not a fact. Do your research. I can give you examples of pure water at 1 atm not boiling at 100 degrees C.

 

No such thing as absolute Truth

 

I would be interested in hearing these examples, every day is a school day, as the saying goes.

 

But I assure you, there most certainly are absolutes in life. Best take it from me, and not from St Peter at the pearly gates

 

For example, its always wrong to steal. Sure, maybe some people may steal because they are in poverty and need money, but this is still wrong because it is not permissible to do evil in the name of good (an obvious contradiction). In the example, guilt is lessened but still present.

[craegDAMH]

 

Waffle as usual.

 

The pact was signed by Germany on behalf of President Hindenberg - a fact - not on behalf of Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party. Hindenberg was not a member of the Nazi party and only reluctantly accepted Hitler as his chancellor.

 

It would be easier to just admit you've no idea what you're talking about and go back to speaking shite about abortions. Nevertheless....

 

By this point, Hindenburg was nothing more than a figurehead, it's like saying that the Queen is signing treaties today. Technically she is but she has absolutely no power. In 1933 'Germany' was 'Nazi Germany'. The Catholic Church made a treaty with a dictatorship which had already removed all other political opponents and after it had passed racist laws banning 'Non-Aryans' from public office and from practising law.

 

The deplorable state of Germany's internal politics at that point is neither here nor there.

 

No, it's entirely relevant what the internal politics were at that point, that's the reason they signed the fucking treaty.

 

Why? Because the nature of the Pact was not about "supporting the Nazis" as you falsely and maliciously claimed - distorting history for your own purposes, as usual - but about guaranteeing the rights of the Church* in Germany. This can clearly be seen by the fact that the agreement is still in force today, whereas the Nazi party hasn't held sway in Germany since 1945.

 

No, it was about both. That's how a treaty works, both sides get something out of the deal. Hitler guaranteed the rights of the church in exchange for the church removing itself from politics and giving the Nazi's a free pass. The church had previously been a vocal supporter of the Catholic Zentrum (Center) party.

 

Ultimately the church legitimised a dictatorship to avoid reprisals, you know, like Jesus didn't.

 

It was after the Zentrum party voted in favour of the enabling act, creating the dictatorship in the first place, that the head of teh Zentrum party and the Vice Chancellor went to Rome to negotiate the treaty . The Vatican told Bishops in Germany to change their position on the Nazi party.

 

The pope expressed his "pleasure that at the head of the German State was a man like Hitler, on whose banner the uncompromising struggle against Communism and Nihilism was inscribed"

 

German cardinals argued: defending the Jews would be wrong "because that would transform the attack on the Jews into an attack on the Church; and because the Jews are able to look after themselves

 

​Hitler's view on the treaty was "that one should only consider it as a great achievement. The concordat gave Germany an opportunity and created an area of trust which was particularly significant in the developing struggle against international Jewry." Only a short time earlier he had expressed doubts that "the church would be ready to commit the Bishops to this state. That this has happened, was without doubt an unreserved recognition of the present regime."

 

The Archbishop of Munich sent a handwritten letter to Hitler, noting that "For Germany's prestige in the East and the West and before the whole world, this handshake with the papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable importance"

 

From a Nazi newspaper: "By her signature the Catholic Church has recognised National Socialism in the most solemn manner. ... This fact constitutes an enormous moral strengthening of our government and its prestige."

 

Should I go on?

 

The Government of the Holy See (that is, the governance of the Church which conducts its affairs as a Sovereign State, not a religious body) can only deal with whomever secular societies sets in front of it - like any other Government. If Secular society fronts up dubious characters of whom you disapprove, then that is unfortunate, but ultimately meaningless.

 

Ultimately you put forward the concordat as evidence of the Church "supporting the Nazis" - and that claim is demonstrably false. You were talking pish, which surprised no-one I am sure.

 

The Vatican was the first foreign sovereignty to enter into a treaty with Hitler's 'government'. The Catholic Church legitimised a fascist dictatorship, ordered it's bishops to support the Nazi regime and preached to German Catholics to go along with the regime.

 

The Catholic church supported the Nazi by both their actions and their inaction for two reasons. They shared Hitler's views on Atheism and Communism and because they wanted to protect their own position. They let Jews "protect themselves". They knew what they were fucking doing.

[craegDAMH]

 

Nigga, please.

 

Permission forms are pre-signed in bulk, and granted without barely a glance. We have seen repeated evidence of this.

 

You are not so daft, surely, as to believe each case is carefully considered on its own merits?

 

Being pro-life is an argument based on reason, not on faith. And so even you can do the right thing.

 

A secular pro-life position rests mainly, although not exclusively, on the following convictions,

1) Human beings have human rights

2) A foetus is a human being

3) There is no objective distinction between ‘human being’ and ‘person’

4) Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify abortion.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/09/13/opposing-abortion-is-a-matter-of-reason-not-religion/

 

Come on man, do the right thing. I have confidence in you!

 

Oh fuck off

[Old manny]

 

If had half a brain, it would be a half more than you.

 

 

 

Touche old boy. Obviously I do not agree with the first line of your post, but I did find the rest of it passably interesting.

[Henry]

 

The voluntary support given to food banks is "rather uplifting" and "shows what a compassionate country we are", Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.

He told LBC radio the only reason for the rise in their use was "that people know that they are there".

The North East Somerset MP said the former Labour government had failed to inform people of their existence.

When the Tories came to power, they had allowed Jobcentre Plus to tell people food banks were available, he said.

The backbencher recently dismissed speculation he could the next Conservative leader and insisted "no-one serious" believed he would be a candidate.

When challenged by a caller to LBC about the increased use of food banks, Mr Rees-Mogg argued they fulfilled a vital function.

"To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are," he said.

"Inevitably, the state can't do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks.

"The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn't tell them."

 

Tory cunt.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

No, it was about both. That's how a treaty works, both sides get something out of the deal. Hitler guaranteed the rights of the church in exchange for the church removing itself from politics and giving the Nazi's a free pass. The church had previously been a vocal supporter of the Catholic Zentrum (Center) party.

Its wasn't a treaty, it was a concordat. A concordat is a convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state concerning the rights of the Church and secular matters which affect its interests.

 

It is demonstrably false to suggest the agreement was specifically tailored to favour the Nazi party, as it has remained in force with every subsequent Germany government to this day. When introduced, it was to replace existing concordatrs with specific german states, with one with germany as a whole.

 

What you are offering is speculation and extrapolation. Falsehoods.

 

You say the Church gave the Nazis a "free pass". In fact the Church's “Mit Brennender Sorge” document, read in very parish Church in Germany in 1937, is likely the Church's harshest criticism of a secular government. It condemned Nazi ideologys comprehensively.

 

It was written in German instead of the usual latin, to ensure wide effect and had to be smuggled into the country to avoid being censored. Hitler was furious and the international community, including jews, elated.

You could be arrested simply for having a copy.

 

https://zenit.org/articles/the-encyclical-that-infuriated-hitler/

 

Ultimately the church legitimised a dictatorship to avoid reprisals, you know, like Jesus didn't.

Again the document did not legitmise the Nazis, its a general document with the German state applying to all German governments while it remains in force.

 

You say the Church wanted to "avoid reprisals" - what a joke that is.

 

The gestapo raised every church in germany after that document was read out and hundreds of people were jailed or sent to concentration camps.

 

The nazis violated the concordat at every turn and persecuted the Church so much that the German bishops asked for an intervention in 1936.

 

Catholic lay leaders were targetted in the Night of the Long Knives. Catholic schools were closed in 1939 and the Catholic press in 1941.

 

Over 2,500 priests were sent to the concentration camp dachau. In Poland 80% of the clergy and 5 Bishops were sent to concentration camps.

 

There is literally too much Nazi aggression against the Church to list it all.

 

Its amazing you don't seem to know any of this, but then you are looking for evidence to support a conclusion, not drawing a conclusion from evidence.

 

The pope expressed his "pleasure that at the head of the German State was a man like Hitler, on whose banner the uncompromising struggle against Communism and Nihilism was inscribed"

Source? Date? I am sure the Church was pleased initially to see an anti-communist come to power.

 

German cardinals argued: defending the Jews would be wrong "because that would transform the attack on the Jews into an attack on the Church; and because the Jews are able to look after themselves

The Catholic Church saved more jewish lives during the way than anyone else. Estimated at 860,000. As many jewish sources will tell you.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/860-000-lives-saved-the-truth-about-pius-xii-and-the-jews

 

​Hitler's view on the treaty was "that one should only consider it as a great achievement. The concordat gave Germany an opportunity and created an area of trust which was particularly significant in the developing struggle against international Jewry." Only a short time earlier he had expressed doubts that "the church would be ready to commit the Bishops to this state. That this has happened, was without doubt an unreserved recognition of the present regime."

The Archbishop of Munich sent a handwritten letter to Hitler, noting that "For Germany's prestige in the East and the West and before the whole world, this handshake with the papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable importance"

From a Nazi newspaper: "By her signature the Catholic Church has recognised National Socialism in the most solemn manner. ... This fact constitutes an enormous moral strengthening of our government and its prestige."

I'm not surprised - after making an agreement, both sides usually coo about it.

 

But oh yes, making an agreement in 1933 undoubtedly means the Church supported all of the Nazis much later war crimes and genocide. Thats undoutedly the case right? FFS.

 

More on the Archbishop of Muster you mention, an outspoken opponent of the Nazis from the very start of their power. His sermons inspired german anti-nazi resistance groups such as the white rose. he also helped produce the mit brennender sorge document.

 

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/03/the-lion-of-munster/

 

Should I go on?

Please do, if you might say anything of substance.

 

But if all you have is stuff of this standard, then best not to.

 

The Catholic Church legitimised a fascist dictatorship, ordered it's bishops to support the Nazi regime and preached to German Catholics to go along with the regime.

The Catholic church supported the Nazi by both their actions and their inaction for two reasons. They shared Hitler's views on Atheism and Communism and because they wanted to protect their own position. They let Jews "protect themselves". They knew what they were fucking doing.

 

This simply isnt true, as I have shown above. You havent demonstrated any of this, on the contrary I have shown it to be false.

 

You say the Church let the jews "protect themselves" - what do the jews say?

 

The vindication of Pius XII has been established principally by Jewish writers and from Israeli archives. It is now established that the Pope supervised a rescue network which saved 860,000 Jewish lives - more than all the international agencies put together.

 

After the war the Chief Rabbi of Israel thanked Pius XII for what he had done. The Chief Rabbi of Rome went one step further. He became a Catholic.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/860-000-lives-saved-the-truth-about-pius-xii-and-the-jews

 

I must say, if you are right then the Jewish response to the Church seems very odd indeed, eh?

 

Im afraid you have bought into a anti-Catholic myth. Easily done.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Tory cunt.

 

How does that follow from what he said?

[Don Fonte]

Its wasn't a treaty, it was a concordat. A concordat is a convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state concerning the rights of the Church and secular matters which affect its interests.

 

It is demonstrably false to suggest the agreement was specifically tailored to favour the Nazi party, as it has remained in force with every subsequent Germany government to this day. When introduced, it was to replace existing concordatrs with specific german states, with one with germany as a whole.

 

What you are offering is speculation and extrapolation. Falsehoods.

 

You say the Church gave the Nazis a "free pass". In fact the Church's Mit Brennender Sorge document, read in very parish Church in Germany in 1937, is likely the Church's harshest criticism of a secular government. It condemned Nazi ideologys comprehensively.

 

It was written in German instead of the usual latin, to ensure wide effect and had to be smuggled into the country to avoid being censored. Hitler was furious and the international community, including jews, elated.

You could be arrested simply for having a copy.

 

https://zenit.org/articles/the-encyclical-that-infuriated-hitler/

 

 

Again the document did not legitmise the Nazis, its a general document with the German state applying to all German governments while it remains in force.

 

You say the Church wanted to "avoid reprisals" - what a joke that is.

 

The gestapo raised every church in germany after that document was read out and hundreds of people were jailed or sent to concentration camps.

 

The nazis violated the concordat at every turn and persecuted the Church so much that the German bishops asked for an intervention in 1936.

 

Catholic lay leaders were targetted in the Night of the Long Knives. Catholic schools were closed in 1939 and the Catholic press in 1941.

 

Over 2,500 priests were sent to the concentration camp dachau. In Poland 80% of the clergy and 5 Bishops were sent to concentration camps.

 

There is literally too much Nazi aggression against the Church to list it all.

 

Its amazing you don't seem to know any of this, but then you are looking for evidence to support a conclusion, not drawing a conclusion from evidence.

 

 

Source? Date? I am sure the Church was pleased initially to see an anti-communist come to power.

 

 

The Catholic Church saved more jewish lives during the way than anyone else. Estimated at 860,000. As many jewish sources will tell you.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/860-000-lives-saved-the-truth-about-pius-xii-and-the-jews

 

 

I'm not surprised - after making an agreement, both sides usually coo about it.

 

But oh yes, making an agreement in 1933 undoubtedly means the Church supported all of the Nazis much later war crimes and genocide. Thats undoutedly the case right? FFS.

 

More on the Archbishop of Muster you mention, an outspoken opponent of the Nazis from the very start of their power. His sermons inspired german anti-nazi resistance groups such as the white rose. he also helped produce the mit brennender sorge document.

 

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/03/the-lion-of-munster/

 

 

Please do, if you might say anything of substance.

 

But if all you have is stuff of this standard, then best not to.

 

 

 

This simply isnt true, as I have shown above. You havent demonstrated any of this, on the contrary I have shown it to be false.

 

You say the Church let the jews "protect themselves" - what do the jews say?

 

The vindication of Pius XII has been established principally by Jewish writers and from Israeli archives. It is now established that the Pope supervised a rescue network which saved 860,000 Jewish lives - more than all the international agencies put together.

 

After the war the Chief Rabbi of Israel thanked Pius XII for what he had done. The Chief Rabbi of Rome went one step further. He became a Catholic.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/860-000-lives-saved-the-truth-about-pius-xii-and-the-jews

 

I must say, if you are right then the Jewish response to the Church seems very odd indeed, eh?

 

Im afraid you have bought into a anti-Catholic myth. Easily done.

How do you find the time to write such longwinded posts?

 

I'm just looking for a succint answer please.

 

In your mind, has the Catholic Church ever done anything wrong? You seem to be unwilling to admit so and have a completely blinkered view.

[The Boofon]

 

How does that follow from what he said?

 

 

He blamed Labour for not mentioning food banks when they were in power.

 

Point stands.

 

Tory cunt.

[Parklife]

 

Who is? Me? If so, that's news to me!

Rees-Mogg. The guy who continually votes for bombing brown people.

[craegDAMH]

Its wasn't a treaty, it was a concordat. A concordat is a convention between the Holy See and a sovereign state concerning the rights of the Church and secular matters which affect its interests.

 

It is demonstrably false to suggest the agreement was specifically tailored to favour the Nazi party, as it has remained in force with every subsequent Germany government to this day. When introduced, it was to replace existing concordatrs with specific german states, with one with germany as a whole.

 

What you are offering is speculation and extrapolation. Falsehoods.

 

The Church entered into an agreement agreeing to support the Nazi regime in order to save their own skin. That's as plain and simple as it gets. They legitimised and supported a fascist dictatorship for their own selfish reasons.

 

You say the Church gave the Nazis a "free pass". In fact the Church's “Mit Brennender Sorge” document, read in very parish Church in Germany in 1937, is likely the Church's harshest criticism of a secular government. It condemned Nazi ideologys comprehensively.

 

It was written in German instead of the usual latin, to ensure wide effect and had to be smuggled into the country to avoid being censored. Hitler was furious and the international community, including jews, elated.

You could be arrested simply for having a copy.

 

https://zenit.org/articles/the-encyclical-that-infuriated-hitler/

 

I'm well aware of this, it was 4 years after they legitimised the Nazis and only came about because the Nazis weren't honouring their end of the agreement.

 

The document which didn't reference Nazis, Nazism or Hitler. It was intentionally written in a tone which would minimise reprisals against the church if it was intercepted by the Nazis. Bishops were ordered not to read some passages out loud.

 

Too little, too late.

 

Again the document did not legitmise the Nazis, its a general document with the German state applying to all German governments while it remains in force.

You say the Church wanted to "avoid reprisals" - what a joke that is.

 

The gestapo raised every church in germany after that document was read out and hundreds of people were jailed or sent to concentration camps.

 

The nazis violated the concordat at every turn and persecuted the Church so much that the German bishops asked for an intervention in 1936.

 

Catholic lay leaders were targetted in the Night of the Long Knives. Catholic schools were closed in 1939 and the Catholic press in 1941.

 

Over 2,500 priests were sent to the concentration camp dachau. In Poland 80% of the clergy and 5 Bishops were sent to concentration camps.

 

There is literally too much Nazi aggression against the Church to list it all.

 

Its amazing you don't seem to know any of this, but then you are looking for evidence to support a conclusion, not drawing a conclusion from evidence.

 

Of course I am aware of this. That the Nazis didn't honour the agreement is totally irrelevant to whether the church entered into it and the effect it had of legitimising and supporting the Nazi regime.

 

 

 

The Catholic Church saved more jewish lives during the way than anyone else. Estimated at 860,000. As many jewish sources will tell you.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/860-000-lives-saved-the-truth-about-pius-xii-and-the-jews

 

 

How many they could have saved if they didn't support the Nazis in the first place...?

 

 

I'm not surprised - after making an agreement, both sides usually coo about it.

But oh yes, making an agreement in 1933 undoubtedly means the Church supported all of the Nazis much later war crimes and genocide. Thats undoutedly the case right? FFS.

 

Of course not, that's not my argument. You shouldn't make up new arguments just because you're floundering with the one we're having.

 

 

More on the Archbishop of Muster you mention, an outspoken opponent of the Nazis from the very start of their power. His sermons inspired german anti-nazi resistance groups such as the white rose. he also helped produce the mit brennender sorge document.

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/03/the-lion-of-munster/

 

I never mentioned this guy, I was referencing Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich.

 

I'm not saying there weren't good people in the church doing the right thing at the time, as there are now. Unfortunately, they were massively let down by the institution they represented, which supported and legitimised the Nazis in their rise to power.

 

You say the Church let the jews "protect themselves" - what do the jews say?

 

No I'm not, Cardinal Faulhaber said that. The Archbishop of Munich. He knew the Jews were fucked if the church supported the Nazis and saved its own skin. That's how he justified it.

 

Supporting the Nazis was right and defending the jews was wrong "because that would transform the attack on the Jews into an attack on the Church; and because the Jews are able to look after themselves"

 

What a cunt.

[robbojunior]

 

I would be interested in hearing these examples, every day is a school day, as the saying goes.

 

But I assure you, there most certainly are absolutes in life. Best take it from me, and not from St Peter at the pearly gates

 

For example, its always wrong to steal. Sure, maybe some people may steal because they are in poverty and need money, but this is still wrong because it is not permissible to do evil in the name of good (an obvious contradiction). In the example, guilt is lessened but still present.

 

So it was wrong for the rebels to steal the death star plans?

 

Get to fuck min. Think how many planets would have been destroyed by that thing.