Posted on 11/03/2003 8:27:06 AM PST by Brian S
Oh, what logical fallacy would that be, by name?
That Pius XII achieved more than anyone else is sufficient proof of his actions.
That is not "proven" See Zuccotti site, this thread.
And if it were proven, it still doesn't even address the question of whether or not he contributed to the Churches long-standing anti-jewish doctrine, which he did as cited.
Your long string of dates and events proves nothing in themselves. For example, for the opening of Dachau to be relevant, it would have to be shown that: 1 - it was a widely known event 2 - its ultimate purpose was widely known 3 - Pius XII knew this purpose 4 - And still, Pacelli signed the Concordant knowing that purpose 5 - Rome knew the Concordat forced them to acquiese to that purpose. You can't, so that the event, while ultimately horrible, is irrelevant. Same for all the others.
Oh, give it a rest, the handwriting was plainly on the wall for all to see long before 1939, or 1941, or whenever you jokers think you can claim that the Holocaust suddenly sprang unbidden from Hitler's brow.
Moot point. The Catholic Centrists didn't exist.
And, as of the agreement, forbidden to recur. From which lesson what will the average german catholic citizen have learned about the Holy See's opinion of mounting political opposition to the Reich?
Sorry. Can you point out where the money exchange occurred?
No. Just as I can't tell you where or how the central bank sends money to it's member banks.
That the CC was precluded from political activities is important why?
I assume you're kidding--unless you think murdering 6 million jews was an apolitical act.
Similar restrictions exist in the United States.
And what a comfort that is.
The Holy See was also explicitly forbidding its clergy from being Nazis.
But did not forbid them to hand over church birth and marriage records to the SS, --that would have been a political act--forbidden by the Protocols.
Matthew says that Jesus was condemned by the jews present, and that they jews proclaimed that "His blood be upon us, and our children.". Matthew has the jews condemning themselves for the death of christ. Are you incapable of reading the Gospels you appear to want to defend?
Yes. I am illiterate. I am not typing this.
NO the point, acknowledged now by most of the Churches' historians was specifically, purposefully to lay blood guilt on the jews, to help win converts to christianity from the principle source of converts: orthodox jews. The church now specifically disowns this blood guilt, in the wake of the Holocaust, but had no trouble reading what it says plainly in Matthew, for some 1400 years previously.
literacy is irrelevant if you are in denial and cannot bring yourself to look the evidence in the face.
I have no idea what in Matthew's Gospel I am supposed to be ignoring. You are the one who says that we should ignore Matthew's and John's accounts.
I keep missing the message because it changed dramatically, but, not, unfortunately, dramatically enough, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and I am hung up on the evidence of the harm that the message has been allowed to do when manifested in church policy toward the jews over the last 1400 years.
Nice attempted dodge. You and I have been discussing Hitler and pope Pius XII. Try to keep that in mind.
than go to the beginning of this argument where I quote it and read it.
You are the one who says that we should ignore Matthew's and John's accounts.
I did not say that. I said to read what it says in Matthew about the blood guilt of the jews, And what it says in the doctrine of salvation about the incapacity of orthodox jews to find salvation from their beliefs, and what, on the undesputed historical record, the Catholic church did to the jews in response to this doctrine and account in the Gospels.
...continuing on: have I misrepresented the churches abysmal history of anti-jewish propaganda, laws and practices, which still existed when Hitler came to power, and were still imbedded in catholic doctrine afterwards? Have I misrepresented the fact the while PIUS was anti-semitic, like his church, he was also, like his church, not willing to offer blanket opposition to anti-jewish laws?
Do you think a serial killer should be let go free because he isn't responsible for all murders everywhere?
I did not say that. I said to read what it says in Matthew about the blood guilt of the jews, And what it says in the doctrine of salvation about the incapacity of orthodox jews to find salvation from their beliefs, and what, on the undesputed historical record, the Catholic church did to the jews in response to this doctrine and account in the Gospels.
No, you said, in response to the question "So in your opinion who is to blame for killing Jesus Christ?": "Romans, of course--contrary to anything Matthew or John might have said."
Were Christians justified in doing harm to Jews because of the accounts in Matthew and John? Of course not. Does that mean that the accounts in Matthew and John are necessarily false? No.
Nobody, including the Vatican's biblical scholars, who is not loopy, thinks the Bible is literally the Word of God--it is an account of events by a bunch of humans. If that were so--there should have been hysterical opposition to the King James translation.
Rectifying some overboard language that everyone knows is a sack of lying BS caused by a discreditable agenda is not beyond consideration.
This does not constitute advice not to read what Matthew says. It is, in fact, my point, which you are having a hard time getting to, that you should read Matthew and see what it says, and recognize that it is a purposefully false account intended to blame jews for something romans did.
Indeed. But they did.
Does that mean that the accounts in Matthew and John are necessarily false?
No. The falsity of the jewish denigrations in Matthew and John stand or fall on their own merits. Later responses to them are irrelevant in this regard. We don't assess truth through popularity contests.
So like I said, you think we should ignore Matthew's account--because it's "false."
You are, of course, entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion that Matthew's account is "purposefully false" and intended to blame Jews for something Romans did. And I am entitled to my opinion that you are divorced from reality.
I do think the christians of the 1st crusade who murdered all the jews in their way, and all the cristians who came streaming out of church after holy week sermons from John and Matthew, and proceeded to murder all the jews in their local ghettos were savages by any reasonable definition.
But I don't think the christians who supported Hitler and the SS were "savage maniacs". Why should I think modern ones are? You don't need to be a savage to kill people if you own tanks and airplanes and zyklon B production plants. You can kill in a very civilized and restrained manner--almost offhandedly--almost neglegently.
Are you planning on seeing The Passion?
Of course, how could I resist now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.