Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

We are, truly and entirely, sick and tired of the -ism schism.

edited 30th Aug '14 2:55:29 PM by TheHandle

If "resigning Popes" became a recurring deal, it'd be interesting to see because the numbers of Popes would have to either increase (as their terms would be theoretically shorter), or the Cardinal Council would have to ellect younger Popes to assure a longer Papacy. It'd be an amusing change of thought.

edited 30th Aug '14 2:59:30 PM by Gaon

Generally speaking, younger people would be more likely to be more progressive.

Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith in the Catholic Herald: Catholics must atone for their anti-Semitism.

I thought this piece was piss-weak, actually. Doesn't really grapple with the historical issues and tries to separate the "institutional church" from a few bad apples.

edited 30th Aug '14 3:37:06 PM by Achaemenid

Indeed. I still have to pound it into some people's heads why it was called the SPANISH Inquisition and not the Catholic Inquisition. The Pope at the time was actually pretty pissed about it.

What, really? I'd never have expected that.

But wasn't the Spanish one more reasonable than the others? Though if I remember right "more reasonable" meant "don't believe in witches" and not "is unwilling to force Jews to convert under penalty of death".

Though my knowledge in that area is far from perfect.

It was a lot more reasonable to Christians, especially to Catholics. Normal prisoners expressly blasphemed in order to get transferred to Inquisition prisons, because conditions were much better than in civilian ones. Bet you weren't expecting that, were you?For the love of God someone please pick up on this...

The inquisition wasn't really responsible for the witchhunt. Most witch hunting was done in protestant nations and was often the purview of secular jurisdiction anyway.

Indeed this. The catholic church's opinion's been that Witches aren't real, so if you're saying someone is, you're either a liar or a heretic.

In the matter of anti-semitism, it seems to me that the Catholic Church's stance on it was frequently conflicted. For example, in the Renaissance there was Pope Alexander VI and Pope Julius II, two consecutive popes with opposite behavior towards the Jews (Alexander being friendly while Julius was firmly anti-semitic), or in another example we had World War Two with Pope Pius XII doing everything in his power to aid the Jewish people contrasted with Bishop Alois Hudal, an ardent Nazi sympathizer who helped several war criminals escape justice.

It seems to be one of those issues that splits the Church.

It comes down to the fact that the single largest organized religious denomination in the world's gonna end up with some bad eggs, especially when it's been around for about 2 millennia

It's a bit more than bad eggs. The Catholic church was overwhelmingly anti-semitic for most of those 2000 years, from the birth of Spanish anti-semitism in the 6th century, to the 4th Lateran Council which established that Jews had to wear special clothing to stand out, to the Pope-ordered burnings of the Talmud, to Cum Nimis Absurdum and the establishment of ghettos in Venice, Rome and other Italian cities and compulsory Church services on the Sabbath.

Then, after the brief Napoleonic liberation of the Jews, the re-established Papal power once again turned to anti-semitism for the remainder of the 19th century. The ghetto was re-established, the yellow star re-instated, Jewish children who were suspected of having been baptized were stolen from their parents. But the times had changed, and there were movements for religious freedom, especially within the socialistic movements. Catholic anti-semitism, which until that point had been a largely religious affair, took on a more political and ethnical tone. Jesuit writers championed the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy and the blood libel in their papers, including the Civilta Cattolica, which was reviewed and approved by the Pope. By the early 20th century, Catholic anti-semitism was so entrenched, even cuddly writers like GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were heavily infected. Pius XI, who had been anti-semitic in his youth, and had made a deal with Mussolini to help him gain power in return for the establishment of the Vatican State, became disillusioned with fascism on his deathbed, and had prepared a blistering speech on the matter. Sadly he died, and his Secretary of State and successor Pius XII had the speech suppressed.

The watershed moment came with the death of Pius XII. His successor, the elderly John XXIII, was thought to be a "filler" pope, with a short unremarkable reign. But John, who had disobeyed Papal instructions not to return Jewish orphans of the Holocaust to their relatives, turned out to be just what the Church needed. Vatican II and Nostra Aetate cleared the Church of its anti-semitic policies, which of course caused the traditional sections (which naturally housed most of the Catholic anti-semites) to either break away outright or endlessly whining about it.

I like John XXIII, can you tell?

Though I'd give some credit to Pius as well. He is the guy even the state of Israel once recognized as being "a beacon of hope for Judaism in dark times" or something along those lines.

Billionaire threatens charity donations if Pope continues support for the poor

Wait what?

Well, the article makes it pretty clear that the guy is just taking part of Pope Francis' message out of context.

"Pope Francis' populism hurts our sympathy for the poor!"

I say, this reliance on donations is absurd. Skip that part, pay higher takes, and let the public at large decide what it needs the money for.

"I'm paying for your restoration project: you will listen to me or I throw the toys out!"

Does he have any idea how that sounds?

Wow. Real cartoon villain there.

"In the interview he said that wealthy people such as himself are feeling ostracized by the Pope’s messages in support of the poor, and might stop giving to charity if the Pope continues to make statements criticizing capitalism and income inequality.

Mr. Langone described the Pope's comments about a "culture of prosperity" as "exclusionary" statements that may make some of the rich "incapable of feeling compassion for the poor."

What he's actually saying is that he doesn't like the Pope criticizing wealthy people. This is going to be a problem for him, because anti-elitism is written right into Jesus' sayings.

Another reason why I like this Pope a lot.

I like these comments:

LA Chefs column: They'd rather build and restore edifices rather than actually help people who are in need. Jesus wasn't a Catholic or a billionaire.

ispets98: What was Jesus then ?

Dave: A brown, long haired, liberal, give to the poor, anti-wealth, anti-greed, homeless Palestinian Jew who hung out with crooks, whores, and lepers.

edited 2nd Sep '14 7:19:12 PM by probablyinsane

Why are the rich Catholic when Randianism suits them much better? Also, Calvinism strikes me as the XV-century version of Randianism. And I'm surprised it's not more popular. Very shaky doctrine, though; I don't think Jesus would approve.

You mean Ann Rynd? No corporate executive wants to live in her world... the Church they can negotiate with.

Who the hell is Ann Rynd?

Ayn Rand?