Conquer Club

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Holocaust denial is not contrary to Catholic theology. It's historically absurd and politically suicidal. The Pope is neither a historian nor a politician. It's not his responsibility to comment on such things. He HAS commented that the Holocaust is a moral tragedy. That is his job, to talk about morals. Of course he'd speak out against contraception &c, that's his responsibility.

Sorry, but last time I checked, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" was a pretty fundamental precept of Christianity, INCLUDING the Roman Catholic church.

And, yet, strangely "thou shalt not use contraception" is not even in the Bible (though I realize your church says it is implied).

Snorri1234 wrote:I'm too lazy to find an article but I read in the paper today that the Vatican told Williamson to revoke his statements on the holocaust publicly if he ever wants to hold any function within the church.


At least the church is saying that none of the four dudes can hold a function or be a bishop if they don't stop being anti-semitists.

This is essentially what I said before. There is a big differance between saying that these people may take the sacraments like any believer who sins (which have much more literal significance to the Roman Catholic church than most Protestants) and allowing then to speak and take any sort of leadership position without refuting their sin.

And Ambrose... there is a BIG differance between saying that the Pope does not require people to be perfect to be in the church and saying that denial of the Haulocaust is just not the Vatican's business, is not in and of itself a sin.

Sorry, but last time I checked, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" was a pretty fundamental precept of Christianity, INCLUDING the Roman Catholic church.

And what exactly does this have to do with the Pope lifting an excommunication which had nothing to do with "bearing false witness?"

And, yet, strangely "thou shalt not use contraception" is not even in the Bible (though I realize your church says it is implied).

Don't get me started (or if you want to, do it in the JF forum). Suffice to say that contraception was universally regarded as a grave evil by ALL Christians (including the founders of all the major Christian denominations) until the 20th century.

And Ambrose... there is a BIG differance between saying that the Pope does not require people to be perfect to be in the church and saying that denial of the Haulocaust is just not the Vatican's business, is not in and of itself a sin.

It's not in and of itself a sin! If I deny that George Washington crossed the Delaware river, is that in and of itself a sin? Of course not, it just makes me historically retarded. Denying historical fact makes you stupid, it is only sinful if there is hate behind it. Whether Williamson is just stupid or actually hateful is on his soul, and I don't really care to speculate on other people's souls.

The point is not that he lifted the excommunication, but he did it professing ignorance of the priest's Nazi views. Later he tried to deflect the criticism, but he has but no restrictions on the priest's public statements, which he has sufficient authority to do. Again, it is his actions we watch, his words are those of a religious politician and belie his actions.

mpjh wrote:The point is not that he lifted the excommunication, but he did it professing ignorance of the priest's Nazi views. Later he tried to deflect the criticism, but he has but no restrictions on the priest's public statements, which he has sufficient authority to do. Again, it is his actions we watch, his words are those of a religious politician and belie his actions.

He's told him he disagrees with him and that he's wrong and ought to apologize.

I'm sorry, but short of calling him into the Vatican, declaring martial law and having the Sancta Militia Petri imprison him or literally perform a lobotomy or something, no, he can do bugger all about these comments other than condemn them, which he has done.

Basically, you're just all jumped-up with madness because the Church is finally purging itself of Masonic influences, and the radical orthodox Jewish lobbies that wet themselves over this are also petrified of this sudden loss of corrupting influence they previously held by proxy through the lodges over Christ's Church.

I'm delighted B16 has shown this resoluteness: as we continue to de-modernize and de-masonize, we need a similar iron strength of Will to Power and a complete stonewalling of any squealing from the politically correct rodents of the media, because only thus will we finally purge ourselves of the vileness that polluted our Apostolic Church, and which Christ and His Holy Mother have too long had to deplore...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mpjh wrote:The point is not that he lifted the excommunication, but he did it professing ignorance of the priest's Nazi views. Later he tried to deflect the criticism, but he has but no restrictions on the priest's public statements, which he has sufficient authority to do. Again, it is his actions we watch, his words are those of a religious politician and belie his actions.

He's told him he disagrees with him and that he's wrong and ought to apologize.

I'm sorry, but short of calling him into the Vatican, declaring martial law and having the Sancta Militia Petri imprison him or literally perform a lobotomy or something, no, he can do bugger all about these comments other than condemn them, which he has done.

Basically, you're just all jumped-up with madness because the Church is finally purging itself of Masonic influences, and the radical orthodox Jewish lobbies that wet themselves over this are also petrified of this sudden loss of corrupting influence they previously held by proxy through the lodges over Christ's Church.

I'm delighted B16 has shown this resoluteness: as we continue to de-modernize and de-masonize, we need a similar iron strength of Will to Power and a complete stonewalling of any squealing from the politically correct rodents of the media, because only thus will we finally purge ourselves of the vileness that polluted our Apostolic Church, and which Christ and His Holy Mother have too long had to deplore...

You're doing this intentionally, right?

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Sorry, but last time I checked, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" was a pretty fundamental precept of Christianity, INCLUDING the Roman Catholic church.

And what exactly does this have to do with the Pope lifting an excommunication which had nothing to do with "bearing false witness?"

This, among other reasons, is part of why I am not Roman Catholic ... I will leave it at that.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

And, yet, strangely "thou shalt not use contraception" is not even in the Bible (though I realize your church says it is implied).

Don't get me started (or if you want to, do it in the JF forum). Suffice to say that contraception was universally regarded as a grave evil by ALL Christians (including the founders of all the major Christian denominations) until the 20th century.

Since I am not in JF forum, I will have to take a pass.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

And Ambrose... there is a BIG differance between saying that the Pope does not require people to be perfect to be in the church and saying that denial of the Haulocaust is just not the Vatican's business, is not in and of itself a sin.

It's not in and of itself a sin! If I deny that George Washington crossed the Delaware river, is that in and of itself a sin? Of course not, it just makes me historically retarded. Denying historical fact makes you stupid, it is only sinful if there is hate behind it. Whether Williamson is just stupid or actually hateful is on his soul, and I don't really care to speculate on other people's souls.

Again, I think we just need to disagree here.

I do thank you for clarifying the Roman Catholic church's position on the matter.

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

mpjh wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

mpjh, as much as I appreciate some of what you say, there is a world of differance between adults (and their families) resisting and children resisting.

Further, you do a disservice to yourself when you claim that the issue was so simple and straightforward. The truth is that unless you lived in Germany at the time, you just don't really know what it was like. I have spoken to family members, members who WERE part of the resistance (not IN Germany, but in occupied countries). My grandfather had to house German soldiers in his house. They HATED the Germans and it was a long-standing, abiding hatred, not just due to Hitler. Yet, I have heard some of those people say that when they listened to Hitler, it was as if he were speaking to them directly, it all made perfect sense. Of course, being where they were, they turned off the radio and instantly said "WAIT..." (roughly).

I dislike what the Pope did, but then, I am not Roman Catholic. That said, what YOU are putting forward is perhaps as dangerous, if not more so, than what he did.

Why? Because you make it seem as if everything is clear and straightforward. You seem to want to believe that no sane person would ever be a Nazis, would ever go along with someone like Hitler. THAT is a VERY dangerous thought because it is plain untrue.

The real danger, the real lesson of the Nazis is that otherwise sensible, caring, ORDINARY people somehow allowed themselves to be sucked into a terrible, TERRIBLE set of actions. The REAL danger is that if we do not UNDERSTAND exactly how that all happend, we are doomed to repeat it.

There was an experiment conducted a few years ago. A movie, maybe a book came from it. A teacher was having trouble explaining Nazis Germany to his Junior High Class. He created this organization, called "the WAVE". The experiment very quickly got out of hand. Kids became violant. He ended it, and only then revealed that his model had been Nazis Germany. If you have not, I urge you to find and read or watch that book/movie.

I am not in a million years suggesting that you agree with the Pope, or suggesting that he should not come under criticism for this and other actions. I, too, am concerned that he might be antisemetic and it certainly worries me. However, to proclaim that his being a member of the Hitler youth is a reason to condemn him .. is doing your legitimate arguments a disservice.

Very well said, Player.

mpjh wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

So basically, your entire case for the Pope being a Nazi rests on the fact that as a 13 year old child he didn't go off to fight the Spanish Civil War.

Brilliant.

If anyone is interested, here is the Wikipaedia article on The Wave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(book)

mpjh wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

He was a child! He didn't even have a choice! That 'choice' was up to his parents, who couldn't even make a 'choice' over the fear of being labelled a outcast by the German public.

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

He was a child! He didn't even have a choice! That 'choice' was up to his parents, who couldn't even make a 'choice' over the fear of being labelled a outcast by the German public.

You are both correct. And none of us has the right to judge unless we ourselves have endured very similar circumstances. You may think you know what you would have done ... but you don't.

And... do read or watch "The Wave".

I remember the wave, it was interesting, but i was pretty young when i first came across it so i dont really know how critically i looked at it.

I will say given everything ive ever read about conformity and such situations, i dont believe in any way the current pope would have to be condemned for being affilated in what would have been a pretty unique time. Of course i know very little of what he may have done as a member, but i have little interest in going after the man.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:

brooksieb wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

Every or most German children were part of the Hitler youth, you were forced or preassurised, he basically had no choice.

Not true, many, many resisted. So many left the country that Switzerland passed a special law preventing them from marrying to get citizenship. Many came to this country. Some fought in Spain against the Nazi. There were options for people of conscience, and there was always death in the early concentration camps as a resister. Being a Nazi was a choice.

He was a child! He didn't even have a choice! That 'choice' was up to his parents, who couldn't even make a 'choice' over the fear of being labelled a outcast by the German public.

You are both correct. And none of us has the right to judge unless we ourselves have endured very similar circumstances. You may think you know what you would have done ... but you don't.

And... do read or watch "The Wave".

He was not a child, he was a teenager, old enough to fight back.

Being a young male in Nazi Germany you did not have a choice just like I can't opt out of paying taxes from our stupid wasteful government when they fund abortion with my money. I guess I am a Nazi then because I don't go to prison by not paying taxes that funds murder. Being killed yourself or members of your family being threatened was often the result with the Nazi's though.

Oh thats right.....Outhouse says it's a glob of tissue or some kind of alien organism. Sorry I am imposing my religious beliefs on this topic, I will stick to saying you are an idiot then.

mpjh wrote:He was not a child, he was a teenager, old enough to fight back.

Age is irrelevant. The situation is relevant. Unless you have been in a similarly oppressive and dangerous situation, you can only imagine that you know how you would act. Yes, we all wish to believe we would be the "heros". Maybe you would. But, we don't really and truly know and therefore cannot judge how this other person acted.

My Uncle Peter was a Nazi youth, then a soldier at a frighteningly young age, having been indoctrinated into all that bollocks.
You can only make a choice if you realise there is one.
He was captured in the Battle of the Bulge, sent to work a farm in Wales where he used his real talents for growing food, and there met my aunt, a land girl. I assume there was opposition to the match, though nobody has ever said so.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mpjh wrote:He was not a child, he was a teenager, old enough to fight back.

Age is irrelevant. The situation is relevant. Unless you have been in a similarly oppressive and dangerous situation, you can only imagine that you know how you would act. Yes, we all wish to believe we would be the "heros". Maybe you would. But, we don't really and truly know and therefore cannot judge how this other person acted.

I am a veteran who organized publicly against the war in Viet Nam while in uniform. I know the risks you take to fight for what you believe is right. The pope was a coward, who saw jews marched to the death camps, whose neighbors went to the concentration camps and died because they were conscientious objectors, yet he continued to serve in the Nazi army. You always have a choice, and he choose to collaborate.

mpjh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

mpjh wrote:He was not a child, he was a teenager, old enough to fight back.

Age is irrelevant. The situation is relevant. Unless you have been in a similarly oppressive and dangerous situation, you can only imagine that you know how you would act. Yes, we all wish to believe we would be the "heros". Maybe you would. But, we don't really and truly know and therefore cannot judge how this other person acted.

I am a veteran who organized publicly against the war in Viet Nam while in uniform. I know the risks you take to fight for what you believe is right. The pope was a coward, who saw jews marched to the death camps, whose neighbors went to the concentration camps and died because they were conscientious objectors, yet he continued to serve in the Nazi army. You always have a choice, and he choose to collaborate.

There is a difference between being a veteran of the Vietnam War and living in Nazi Germany as a teenager and young boy. If you so much as gave a hint of giving resistance to Hitler and his government, his secret police would not only go after you, but after your entire family. Really now, mpjh, I would have thought that at least would be obvious. Protest the war in Germany in the late 30s early 40s, you get shot or disappeared, along with immediate family members and possibly close friends. Protest the Vietnam War in the US in the late 60s to mid 70s, at worse, a hippie beat down happens, and lots of people thrown in jail for for whatever charges. Hardly the same thing.

Ahh, you obviously weren't around in the late 60s early 70s in this country. My family lost their jobs, my dad lied at 55 because of the pressure trying to keep it together. Every black leader I personally knew at the time was assassinated (witness Mark Clark and Fred Hampton). I lost every job I had after the FBI visited the managers until 1980. We received death threats regularly and sleep with guns at our sides.

The difference between Germany and here was that there were more of us willing to fight back and that made the difference.

I can and will call out this pope on his collaboration with the Nazi.

mpjh wrote:Ahh, you obviously weren't around in the late 60s early 70s in this country. My family lost their jobs, my dad lied at 55 because of the pressure trying to keep it together. Every black leader I personally knew at the time was assassinated (witness Mark Clark and Fred Hampton). I lost every job I had after the FBI visited the managers until 1980. We received death threats regularly and sleep with guns at our sides.

The difference between Germany and here was that there were more of us willing to fight back and that made the difference.

I can and will call out this pope on his collaboration with the Nazi.

Death threats are one thing (not denying the psychological impact), but knowing that you and your family will get shot or hauled off to who knows where is completely different. And in Germany, it was not only Jews that were killed on sight or sent off to the camps for a longer death, anyone would suffer the same fate, not just leaders. Including their families. The difference between Germany and here was that Germany was ruled by a psychotic dictator where freedom of speech was pretty much nill, unless you did not mind going 6 feet under soon after, and the US has freedom of speech guaranteed. Where you shot on sight by death squads or secret police? Where you hauled off to a concentration camp or a death camp for speaking out? No. The black leaders that were killed, were killed by individuals, not by the government.

Sorry, Hitler could not do what he did without the support of a whole lot of Germans, including the pope as a young man. Remember they elected him. Once he got the war going, they lost everything, but they put him there. Much like W and his war. The difference between WWII Germany and here is that the Republicans lost the election.

mpjh wrote:Sorry, Hitler could not do what he did without the support of a whole lot of Germans, including the pope as a young man. Remember they elected him. Once he got the war going, they lost everything, but they put him there. Much like W and his war. The difference between WWII Germany and here is that the Republicans lost the election.

One can only wonder why Hitler received as much support as he did. I mean it is not like he was a great speech artist, or abolished their massive debt from WWI, or even restored their grand army or anything.

Really now, once the war started going, is what to take revenge on countries that had defeated Germany and forced ridiculously harsh measures on them. So why wouldn't he have had support from most of the Germans? And it wasn't even until Hitler decided to attack the Soviets (in winter no less) that the Germans were finally starting to feel any negative effect. After all, Hitler had been in power since the early 1930s.