The PH Catholic Church's best-kept secrets

[newbie.86]

pero maka tabang ni siya ug bring justice sa victim kai ... kasagaran... inig naa ma expose nga dili maayo nga binuhatan sa organization.. naa mo sunod nga investigation

OK sis, i advocate "words coupled with action."

If pure words lang, "chismis" ray ma abot ani. way kwenta japon na ang mga expose kung kutob ra tas istorya.

why not pursue justice in the right venue, and not through mob rule?

[Bears Grill]

FALSE. Did the Church condemned Nazism? YES. Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mitt Brenner Sorge specifically CONDEMNING NAZISM.

Mit brennender Sorge is German for "With burning concern". Pius XII was primarily concerned with Nazi anti-Catholic propaganda. The encyclical defended baptized Jews (still considered Jews by the Nazis because of racial theories that the Church could not accept), but it never discussed Jews in general.

What about Pope Pius XII? WAS HE SILENT?? NO. HE CONDEMNED specifically the "EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS" on his Christmas Day message in 1944 that was broadcasted WORLDWIDE, including Germany.

The New York Times, under the headline “JEWS’ RIGHTS DEFENDED,” wrote on March 14, 1940: “The Pontiff, in the burning words he spoke to Herr Ribbentrop about religious persecution, also came to the defense of the Jews in Germany and Poland.

The Nazi was considered as a political party at the time and the church's reluctance to engage in partisan politics was the lowdown. but to assume that the Pope was completely silent on the issue of holocaust is pure B*LLSH!T...

Can you find the word "Jews" or "Gas Chamber" or "Final Solution" in those transcripts? No.

Popes have seldom spoken in direct simple sentences. Pius, a trained diplomat, was even less direct than most. Reading encyclicals and other papal statements often requires interpretive skills to determine just exactly what is said. As a result, people can read into some papal words what they want to hear. And looked at in hindsight, Pius' words of protest fall short when measured against the horror of Nazi machinery of destruction. (source: Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy - José M. Sánchez)

Wasn't he the Pope who wrote a letter to the ruler of Hungary to STOP the deportation of 800,000 Hungarian Jews?

I wouldn't go that far and exaggerate that Pius XII stopped the deportation.

It was not the telegram of Pope Pius XII to the head of the Hungarian state, Admiral Horthy, that stopped the deportations. It was stopped only after Horthy received numerous protests from many countries, including an ultimatum (with threat of military action) from President Roosevelt.

Actually, it was only after heavy bombing on Budapest which followed those diplomatic protests that the Vatican made their own protest to halt the deportations. But by then, close to 430,000 Jews had already been deported.

Wasn't he the Pope....

As for the rest of the "Wasn't he the Pope", I would treat them as either they probably happened or there's more to it than meets the eye. I don't think every one of those things you mentioned happened exactly as you described. Some would be in dispute, exaggerated and some would probably be accepted as fact. But, like I said, I never said that Pius XII didn't do anything. I just echo the opinion of many writers/historians on this side of this debate, that Pius XII didn't condemn categorically the Shoa.

HAD HE DONE ENOUGH?

You know, there's a whole debate on this question alone, and it's still raging to this day.

[B]BUT HOW COME NOBODY CRITICIZE THEM ??

How about the Protestant, Anglican, and Islamic leaders who were COLLABORATORS of the Jewish persecution?

Actually, books written by secularists/humanists/atheists have criticized all these religions if you care to read them.

On my part, I merely shared what some people were joking about during the Vietnam War that, had the B-52s dropped condoms, the Vatican would've condemned it daily. Remember? And when you overreacted and accused me of blaming the Vatican for everything (which is false) and continued to insist that I was blaming the Vatican, well, guess what I will be criticizing from then on?

FALSE. The Popes have OFFICIALLY condemned slavery as early as 1435 by Pope Eugene's encyclical Sicut Dudum. The Quakers OFFICIALLY condemned slavery in 1688, more than 2 CENTURIES apart.

Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435
Paul III: Sublimis Deus, 1537
Gregory XVI: In Supremo, 1839

ABOUT SICUT DUDUM. There's some attempts at historical revisionism by apologists to elevate Eugene IV to some sort of a anti-slavery hero. This is FALSE. He banned the enslavement of recently-captured African Christians and those tricked into conversion....but not non-christians and those who refuse to become christians.

From Sicut Dudum:

"We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above."

From reading about Eugene IV over the internet, you got to check this guy out....he is one baaaaad dude.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT SUBLIMIS DEUS. Below are quotes from Wikipedia

- "the bull did not change the traditional teaching that the enslavement of Indians was permissible if they were considered "enemies of Christendom"

- " the bull related to the native populations of the New World and did not condemn the transatlantic slave trade stimulated by the Spanish monarchy and the Holy Roman Emperor."

- the bull only applied to "those who had become Christians after their enslavement and those born to Christian slaves"

- In 1548, he (Paul III) authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, since Gregory XVI's In Supremo is dated 1839, the Quakers' founding of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787 takes the cake as the first true anti-slavery movement.

Is it OK then to persecute and murder HELPLESS human beings just because they were in the wrong womb at the wrong circumstances such as rape and incest?

If the unborn baby was going to die either way and the only way to save the mother was to perform abortion, wouldn't abortion be the logical choice, albeit unfortunately?

As for rape and incest cases, the fact that a mother would choose abortion indicates that she has no wish to give love to that child sired by someone she hates. Would you rather that un-loved child suffer and die from neglect after being born? If the Catholic Church, in this instance, would gladly adopt these children, then by all means...put that into law.

Circumstances and situations are not as clear-cut and simple as you think.

I'm not saying I like abortion. I'm of the position that abortion should be avoided as much as possible but on certain cases, they could be considered as an option.

Yes, I have the right to be ANGRY at falsehoods, and everybody should be.

Whether or not a statement is false is not up to you, especially when the issue has been debated in more formal platforms. You're angry because your biases have clouded your judgment. Simple as that.

When you commented on this article, you have FORFEITED your immunity to criticism.
You have opened yourself to criticism the moment you open your mouth.

I'm not complaining. You want to criticize me? Bring it on.

You would make a fine Inquisitor, by the way.

[bleedingboi]

[B][SIZE=4]

What about Pope Pius XII? WAS HE SILENT?? NO. HE CONDEMNED specifically the "EXTERMINATION OF THE JEWS" on his Christmas Day message in 1944 that was broadcasted WORLDWIDE, including Germany.

....But take note that he has done A LOT when compared the world leaders of his day.

[B][SIZE=4]
The Pope saved a lot of people compared to the WHOLE British Empire and the USA combined.

I can't criminalize Pope Pius, he did what he could have done, being neutral and silent for the remainder of the war was one strategy to prevent further Nazi suspicion and deportation of Jewish Converts.
Pope Pius was still partially a Failure. Why? Here's two things:


1. Many have criticized the Pope for refusing to openly condemn Nazism's evil actions including its genocide when GERMANY APPEARED TRIUMPHANT , but later denouncing it as satanic and evil when GERMANY WAS ON THE VERGE OF DEFEAT.


2. After the war, Pius XII would not name the Nazi evil-doers even though he knew who they were. During the Nuremberg trials, he should have named all Nazi officers who committed violations of the natural law on racial cleansing.

[masakiton]

OK sis, i advocate "words coupled with action."
If pure words lang, "chismis" ray ma abot ani. way kwenta japon na ang mga expose kung kutob ra tas istorya.
why not pursue justice in the right venue, and not through mob rule?

unsa man sad diay naa kung ipahibaw sa ka daghanan ang mga dili maayo nga binuhatan sa isa ka organization?

example: c gwen ni palit ug hunasan... after na media ang gi buhat ni gwen.. gi imbestigahan dayon sa government

[SioDenz]

OK sis, i advocate "words coupled with action."

If pure words lang, "chismis" ray ma abot ani. way kwenta japon na ang mga expose kung kutob ra tas istorya.

why not pursue justice in the right venue, and not through mob rule?

Question:
1. Do you Believe that There are Priest who committed the Crimes like having sexual relationships or molested someone?
2. if Yes, Do you believe that the Church is Doing Enough to deal with this issues?

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus and his disciples in His times lived by allegations and Chismis, He was Crucified for that, But he did not Mind because in the End if your in the right path, if your Not doing wrong - It will eventually come out. I guess the Church nowadays dont want to follow that.

[<SMILE>]

Question:
1. Do you Believe that There are Priest who committed the Crimes like having sexual relationships or molested someone?
2. if Yes, Do you believe that the Church is Doing Enough to deal with this issues?

I think it is the rule of the judiciary to litigate not the church,
it is not already an internal church issue for it involves rules of law
of the land. Who will penalize is it the church or the judges, then similar
to any justice proceedings, it should go to the process of how?,when? and where?
before verdict is imposed to bring forth no prejudice nor impartiality, do you think
that justice is only for the accuser, then you are dead wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus and his disciples in His times lived by allegations and Chismis, He was Crucified for that, But he did not Mind because in the End if your in the right path, if your Not doing wrong - It will eventually come out. I guess the Church nowadays dont want to follow that.

And somehow you are pointing out that the entire church is at fault, that is too naive and ignorant
a comment, for the fault of one is not a fault of all, and mind it is still to be proven,
A faulty generalization as ihow I see it appears.

[SioDenz]

And somehow you are pointing out that the entire church is at fault, that is too naive and ignorant
a comment, for the fault of one is not a fault of all, and mind it is still to be proven,
A faulty generalization as ihow I see it appears.

I just asked you a Personal Question as a member of the Church. To know your stand.

In which Part of my Post that i POINTED out that the Church is at FAULT? are you adding some issues to divert the discussion?

I sited an example during the times of Jesus, that they accepted criticism ang Prove them wrong afterwards, is that an Indication that the Church nowadays is at Fault? wow

Its a Simple Question for you and you Blurted out another topic and assumption, Worst you added allegation which is Not in the Post. are you that Delusional when defending your Church?

[<SMILE>]

I just asked you a Personal Question as a member of the Church. To know your stand.

In which Part of my Post that i POINTED out that the Church is at FAULT? are you adding some issues to divert the discussion?

I sited an example during the times of Jesus, that they accepted criticism ang Prove them wrong afterwards, is that an Indication that the Church nowadays is at Fault? wow

Its a Simple Question for you and you Blurted out another topic and assumption, Worst you added allegation which is Not in the Post. are you that Delusional when defending your Church?

Should I take your post literally,
if it is so, then it's pure nonsense.
Somehow you are now creating some scapegoats,
do stand what you wish to imply to give credibility to your post.

your playing smart ass is not good enough for me,
not so smart at all.

And sad to say I could not make any comment,
for it's prejudice in behalf of the accuser and the accused,
for I do not know the exact details, it should be settled with the proper authority
as what Bro Newbie said. Then why we have to tinkle and comment if we do not know
the exact scenario, what is the purpose.

Your post seem to point out prove that the church is not at fault,
and of course it started in page 1 and I do believe your not OT, right?

[SioDenz]

Should I take your post literally,
if it is so, then it's pure nonsense.
Somehow you are now creating some scapegoats,
do stand what you wish to imply to give credibility to your post.

your playing smart ass is not good enough for me,
not so smart at all.

And sad to say I could not make any comment,
for it's prejudice in behalf of the accuser and the accused,
for I do not know the exact details, it should be settled with the proper authority
as what Bro Newbie said. Then why we have to tinkle and comment if we do not know
the exact scenario, what is the purpose.

Your post seem to point out prove that the church is not at fault,
and of course it started in page 1 and I do believe your not OT, right?

Its pure nonsense when you CANT answer 2 simple, General Personal questions. Especially questions that can be answered by Yes or No or I dont know.

[<SMILE>]

Its pure nonsense when you CANT answer 2 simple, General Personal questions. Especially questions that can be answered by Yes or No or I dont know.

Of course how can you get a credible answer if you are just asking people
out of nowehere, go to the streets now and ask somebody if your mama did date
Yayi Boni and let's see if you can get the exact and proper answer.