During Mussolini’s rule of Italy, the country had a recreational organization called the Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (the OND). While the main purpose of the OND under Mussolini was to promote Fascism, it was surprisingly progressive in that it allowed women to participate in “masculine” sports, which were normally limited to males only. However, the Catholic Church was opposed to this and pressured Mussolini’s government into barring female participation in any “masculine” activities. After all, Italian women might have started to think they could do manly sports like rowing *gasp*. That could turn female athletes into devil-worshiping lesbian heathens or something equally horrific! (Like skilled athletes?)
Despite Mussolini’s antipathy for the Catholic Church, he was smart to listen. After all, the Church represented hundreds of millions of people in Europe alone and was especially influential in Italy. Mussolini knew he had to appeal to the Catholic Church rather than oppose it if he wanted the masses to obey. The fact that a powerful dictator like Mussolini was so hesitant to oppose the Vatican despite his disdain for it says much about its influence. Yet what did the Catholic Church do with this influence? It pressured the anticlerical Mussolini into banning abortion, banning divorce, declaring Catholicism to be Italy’s state-sponsored religion, and even giving the Catholic Church its own city-state under the Lateran Treaty (Mussolini even threw in a nice summer residence for the Pope in Castel Gandolfo).
The Pope at the time, Pope Pius XII, while by no means anti-Semetic, was a coward of the highest degree. Rather than using the Church’s immense influence to help create dissent among the largely Catholic, Italian Fascists, he refused to condemn their actions. Instead, he went along with Mussolini’s obvious attempts to sedate the Church in order to achieve the Church’s twisted political goals.
Time and time again throughout the war, the Catholic Church stood on the sidelines, largely indifferent to the suffering of millions. It’s strange how the Church so openly pretends to espouse support for human dignity, yet when it’s put to the test, all it does is cower in fear. That is, unless it is the one attacking human dignity, of course. The Church always seems very enthusiastic about that.
I agree with Sarah Silverman’s proposal to sell the Vatican: “You preach to live humbly, and I totally agree. So, now maybe it’s time for you to move out of your house that is a city.” Maybe they should try actually promoting human dignity while they’re at it.
excuse me? a coward of the highest degree?
im no model christian, and ill be damned if i ever think that some bearded dudes back 2 millenia ago managed to live 8 centuries straight.
but to say that Pius the XII was a coward of the highest degree is not only rediculously ignorant, but thats just downright insane.
you do realize that had Pius XII openly declared partisanism, Vatican Neutrality would have been comprimised, and they would have succumbed to the Third Reich? That means, not only Nazi’s within an unarmed territory, pillaging Pius Xii’s own officials, and the people under his protection, but the discovery of the people they’ve hidden.
Some 5,000 jews, allied soldiers, and other potential POW’s that the vatican struggled to hide throughout rome and in a few builldings in the heart of rome? (the vatican is NOT a city by any means. its the equivalent of a college, complete with a dorm. anyone who has EVER been there would know that).
Did you ALSO know that the vatican had 1,000 other prisoners discovered from their hiding places in rome, and of that number 990 died in the camps?
How can you demand “support of human dignity” when such support would only lead to a loss of the only protection of said dignity? if you were alone on a street without and form of defence, and 10 thugs surrounded you, would YOU call them a**holes to their face and tell them to shape up? or would you try to get other people off the streets so they dont get harmed? think logically.
(by the way, back in the day, italy, and most of europe, was known as the Holy Roman Empire… big change, eh? Telling the centuries old diplomatic centre of the faith to change back to the “love your neighbor as you love yourself” kind of attitude amongst all the political strife? Also, think about it from Mussolini’s standpoint, Il Duce was a smart guy. Would the people of Italy serve under a heartless dictatorship? No. Mussolini obviously had the power to tell the pope to go to hell. Its not like Pius XII really had and force to tell him to do so. But in the publics eye, such a change obviously was seen as good-hearted.)
Divorce and abortion are against of our creed, we BELIEVE pro live is a better choice. And why get married if its not time? We wont change that. and your anger with the churches “female-masculine” hatred? did you ever look into the other countries during the mid-1900′s? women didnt get the vote until then. it wasnt uncommon to be sexist. not agreeing with it, but lets not forget all that, shall we? and where did you get your idea on how catholics would believe such women would turn into “devil-worshipping lesbian heathens”?
first of all, do you honestly think catholicism has it out for homosexuals? thats diluded.
Once again its our faith, and to be honest, from a biological standpoint, it seems pretty accurate here. Sausage on sausage just isn’t how its supposed to work (excuse the crude language). Can you tell me in all honesty that the intended purpose of genitalia wasnt to further the human race, but to pleasure those of the same sex? no. hell, you learn this in grade 11 bio, male and female. thats how it works, and it is, from a scientific standpoint, irrational to mate with another member of the species that is the same sex. but theres nothing wrong with being that way. The church acknowledges how difficult it is. but that does not mean the act that isnt wrong
And we do promote human dignity. for every one bad catholic priest who sullies the name by being a pedophile, theres an uncountable number of us who donate to charities, sponsor children, work in soup kitchens, and even go out on missions to third world countries to do whatever we can. When i was in high school, i sponsored a child through my church. so dont even think about saying we dont promote human dignity. I also went to a catholic school. Every week we would collect mission-used money that would go the relief funds of various sorts.
Our views may be illogical, but thats what faith is. The belief in something despite all the disproof. To call us on not doing more in WWII? Well, simple. name another european leader in mainlad europe that, despite openly stating their neutrality to save their own people, attempted to hide the presecuted, and come in direct conflict with one of the most powerful forces in europe at the time (without any form of pretection, other than a white line)?
You want more proof? Look up Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty, St. Maximilian Kolbe, hell you can even see quotes from Eienstien (“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”).
Jewish Holocaust survivors even state: “if the pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million jews, and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so” (Marcus Melchior, Chief Rabbi of Denmark)
Its dumb to say that catholics are crazy realists who hate gays for being gay and glue the pages about evolution in our textbooks together. My World of Warcraft, Call of Duty MW2 playing priest thinks realists are rediculous too. Next time you have such strong opinions, i suggest you do more research into the side you hate. I dont critisize Seventh Day Adventists straight up, i read on WHY they think Harry Potter is Satanic. I create a valid argument, and use it to create my assesment. I dont call them crazy sons of bitches right off the bat.
No, we shall not. The Catholic Church believes itself to be an organization that can accurately decree what is and is not moral. The fact that the culture of the time was sexist does nothing to excuse the Church advocating for the vile parts of the culture. From the point of view of a Catholic, the Church should have been the first to come out in support of gender equality. Yet it fought–and still fights–vehemently against it.
Read it again in context and think about it.
Considering most Germans and Italians were Catholic, I think the Church issuing a strong denunciation of the regimes would have had a pretty powerful impact. Furthermore, Germany invading the Vatican and killing the Pope probably wouldn’t go over all that well with the German people. After doing something like that, I can’t see how Hitler wouldn’t have had a powerful rebellion on his hands at home. Maybe it would have even saved a few million lives.
There is no “supposed to” from a scientific standpoint. You could ask whether homosexuality is a useful adaption for the continuation of the human species. That’s arguable. However, it’s certainly not detrimental. Heterosexuals will continue to reproduce during sex, and homosexuals will not. And that’s that. There’s nothing immoral about it. It’s simply one of the many surviving instances of bigotry and stupidity that exists in your church’s dogma.
Homosexuality serves homosexuals the same way heterosexuality serves heterosexuals. It satisfies a psychological need. That in itself is a good thing.
“Next time you have such strong opinions, i suggest you do more research into the side you hate.”
I don’t “hate” any side. I just think aspects of the side I disagree with are so blatantly wrong that I feel that I must criticize them harshly.
“The fact that the culture of the time was sexist does nothing to excuse the Church advocating for the vile parts of the culture.”
Likewise, focusing on the church alone does not excuse the rest of the culture. If one were to focus on one part of society alone, one loses the ability to correctly asses it in that situation. The church did not advocate such positions any more than your average male during those decades.
“Yet it fought–and still fights–vehemently against it.”
You are incorrect here. The church was supremely modernized by the late Pope John Paul II. It has accepted much of the newly developed world, and currently preaches dialogue with other branches of catholicism, as well as other faiths in general (buddhism, sikhism, etc. etc.). I assume youre referring to the current absence of women within the structure of the church when you say “and still fights”. Well, as in lineage of nobility, Jesus Christ and his apostles directly appointed men as their successors. Just like how a king gives his sons the crown, and only allows the daughters the throne if there is no son born, we (currently) have no need for female successors. Who knows, though. In the near future, there is a strong possibility (I know i would be for it, but you dont go changing a two-millenia old heirarchy in the span of half a century, it just simply cannot be done)
“Furthermore, Germany invading the Vatican and killing the Pope probably wouldn’t go over all that well with the German people. After doing something like that, I can’t see how Hitler wouldn’t have had a powerful rebellion on his hands at home. Maybe it would have even saved a few million lives.”
so are you telling me, with all religious views aside, you would advocate the mass murder of a leader and his affiliates who, alone, might i add, managed to rally unarmed forces to peacefully save the lives of as many people as possible with their limited resources? To the same effect, one could theoretically kill a man like Ghandi and avoid having a ton of indian followers beaten, but still have them live under opression. Despite your athiesm, which i respect, mind you, do you really think that that isnt wrong at all? Not to mention, hitler was a facist to the core. had a powerful rebellion arose, i think a man who single handedly pulled off the successful murder of six-million people could put a rebellion down, especially on his home soil, which was brimming with ultranationalists and fearful followers. I might mention that several of his own officers attempted his assassination as well as other ploys, including his most successful field marshall, Erwin Rommel, who plotted to have hitler arrested and tried. I think its safe to assume he could have done whatever the hell he wanted. Considering the fact that he already did.
I re-read you post regarding “devil-worshipping lesbian heathens,” and attempted to find it in any other context, but at its best, which is the most intelligent form i could derive from it, it passes for an attempt at sarcasm. Had i not read the part about you calling the pope a coward of the highest degree, i might have giggled. Despite that, you are once again misinterpreting the times, and allowing others to view something in a subjective way. You must realize, women didnt not begin competing in the olympics until less than 30 years prior to 1940 (1912). Women in America did not receive the right to vote only 20 years before that in 1920. And women in Canada did not recieve the right to vote in federal elections until OVER 30 years after that, in 1971.
“There is no “supposed to” from a scientific standpoint. You could ask whether homosexuality is a useful adaption for the continuation of the human species. That’s arguable. However, it’s certainly not detrimental. Heterosexuals will continue to reproduce during sex, and homosexuals will not.”
Now YOU must read in context, i never said it was detrimental, i said it was irrational. you dont see a species of homosexual primates surviving in the wild, do you? I made no mention to the church in that passage you cited, it was, in all simplicity, a logical biological theory. you are also incorrect in your assumption that there is no “supposed to” in science.
Thats what science IS.
Proving that something is SUPPOSED TO be a certain way.
And certainly enough, mating is SUPPOSED TO occur between individuals of the opposite sex. Surely, your atheistic being can accept that as a proven fact. Therefore it is safe to say, regardless of a supreme being or not, homosexuality is wrong strictly from a scientific standpoint. Why is it that we evolved this way, and yet should act another? Darwin states “survival of the fittest,” yet obvously those who are homosexual lack an important sense necessary to survive. nothing wrong, nothing immoral about being one. Homosexuality is NOT arguable in its ability to be a useful adaptation for the continuation of the human species.
“I don’t “hate” any side. I just think aspects of the side I disagree with are so blatantly wrong that I feel that I must criticize them harshly.”
please, re-state that last part WITHOUT using a synonym for “hate” in the sentence. critisize all you want, but when you add “harshly” into the mix, then its easy to tell your bias. One can have a “STRONG” stance, but one who believes “HARSH” is a more accurate term CLEARLY is no longer thinking from a logical standpoint, but rather is attacking at every direction, trying to gouge any weakpoint seen.
I may not be a devout christian, but i am one. I believe something WAS before the big bang. i believe all this here, could not have been mere coincidence. scientifically, theres no explination. there was nothing, then something. So we believe in pro-life. thats a debate that has no end, as there is no specfic definition for the beginning of growth, dont “critisize us harshly” for believing adoption is a better choice than a POSSIBLE murder (and i stress possible). So we’re against divorce. Shouldnt you marry the one you love anyway? why rush into things, its as simple as that. and ike i said “italy’s state sponsored religion” was, in the middle ages, not only a state sponsored religion. It WAS a state. The Holy Roman Empire. WHICH CEASED TO EXIST, in all its temporal might, during the renaissance.
I respect all religions, i respect athiests. I’ve dated one. Yet when they critisized a part of MY religion, they did it neither strongly not harshly, and they did it after taking the time to understand where WE were coming from. you tell me you dont “hate” any side, yet you lack a refutation to my point about proper research (amongs a lack of other refutations which i expected you to mention; einstein’s quotes, the stats regarding the underground railroad of the vatican, and so on).
What are you basing these claims on? personal experience? you started this website in 2007, saying you came out of confirmation. I assume you dont go to a catholic school, you dont go to church, and you dont read any objective books on the history of the church and its surrounding environments. Therefore i assume youre going from personal experience, fuelled by research you find useful in your travels through school. I strongly suggest if you wish to debate Christianity in any means, you look at it from the inside out, NOT the outside in, and you aim to see all that is around you, rather than the portion right infront of your. Our faith may be unbelievable and rediculous, you can attest to that I’m sure, but it is a faith that billions of people view as something worth following. thats what faith is, a blind following. Its like trusting that the milk didn’t spoil two days after the printed expiration date. Such faith may or may not yield prosperous results. But regardless of whether or not my faith gives me prosperous results (heaven), i will die knowing i lived my life attempting to better society through the compassion my religion asks of me.
take away all the political strife, the controversial topics, the skewed, someties INSANE beliefs, and you’re left with “The opium of the masses” (Karl Marx). Regardless of whether or not God exists, he sure made one helluva safety net.
I failed to mention in the section where i state “you started this website in 2007, saying you came out of confirmation.” that i also read you were still in high school by 2008. also that the researc you find throught your daily life, be they primary sources (mormons in your class, for example) or secondary sources (the “biblically correct tour guide”), do not give you an accurate perspective on christianity as a whole
I want to respond fully to your comments, but they’re far too long and I don’t have much free time. I can attempt to find each of your points and respond to only that if you want, but making your comments a bit more concise would be helpful.
Understood.
Taking that into account, I, firstly, retract my statement on your lack of refutations. at the same time, i would assume you would have enough time to refute points that “stick out,” like you did the first time.
making a concise comment is impossible in this situation as there are far too many bases that have been touched by your initial post that i intended to refute. I, therefore, cannot make a concise post that would defend my position sufficiently.