Today, the Church got a new pope. I'm waiting to see how it goes. I'm all for orthodoxy, but I know there's a lot of grumbling over the supression of free thought over the last twenty years. (Or, as the Church calls it, "heresy.")
Today on IRC, the election of the pope caused a lot of banter, which is to be expected. I also expected that lots of the banter would be irreverant, which I'm pretty used to. Why should I expect anyone revere the same things I do?
Sometimes, though, I'm surprised when the normal IRC tactlessness gives way to something that seems to me beyond the pale. Today, someone got into a pretty heated line of ranting about the church that included the line (and this is nearly the quote), "The Catholic Church is no different from the Nazi party."
There didn't seem to be any discussing the point, so I left.
Yesterday, I was feeling the same kind of awkward discomfort when people were praising Castro for "annoying the US." Meanwhile, I have family unable to express themselves in public or, say, buy milk.
One of the things that drove me away from #kuro5hin, some years ago, was the declaration that a DEA agent who had died accidentally while doing yardwork had "gotten what he deserved" and that the speaker was "totally happy" about it. This wasn't some specific agent, it was just a nameless person who had died unfortunately.
I'm all for IRC being brutish and crass, but I keep thinking that there's some underlying etiquette. I think I'm wrong.
Re:irc isn't any different
Purdy on 2005-04-20T16:48:31
IMO, people on IRC are a little more brazen, what with the anonymity and virtuality. The stiffest penalty for provocative banter is a/ban, /kick or whatever. IRL, that bar goes up with tarnishing true reputation or even physical /kick's.
Peace,
JasonRe:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-20T16:57:52
The difference is that the killing done by the Catholic Church was an anomaly in the history of Catholicism, and altogether antithetical to the modern and original views of the Catholic Church, unlike Nazism, which was founded on the views it killed people over.
Re:irc isn't any different
hfb on 2005-04-20T17:41:09
I know better than to reply....100 years and the crusades before then were not entirely what I would call an anomaly any more than the rather unplanned manner in which the 'final solution' was arrived at by the Nazi's. Extremism tends to make people crazy, moreso when there's religion involved. Perhaps if Hitler had made the Nazi party a religion it might have lasted longer and been thought of us just an anomaly by now.Re:irc isn't any different
jdavidb on 2005-04-20T17:56:10
I know better than to reply, too, but I'm a fool.
:) You seem to be accusing pudge of playing a word game with the word "anomaly," but you didn't really address his definition of the word, which seems to fit: the beginnings of the movement condemned that behavior, the moderns in the movement condemn that behavior, so apparently everything that is official within the movement other than the contemporaries back then state that the behavior was unjustified, unauthorized, and only claimed to be taken legitimately in the name of that movement.
IIRC one of the Commandments was against taking the name of God in vain. I imagine there will be quite a stiff punishment for those who want to apply the name of Jesus to killing, considering the Man Himself advocated a radical pacifism even in the face of injustice.
I don't know, I just can't hold people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. The perpetrators are long dead, and the people there today repudiate the behavior. Comparing the Catholic Church of the past to the Nazis might be apropos. But the same comparison does not fit the institution today.
Re:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-20T18:03:42
I know better than to reply
You do?
100 years and the crusades before then were not entirely what I would call an anomaly
I realize you wouldn't, but you're hardly impartial.
Extremism tends to make people crazy, moreso when there's religion involved.
As evidenced by your extreme attacks on religion.
Re:irc isn't any different
hfb on 2005-04-21T05:03:37
I never said I was impartial. But tell me how the Catholic church gets a pass as an 'anomaly' and forgiveness after centuries of killing people yet the Nazi get the scorn for being monsters. I don't necessarily attack religion, just churches like Catholicism with centuries of death and destruction in their wake.Re:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-21T06:26:28
But tell me how the Catholic church gets a pass as an 'anomaly' and forgiveness after centuries of killing people yet the Nazi get the scorn for being monsters.
I already did. I said it, and then jdavidb reiterated it. So, for the third time: the actions you're referring to are absoultey antithetical to what it means to be a Catholic, what the church was founded on, and what we recognize as Catholicism today.
And on the other hand, the Holocaust was perfectly in line with Nazism as it was founded, and what we recognize as Nazism today.
If Catholicism in its inception, or today, in any way, advocated the conquest and killing of infidels, I might share your view that this was not an anomaly. But it does not, so I do not.
Re:irc isn't any different
hfb on 2005-04-21T07:45:57
The catholic church was founded much like any other organized religion...it had no loftier goal than to spread their belief and, well before the reformation and the enlightenment, rule countries via leaders and cunning politics. The Nazi's did not run on a platform of killing the infirm, the insane, or genocide, but, then again, they didn't pretend to be on a mission of salvation either. You should read a bit about the Wansee meeting and how it came to be. You might also look into some of the allegations on Pius XII. The church today is the same one that existed 500 years ago only with little power to play enforcers of the faith when there are few faithful left, especially in Europe. I have little doubt that had the reformation never come, we'd still be illiterates believing the world is flat and fearing an angry god lest we fear an angry inquisitor.
An interesting article about Herr Panzerpope and Bush this morning included a quote from Madison - "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."
Christians serving death to those they see fit to die may be anathema to the 'founding priciples' and yet it is far from being an anomaly since it happened throughout history too often to qualify as such.
Re:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-21T08:15:51
The catholic church was founded much like any other organized religion...it had no loftier goal than to spread their belief
A belief antithetical to what you are decrying, yes.
and, well before the reformation and the enlightenment, rule countries via leaders and cunning politics
Not at the formation of the church under Peter, no, it had no interest in such things.
You should read a bit about the Wansee meeting and how it came to be
You should read a bit about the Catholic church and how it came to be.
What the meeting at Wannsee actually shows is that they were anti-Jew from the start, which was my point. I'm well aware that the Holocaust was not the idea from the beginning, but the Holocaust is not antithetical to the founding beliefs of Nazism. The Crusades and such certainly were antithetical to the founding beliefs of Catholicism.
An interesting article about Herr Panzerpope and Bush this morning included a quote from Madison
The context of that quote was government control of religious teaching, and it simply doesn't reasonably apply to anything related to Bush. Perhaps you mean it to apply to the Vatican, but I doubt Madison would think that wise, since the Vatican is an entirely different sort of government.
And you should be careful about quoting Madison, as he disagreed strongly with your view of the role of the federal government. He was the ardent defender of the principle that the federal government should fund no social programs of any sort, and that any attempt to read the phrase "general welfare" as blanket permission to fund anything the government felt like funding was unwarranted. Out of all the most important founding fathers, I suspect you would disagree with him the most, or close to it. Maybe Adams, then Madison.
Re:irc isn't any different
hfb on 2005-04-21T09:20:19
You are misreading what I'm saying and, instead, splitting hairs and introducing things that have nothing to do with the original point of this which was - that organized religion such as the Catholic church and the Nazis share enough in political machinations and killing people to be logically compared. Regardless of the illusion of founding ideals that have plagued so many political bodies such as the church or the nazis, killing those opposed has not been an unusal occurance throughout history and still continues even now. The fact that the church worships some unseen and unverified mystical power as opposed to, say, Hitler or patriotic might is irrelevant. It's all about power and money. The church might have been about Peter a millenium ago but that time is long ago and, again, pointless to suggest that this is what the current church is about since it isn't currently killing masses of people. I'm sure Peter wouldn't be all that approving of molesting little boys which, at least when I was in Catholic school, common. And whether or not the church has been involved in mass killings of late, it also has done nothing to stop them either aside from saying that they condemn it which is quite really nothing.I'm aware of the context of that quote from Madison and, since he was living during the time of enlightenment and the rejection of the church of state affairs due to a long history of the church meddling to no good end was apropos. That I would disagree with his policies is irrelevent. I could have chosen any number of quotes from the founding fathers as I recall all of them felt very similarly towards organized religion.
Re:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-21T14:57:52
You are misreading what I'm saying
Example?
organized religion such as the Catholic church and the Nazis share enough in political machinations and killing people to be logically compared
Only in the same way as the UK and the Nazis can be logically compared, which is not interesting.
I'm sure Peter wouldn't be all that approving of molesting little boys which, at least when I was in Catholic school, common
Can you honestly not understand the difference between something the church supported (e.g., the Crusades) and something it condemned (child molestation)?
I'm aware of the context of that quote from Madison
Then you know he was talking about actual state sponsorship of religion, which is distinct from anything happening under Bush. No, what he said is not relevant, by any reasonable leap of logic.
Re:irc isn't any different
phillup on 2005-04-21T20:55:53
I seriously doubt that the person that saidreally cares about the views of the Catholic Church, their intents, or whether the Crusades were an "anomaly" (interesting word to describe 250 years of activity). They are most likely equally apathetic towards knowing about the Nazi party."The Catholic Church is no different from the Nazi party."
Both groups killed large numbers of people using religous belief as a litmus test.
If that is the criteria for comparison, then they are the same. (Some Jews call the Crusades the "first holocost", if you are looking for more similarity.)
Naturally, one (probably both) of these groups would like for the criteria to be expanded so that they aren't "the same".
Re:irc isn't any different
pudge on 2005-04-21T21:17:11
If that is the criteria for comparison, then they are the same. (Some Jews call the Crusades the "first holocost", if you are looking for more similarity.)
Right, which is also why I said the UK is the same by that measure, and not just because of its involvement in the Crusades, though that in itself would be sufficient.
The question is: what are we trying to say? I was making a similar point to yours on ziggy's journal about "blogs." People like to screw with definitions for the purpose of legitimizing (or in the case here, delegitimizing) something that normally doesn't fit a given definition.
I fell into the same trap here, to some degree. I should have just said, "stop using damned comparisons and labels to make your case, just tell me what you find to be wrong with the Catholic church."
Arguing over what is and is not under a given label, or what is like something else, is just a sideshow, a way to avoid actually defining something according to truth, by using innuendo instead.
You know, I don't believe the Pope is the successor to Peter, and I don't believe he has any authority over me, and I do believe the men in that office and their subordinates have made blatant obvious changes to the tradition handed down by the apostles. But I do believe in giving decent respect to a man honored by millions. I did pray for those grieving the loss of the previous Pope, and there were public prayers offered to that effect at our church meetings, even though they agree with me about the theology of the Papacy. I do believe he was a good man, and Ratzinger seems to have a similar record. (To be honest, I admire his statements about the deficiencies of Protestant churches.) And I don't believe in holding people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors: medieval persecutions and pograms were committed by people long dead.
But I also know that it's a wild and wooly net out there, and that most people hate religion and almost all expressions of it, especially organized religious expression. And a lot of people want to blame religion, and especially the Catholic Church, for most of the world's problems. They are wrong.
I really appreciated this post by a homeschooling mother from my own faith, who stated that while she certainly has some differences with the Catholic Church, she knows that now is not the time. She's also interested in educating herself, her children, and her readers on the Papacy without being critical.
Re:My take
pudge on 2005-04-20T17:06:13
I only have academic problems with the Catholic Church, as a unit. I disagree with it on many things, but nothing that matters in practical life. I've got the same goals they do, and as such, I am all for their health and have a more than a mere passing interest in their leadership, and I am encouraged that the Church decided to make a solid and deliberate stand for orthodoxy.
Even if I were not a Christian, I would be heartened by the move. One of the greatest problems today is well-demonstrated by rjbs' notes, though I would offer a different interpretation: it's not about being brutish and crass, but about rejecting orthodoxy, just because it is orthodoxy, what Benedict XVI called in his introductory address "relativism."
The Catholic Church represents authority and conservatism and orthodoxy; therefore, it is evil.
Same with the U.S. And despite Cuba's many terrible evils, Castro is a hero because he stands up against the U.S.
Same with the DEA agent. He was an agent of orthodoxy.
And the reason for the brutishness and crassness is, I believe, in part because there is no rational argument to support the views. It's difficult to argue what they feel, that the Church and the U.S. are bad because they are powerful and orthodox. So they make outrageous comparisons and charges intended to both reflect their deep feelings, and deflect any possibility at rational debate which would expose the view as shallow.
Re:My take
jdavidb on 2005-04-20T17:47:36
it's not about being brutish and crass, but about rejecting orthodoxy, just because it is orthodoxy
... The Catholic Church represents authority and conservatism and orthodoxy; therefore, it is evil. Hmm. I think you are right, generally speaking. And I think suddenly I understand people just a little bit more.
Like you, I'm encouraged to hear the Catholic Church stick to its guns on Orthodoxy, even on those issues I don't agree with. Even if it should mean they want to say that I am condemned for not being a Catholic.
