Thread: The Catholic Church’s contemptuous attitude towards its “flock”

Here's a simple thought. How about concerning yourselves with getting your own house in order instead of demonstrating false righteousness.

I take it not many of today's worldly people have the ability to understand the parable, especially in light of Jesus choice to address the simplistic life of ancient people in day-to-day examples with which they could relate.

Carry on.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Truth,? truth ? If true , then why , in F's name , has so many, over the centuries , turned their backs on that Church. ? Leaving the Catholic Church with such a bad record in respect for basic human rights . ?

Why do so many people disagree with whatever you believe if it's true?

According to your logic , then the personal actions of individuals within National Socialism (Nazi) , neither proves nor disproves their DOCTRINES . Hmmm.

True. The doctrines of National Socialism disprove National Socialism.

Could that be the reason who the Pope remained silent while the Nazis was rapeing Europe. ?

He didn't. But just keep repeating the myth over and over again like it's an undisputed fact.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

The Catholic Church’s contemptuous attitude towards its “flock”
of Sheep.



Much has been said here in defense of the Catholic church I've not seen anyone commenting on how insulting it is for religious leaders to describe themselves as “shepherds” leading a “flock,” since the metaphor which implies their followers are sheep.

From a 1906 papal encyclical:

The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors — a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging. It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.


And now from the Catholic Encyclopedia, with a cringe-inducing reference to Galileo:
[B]In the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible…. But the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional…

To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience.
But best of all is this quote from Ignatius of Loyala, founder of the Jesuits:

" That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.


Those who’ve read Orwell’s 1984 may recall the Newspeak term blackwhite here:

--

"…this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink."

--


In 1984, Orwell explicitly drew connections between religion and totalitarianism, describing totalitarianism as having refined the older tactics of religion. With much of what’s 1984 though, the connection is even closer than that; the things being described just are things religion has done.


....

I agree with you when you state "how insulting it is for religious leaders to describe themselves as “shepherds” leading a “flock,” since the metaphor which implies their followers are sheep," it is insulting and unworthy of this stage in mankind's development in knowledge and independent thinking.

But, unfortunately, it is correct! Those who follow the teachings of the man made Church so blindly that they reject common sense and free will are obviously "sheep!"

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Why do so many people disagree with whatever you believe if it's true?



True. The doctrines of National Socialism disprove National Socialism.



He didn't. But just keep repeating the myth over and over again like it's an undisputed fact.

Yes. . .he did!

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germa ny
The bishops' decision opened the way for a Concordat between the Holy See and Hitler's government. ... 11 The Ratlines: Helping Nazis to flee; 12 Apology of Pope John Paul II; 13 Notes; 14 See also ... [edit] Nazi attitudes towards the Church ...
Table of Contents - Six Million Crucifixions
http://www.sixmillioncrucifixions.co..._Contents.html
Examples of German Catholic Prelates Positive Attitudes Towards Nazism. Examples of ... The Bishop's Duty. Res, non verba: The Bishops in Action ... Chapter 12: What the Pope and the Churches Should Have Done. Things Pius XII Did .

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Yes. . .he did!

No, he did not. He condemned the ideas of Nazism several times, as had his predecessor. Meanwhile, he privately instructed monasteries and convents to hide Jews, with several hundred being hidden in the Vatican itself. He was, of course, walking on a tightrope, with millions of Catholics under the thrall of Hitler and the Vatican itself in the center of Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, when Dutch Church leaders publicly condemned Nazism from the pulpit, it only drove the Nazis in Holland to round up ethnically Jewish converts and ship them to the camps. You can claim Pius miscalculated in weighing how forceful he might have been against the potential consequences to Catholics and Jews, but it's simply more propaganda to suggest he was apathetically twiddling his thumbs throughout the persecution.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

No, he did not. He condemned the ideas of Nazism several times, as had his predecessor. Meanwhile, he privately instructed monasteries and convents to hide Jews, with several hundred being hidden in the Vatican itself. He was, of course, walking on a tightrope, with millions of Catholics under the thrall of Hitler and the Vatican itself in the center of Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, when Dutch Church leaders publicly condemned Nazism from the pulpit, it only drove the Nazis in Holland to round up ethnically Jewish converts and ship them to the camps. You can claim Pius miscalculated in weighing how forceful he might have been against the potential consequences to Catholics and Jews, but it's simply more propaganda to suggest he was apathetically twiddling his thumbs throughout the persecution.

You are rewriting history.
There is no debating with someone who is unable to recognize that a man is a man is a man. ..that the pope (every pope) is a man, and that they make mistakes. . .HUGE mistakes sometimes.

I find it actually offensive towards God to give so much blind faith and credence in the "sanctity" of a MAN.

Maybe instead of reading your Catechism, you should pick up a few history books!

Originally Posted by Sadanie

You are rewriting history.
There is no debating with someone who is unable to recognize that a man is a man is a man. ..that the pope (every pope) is a man, and that they make mistakes. . .HUGE mistakes sometimes.

I'm not rewriting history. Show me one specific thing I said that was factually incorrect. Would you rather the pope have risked even more persecutions, as the bishops in Holland did, over the mere utterance of words? What good would that have done? What would you have said if you were pope during the 40s, with Nazis and their allies in control of most of Europe, including Italy?

I find it actually offensive towards God to give so much blind faith and credence in the "sanctity" of a MAN.

Of course, you have no idea what the Church doctrine actually says. The pope as a man has no particular sanctity and there have been many very sinful popes. The office has sanctity in that it's guided by the Holy Ghost in promulgating doctrines.

Maybe instead of reading your Catechism, you should pick up a few history books!

Maybe you should read the Catechism so you can know what the Church actually teaches before pontificating on it.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Why do so many people disagree with whatever you believe if it's true?

.

Sheep like , continuing as they were taught ? Never stood back to examine theor reasoning going through the same routine as their parents . ?
More often as not its blind faith , nothing to do with "truth ".

True. The doctrines of National Socialism disprove National Socialism.

Same applies to doctrines of Catholicsm


He didn't. ? it's an undisputed fact ? UNDISPUTED ?


" Yes - he did , - Oh! No he did;nt Oh " Yes he did " then dialogue follows like a christmas pantomine.

I'm afraid there's considerable amount of evidence to DISPUTE your obvious biased claims. Here;s a C + P extract for starters , there are tons more from numerous source proving that the Pope remained silent .

---------------------

Nazi Germany and the Catholic Hierarchy

As early as 1933 Edith Stein wrote a letter to Pope Pius XI alerting him to the Nazi program of anti-Semitism and calling upon the Vatican to issue strong condemnations. She never received an answer. Stein, a brilliant philosopher who had converted to Catholicism, was a Carmelite nun, eventually deported to Auschwitz and gassed.

Within Germany, Catholic prelates, with minor exception, approved of the Nazi agenda and stated so in sermons and articles. Such attitudes were based on 1,500 years of anti-Semitism, often expressed violently. Hitler, himself a Catholic, reminded papal representatives of this long history several times, referring to Jews as “parasites.” The only papal document that might have averted the Holocaust would never be published.

-The Silence of Pope Pius XII Over Jewish Persecution


More on this topic
The Controversy Over Pope Pius XII, the Nazis and the Holocaust Hitler, Pope Pius XII and the Rise of Nazi Germany Anniversaries Point to Child Abductions and Religious Feuding
Despite numerous attempts requesting Pius XII to issue a statement on the mass deportations of Jews and other non-Aryans, including a note from United States Secretary of State Hull, the pope remained silent. Pius XII said nothing when the Nazis deported the Jews of Rome, two thirds of them women and children, to eastern death camps; only 14 survived. The pope’s silence was duly noted by the Nazi leadership. On one occasion, Heinrich Himmler thanked the papal nuncio for the “discretion” of the Vatican. There is documented evidence that as early as 1942 the pope was made aware of the atrocities
-

http://suite101.com/article/pope-piu...europe-a181615




btw even before WW2 the Pope blessed Mussolini's fascsist soldiers who set off to invade /slaughter North Africans + Coptic Ethiopeans - Abyssinia.

click to enlarge

priests-salute.jpg


tatty byeeee.


...

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Sheep like , continuing as they were taught ? Never stood back to examine theor reasoning going through the same routine as their parents . ?
More often as not its blind faith , nothing to do with "truth ".

So if people disagree with the Catholic Church, that proves the Catholic Church wrong. But if people disagree with you, they're unreasoning and blind. Isn't that convenient?

Same applies to doctrines of Catholicsm

That's not what you said before. Before, you said it was disproven by the behavior of its members, not its doctrines. So which is it?

He didn't. ? it's an undisputed fact ? UNDISPUTED ?

No, it is not. As I said, "He condemned the ideas of Nazism several times, as had his predecessor. Meanwhile, he privately instructed monasteries and convents to hide Jews, with several hundred being hidden in the Vatican itself. He was, of course, walking on a tightrope, with millions of Catholics under the thrall of Hitler and the Vatican itself in the center of Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, when Dutch Church leaders publicly condemned Nazism from the pulpit, it only drove the Nazis in Holland to round up ethnically Jewish converts and ship them to the camps. You can claim Pius miscalculated in weighing how forceful he might have been against the potential consequences to Catholics and Jews, but it's simply more propaganda to suggest he was apathetically twiddling his thumbs throughout the persecution."

As early as 1933 Edith Stein wrote a letter to Pope Pius XI alerting him to the Nazi program of anti-Semitism and calling upon the Vatican to issue strong condemnations. She never received an answer. Stein, a brilliant philosopher who had converted to Catholicism, was a Carmelite nun, eventually deported to Auschwitz and gassed.

And in 1937, Pius XI released an encyclical condemning Nazi ideology, to which the Nazis reaced by stepping up their persecutions of Catholic clergy.

The reason Stein was eventually arrested was because of the public condemnation of the Nazis issued by the Dutch prelates as I described above, she being one of the Jewish converts.

Hitler, himself a Catholic...

Well, if your source is going to go the "Hitler was a Catholic" route, I know it's crapola. Just because someone's raised a Catholic, doesn't make them a Catholic in any ideological sense. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and Henry VIII are all Catholics by that standard. As are George Carlin, Julia Sweeney, Bill Maher, and Tom Cruise. Catholics all.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

No, he did not. He condemned the ideas of Nazism several times, as had his predecessor. Meanwhile, he privately instructed monasteries and convents to hide Jews, with several hundred being hidden in the Vatican itself. He was, of course, walking on a tightrope, with millions of Catholics under the thrall of Hitler and the Vatican itself in the center of Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, when Dutch Church leaders publicly condemned Nazism from the pulpit, it only drove the Nazis in Holland to round up ethnically Jewish converts and ship them to the camps. You can claim Pius miscalculated in weighing how forceful he might have been against the potential consequences to Catholics and Jews, but it's simply more propaganda to suggest he was apathetically twiddling his thumbs throughout the persecution.

Did the Catholics condemn racial segregation and oppression in America? Yet they were expected to go to bat for the Jews because _________________?