The pope seems to have lost his mind

[Dry]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Is that kind of like Bush fighting for the rights of Iraqis? Why would the church have to fight for their rights? Why not leave them be?

In fact, the church did not really fight for their right.
In the Valliadolid debate it was a Domincan (Las Casas) vs a Jesuit (Sepúlveda),

Las Casas argued that the Amerindians were free men in the natural order and deserved the same treatment as others, according to Catholic theology
[...] Sepúlveda insisted that the Indians were natural slaves, and therefore reducing them to slavery or serfdom was in accordance with Catholic theology and natural law
[...]
Las Casas' position found support from the monarchy and the Catholic Church, who wanted to control the power of the encomenderos, while Sepúlveda's arguments supported the interests of the colonists and landowners who benefited from the system.
[...]
the debate remained on largely theoretical grounds.
[...]
In the end, both parties declared they had won the debate, but neither received the outcome they desired.
[...]
The debate did result in the weakening of the encomienda system, but did not substantially alter the treatment of the Indians.

[Barnabas]

There were real consequences if I recall correctly, the first decades Indians were used as slaves, but after that, they no longer could be enslaved, that had the bad consequences of the start of the importation of blacks slaves.
Colonial Spanish America was a society with castes, Spaniards were the highest caste, after them criollos (sons f spaniards born in america), after them mestizos (people of mixed indian and spanish ancestry), after them indians and at the bottom blacks.

Blacks were the "lowest" caste, and were slaves in sugar or coffee plantations like in the USA, but the indians were poor peasants, more like serfs in the middle ages with spaniards as the feudal lord, altough with a bit more freedom, since some communities were entirely indian, ruled by indians, and those indians who had noble inca ancestry had some privileges, like Tupac Amaru the descendant of the inca who revolted in the XVIII century, he had a business transporting goods from Bolivia to Buenos Aires.
The only indians who lived something similar to slavery were those who lived in territories near gold or silver mines, there was a systyem called mita (which was not invented by the spaniards, it is an inca institution), that made them leave their town and work in the mines for a certain time, later to returned to their towns. Less than half of those sent to the mines survived and returned.

Something that people ignore is the role the church had saving native american culture, nowadays the number of speakers of quichwa (the language of the incas), is probably 3 times larger than before the spaniards arrived.
When the spaniards arrived the Inca empire had around 6 million people (spain ahd more or less the same population back then), and only the ethnic quechuas (incas) and a small % of the people conquered by the incas spoke that language, now 14 million people speak that language, mainly because of the church, the priests learned the langauges of the native people and preached to them in their language, that way the quechua language expanded even into places the incas had never seen, like Santiago del Estero in Argentina.

There are languages who are now extinct, that we know well, because the priests learned those languages, and made dictionaries and wrote grammars of them. (And those languages did not go extinct because of the church, the incas were an empire and had their own way of linguistic imperialism) saince they had no writing in the andes, the only thing that save that knowledge is the church.

Something similar happened in Paraguay with the Jesuits, before the minister Pombal of Portugal, all Brazilians spoke Guarani, even the europeans, nowadays Paraguay is completely spanish gaurani bilingual.

[Barnabas]

By the way, Dry

nice use of

[...]

[Straybow]

What's the big deal? This goes all the way back to Paul:

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Colonial Spanish America was a society with castes, Spaniards were the highest caste, after them criollos (sons f spaniards born in america), after them mestizos (people of mixed indian and spanish ancestry), after them indians and at the bottom blacks.

Well, the Indians don't exactly fit into the caste categorization. Theoretically, they were even outside of it, in practice they were often in a worse position than Blacks and slaves. Abuses of natives by blacks were not uncommon.

some communities were entirely indian, ruled by indians, and those indians who had noble inca ancestry had some privileges, like Tupac Amaru the descendant of the inca who revolted in the XVIII century, he had a business transporting goods from Bolivia to Buenos Aires.

Which was kind of a two edged sword for many, since the Indian nobility often was not less inclined to exploit their own ilk than the Spanish - in fact, they were often in a better position to exploit them because they disposed of more effective control mechanisms within the communities.

The only indians who lived something similar to slavery were those who lived in territories near gold or silver mines, there was a systyem called mita (which was not invented by the spaniards, it is an inca institution), that made them leave their town and work in the mines for a certain time, later to returned to their towns. Less than half of those sent to the mines survived and returned.

The mita was surely one of the (or THE) biggest colonial crimes. However, "indios de guerra", like Mapuche from Chile or Yucatec insurgents could be forced into slavery also during the 17th century.

Something that people ignore is the role the church had saving native american culture, nowadays the number of speakers of quichwa (the language of the incas), is probably 3 times larger than before the spaniards arrived.
When the spaniards arrived the Inca empire had around 6 million people (spain ahd more or less the same population back then), and only the ethnic quechuas (incas) and a small % of the people conquered by the incas spoke that language, now 14 million people speak that language, mainly because of the church, the priests learned the langauges of the native people and preached to them in their language, that way the quechua language expanded even into places the incas had never seen, like Santiago del Estero in Argentina.
There are languages who are now extinct, that we know well, because the priests learned those languages, and made dictionaries and wrote grammars of them. (And those languages did not go extinct because of the church, the incas were an empire and had their own way of linguistic imperialism) saince they had no writing in the andes, the only thing that save that knowledge is the church.

That is true, it's because priests had to learn one native language, and most chose Nahuatl and Quechua for convenience, thus spreading those languages. However, that was done with the sole purpose of fishing souls, not preserving cultural heritage.

Something similar happened in Paraguay with the Jesuits, before the minister Pombal of Portugal, all Brazilians spoke Guarani, even the europeans, nowadays Paraguay is completely spanish gaurani bilingual.

The Jesuit missions were, comparatively spoken, a success story, and the Indians there were generally better off than in the colonial society. Yet, they were also a crucial tool to "civilize" those people and destroyed traditional forms of living - for which I wouldn't blame them though, considering that it was impossible to avoid that anyway and esp. judging from the standards of the time.

[LordShiva]

Indians

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Heresson
the church actually fought for the right for the Indians.

[Kidlicious]

MrFun,

Don't you know they fight for all of us.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
I believe originally catholics tried to do that, because they thought (soviet) communists would not share orthodox bias against them.

But what about "Theology of Liberation" then? Priests standing up for the poor in Latin America who work together with socialist movements have a tough time within the church. And this despite the fact that Latin American socialism was not so rabidly antireligious as the Soviet communism. The fact that they had problems with reactionary priests backing landowners and military surely resulted in anticlericalism, but not with the basis of faith. Theology of Liberation could have had a much more positive influence on socialist movements and could have helped to overcome the unholy alliance between a good part of the clergy and the extreme right.
The position of the church is completely biased in this regard - flexible towards fascism but 0-tolerance to anything that even slightly smells socialist.

seriously, RCC works on Earth, so it is likely to be inclined to earthly means and politics.

Now if the church could only use that logic to allow the use of condoms instead of insisting on abstinence to counter AIDS...

It couldn't have been worse than USSR

Look, I'm not here to defend Lenin or Stalin, and the USSR is not Italy. I'm not saying that the popes should have said: "Well, Communism is OK", but they should have stood up much more clearly against the barbarism happening around its very power center, in a country where its word did actually matter.

it was the lesser evil. Of course, one could expect the church to act according to its values precisely, but when it does, it gets even more criticised (abortion etc).

Well, I guess I just can't argue on that ground. The situation in Italy when Mussolini came to power was nothing like the USSR,Mussolini was not a saviour in a horrendous situation. It was he and his militia who escalated the situation and started massive killing and oppression in Italy. And the assumption that even if Italian socialism had succeeded, it would have been like in Russia and worse than Italian fascism bares any ground.

Also, democracy was still a fresh thing. Today it's obvious for us.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to tell me. Of course, young democracies are fragile - that's why left and right totalitarians alike had an easy go.

Also, he did condemn nazism and fascism in Mit Brennender Sorge or whatever.

IIRC, it was more against Nazism than against fascism. It probably was too socialist for him. No, honestly, my image of Pius XII is nearly as bad as for Pius IX and XI, amongst others. I'm sure his reputation in my eyes suffers from the fact that sedevacantists regard him as the last true pope and a prominent clerico-fascist in Austria is member of the "brotherhood Pius XII".

[Patroklos]

flexible towards fascism but 0-tolerance to anything that even slightly smells socialist.

When were the communists in a position to occupy the Vatican and destroy the church in Europe?

You seem to think that because Italian fascism (and fascism in general) was close to home it should have been bolder, I think it is the opposite and that is what happened.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Patroklos
When were the communists in a position to occupy the Vatican and destroy the church in Europe?

Well, it was such a threat that fascists all over Europe felt justified to install their regimes with the main argument of saving Europe from communism.

You seem to think that because Italian fascism (and fascism in general) was close to home it should have been bolder, I think it is the opposite and that is what happened.

Right, one problem is the relative cowardice. But also, for the right, even fascists, a church standing up would have been a bigger threat and more difficult to poerate against than for communists.

For example, imagine a pope railing that Generalisimo Franco was NOT the saviour of western Christianity as he styled himself but rather a brutal dictator, no matter how anticlerical the other side was. But no, the whole Spanish clergy sided fully with Franco and the pope agreed. It's no wonder that Spanish lower classes were so bitterly anticlerical, considering that church and elites always acted as one and the main politics was to cement their own privileges.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Heresson
the church actually fought for the right for the Indians. And it's common to believe everyone silently longs to God, so what's the matter? That is not very tactuful, but nor is bashing him for it.

Sorry it took some time.

Fought for them as in they should be allowed to belive whatever they wanted or just that if they converted, they wouldn't be harmed ?

I guess that any firm/fundamentalistic beliver of any religion would say that any nonbeliver in their specific flavor would silently longs for their god. Ie. the spaniards actually longed for the amerindians god, but the christian gods arms were stronger.

You are quite right, it's not wery tactful of him to say such - I would even call it a bit arrogant.

Please give me just one reason for not bashing him for such.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Well, it was such a threat that fascists all over Europe felt justified to install their regimes with the main argument of saving Europe from communism.



Right, one problem is the relative cowardice. But also, for the right, even fascists, a church standing up would have been a bigger threat and more difficult to poerate against than for communists.

For example, imagine a pope railing that Generalisimo Franco was NOT the saviour of western Christianity as he styled himself but rather a brutal dictator, no matter how anticlerical the other side was. But no, the whole Spanish clergy sided fully with Franco and the pope agreed. It's no wonder that Spanish lower classes were so bitterly anticlerical, considering that church and elites always acted as one and the main politics was to cement their own privileges.

Thats the egg and chicken story, did republicans execute innocent priests and nuns because the church prefered Franco, or the church prefered Franco because the republicans werre killing religious and people and destroying churches? After all Lenin said Spain would be the second communist country, republicans were being helped by commies, and the church knew what had happened to priests (of all kinds) in the Soviet Union.


By the way, there are lots of contradictions, since they are human, the church saved the life of many jews, and for decades Israel and jews, for example Golda Meir had a very positive view of the pope. But the church (or some priests, mainly in croatia) also helped nazis escape to south america.

Franco himself saved the life of many jews, just google Franco saved jews and you will find plenty of information. He considered sephardic jews to be spaniards and ultra right wingers in spain say Franco was a crypto jew.
Franco, more than a fascist, was an old school ultra catholic monarchist, similar to the "carlists", more like Petain than Mus or Adolf, altough Petain for me was worse since he deported jews to germany to get killed.

[Barnabas]

Look what I found

http://www.noahide.com/

Jews and hasidic gentiles united to save america.


What should be the Jewish and Hasidic Gentile response to the memory of former Spanish ruler Francisco Franco?

All respondents favored continuing to honor Franco, as opposed to the plans of the current Spanish government to phase out and dismantle all public honors. Most of those answering the survey question also chose to remove the Christian elements from those honors. There were no "other" answers, and only a single additional comment that essentially repeated that person's choice.

The fact that Franco's purpose in leading the revolt against the Communist regime was to fulfill the Noahide commandment of Justice may itself have been a major factor in receiving G-d's blessing for success (although, as a Christian, he certainly did not know about the Noahide Laws as such). But undoubtedly the larger merit was the fact that, less than five years later, he would play an instrumental role in saving tens of thousands of Jewish lives from the Holocaust. For these reasons, G-d intervened with miracles to save Spain and grant victory to Franco, and He has blessed and protected Spain for decades since.

Without question, Jews and Hasidic Gentiles stand in solidarity in honoring Franco's memory and his legacy.

But it would also be an excellent idea to divorce that legacy from the Christian trappings that surround it. Franco's memorials are often composed of Christian symbolism, including a fancy church carved into the side of a mountain. Thus Jews and Hasidic Gentiles should also fulfill their obligation to proselytize gentiles away from Christianity into the Noahide Laws, and thus ultimately free Franco's memory from that unnecessary idolatry.

........


By the way, I am not happy or sad that Franco won, because Franco won, Spain had the history it had during the XX century, had the republicans won, Spain would have had a history like the soviet block countries or Cuba, westernmost point of the Warsaw pact.

I think Spain is much better nowadays than any former commie country (except maybe the reincorporated east germany)

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Thats the egg and chicken story, did republicans execute innocent priests and nuns because the church prefered Franco, or the church prefered Franco because the republicans werre killing religious and people and destroying churches? After all Lenin said Spain would be the second communist country, republicans were being helped by commies, and the church knew what had happened to priests (of all kinds) in the Soviet Union.

No, no. That's not what I'm saying. This goes well into the 19th century or to the Ancien Regime. Franco or not, those struggling for social(ist) reforms as well as many liberals were anticlerical because church and privileges of the elites could not be seperated. I only mean that anticlericalism was not independent from the actions of the clergy: if they (or more of them) had joined the calls for urgent reforms, it would have been a lot different . Franco or not, anticlerical killings were bound to happen during the class struggle because the clergy were among the most prominent spokesmen of the other band.

By the way, there are lots of contradictions, since they are human, the church saved the life of many jews, and for decades Israel and jews, for example Golda Meir had a very positive view of the pope. But the church (or some priests, mainly in croatia) also helped nazis escape to south america.

Franco himself saved the life of many jews, just google Franco saved jews and you will find plenty of information. He considered sephardic jews to be spaniards and ultra right wingers in spain say Franco was a crypto jew.

I don't deny that at all. While most fascists are anti-semitic, I don't presume that they happily agreed with Hitler. I don't expect those saved by Franco or the pope to point with the finger of them. But that doesn't mean Franco was a nice guy. If he only had had the same mercy with the Spanish...

Franco, more than a fascist, was an old school ultra catholic monarchist, similar to the "carlists", more like Petain than Mus or Adolf, altough Petain for me was worse since he deported jews to germany to get killed.

Franco was no monarchist, and I know about the discussion that wants to give him different labels than that of fascism. However, it was clear to contemporaries that his band was the fascist one, materialized by the fact that he was aided by the other fascist powers during the war.
Call his "ideology" patchwork-fascist if you want, but that doesn't change the nature of his regime.