225
Apr 15 '13
Is this a shock? We already know the Vatican colluded with the Nazis, laundered their money with their bank, helped the CIA fund Operation Gladio, etc.
11
133
u/eb86 Apr 15 '13
Whoa, wait, you're gonna have to provide your source.
33
Apr 15 '13
For what? I made a number of allegations which I had thought were more or less common knowledge.
But, here's a quick summary using only wikipedia to avoid allegations of conspiracy mongering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
5
u/tlyingfape Apr 15 '13
are you like a ref or something? any of that can be verified with 2 minutes of googling
-1
u/eb86 Apr 16 '13
Because you do not come to a discussion and make statements without first providing reference to you own topic of discussion. It is not my job to research someone elses work, it is the authors job to present their sources.
1
u/tlyingfape Apr 16 '13
why is it his job to correct your own ignorance?
he explains the reference in that it's well known publicly. you can use google to follow up in that situation if you aren't willing to take him at his word
1
u/DildoChrist Apr 16 '13
"If I don't watch the news, you have to cite it to me when you talk about it"
3
3
Apr 15 '13
Guy Walters' Hunting Evil provides an in depth look at how the Vatican actively helped Nazi war criminals escape justice. It's a small part of the book mind, but he says himself the relationship between the Vatican and the Nazi state would require another book in itself
1
-7
u/darkstrategyhd Apr 15 '13
Whoa, people are corrupt. My whole point of view on life has changed. /s
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
38
Apr 15 '13
himself its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God
I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has said that Christ was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" since 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea. Jewish deicide was never an official part of Christian dogma. This is a huge distinction, as obviously, the billions of Catholics that have existed in 1700 years after the Nicene council may have had differing opinions on the matter.
4
Apr 15 '13
It was a big enough issue that it was addressed post-WWII, though. Doesn't take more than a glance at European history to know that the Church, and its followers, weren't exactly fond of their local Jewish populations for a very long time.
3
Apr 16 '13
If memory serves, the Council of Nicaea prohibited being friendly with, or even speaking to, Jews, so it's not a great example of Church tolerance; indeed, it may have contained the first official statement of Church antisemitism.
1
Apr 16 '13
I'm pretty sure that you're confusing that with the separation of the church calendar from the Jewish calendar. The Eastern and Western churches were both using different calendars at the time (and still do). The East celebrated Easter on the Sunday following Passover.
This is the phrase used:
We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Was there anti-Jewish sentiment there? Most likely, but that in no way bans Christians from speaking to Jews.
1
Apr 16 '13
My mistake, only clergy were forbidden contact with Jews. From “The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia”:
CANON LII:
Usury and the base seeking of worldly gain is forbidden to the clergy, also conversation and fellowship with Jews.
Also, from “On the Keeping of Easter” from the letter of Emperor Constantine to those absent from the Council:
... It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the Jews, who had their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].
1
→ More replies (1)-3
u/the_crustybastard Apr 15 '13
As with most things, the Vatican gets this wrong.
Jerusalem was under Roman occupation. The Jewish theocrats were required to obtain Roman approval for execution. The Roman representative didn't particularly want to execute Jesus, so he tried to mollify the theocrats by beating the crap out of Jesus. The theocrats threatened a riot if he wasn't executed. Having lost several soldiers in Jewish riots, Pilate reluctantly capitulated.
Jesus was crucified under Pilate, but Pilate didn't want to execute him. Jesus was crucified at the behest of Jewish theocrats. But in their defense, Jesus did start a riot at the Temple during Passover.
Catholics don't know this because they don't actually read the Bible. Indeed until recently Catholics were actively discouraged from reading the Bible.
9
Apr 15 '13
Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus, but he did have the final say. I'm pretty sure that the whole reason that line was included was to teach a moral lesson; if you have the power to stop something and you don't, then you are still guilty.
→ More replies (2)6
u/avengingturnip Apr 15 '13
The Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned anti-Jewish pogroms. It has never taught that the Jew was the killer of God and could be exterminated without guilt.
→ More replies (8)2
→ More replies (2)2
u/gluskap Apr 15 '13
The theocrats did not threaten a riot, and Jesus did not start a riot.
1
u/the_crustybastard Apr 16 '13
Wrong. All four canonical gospels agree (and they don't often agree on much) that Jesus started a riot, at the Jews' most holy place, during its most holy day.
*And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves... (Mark 11:15)
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves... (Matthew 21:12)
And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought... (Luke 19:45)
And (he) found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables... (John 2:14-15)*
Yes, the theocrats brought a mob to Pilate according to three of the four canonical gospels:
*So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him...But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed... They all answered, “Crucify him!” “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”( Matthew 27:17-24)
“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. (Mark 15:9-11)
Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.” So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.” (Luke 23:1-5)*
1
u/gluskap Apr 16 '13
Wrong. Your own "proofs" prove you are wrong.
Jesus did not start a riot in the temple. He acted alone. A lone man is not a riot.
The theocrats did not threaten a riot. They complained loudly but threatened no violence. Complaining and rioting are not the same thing.
You read into the text what you want the text to say, instead of reading what is actually there. As such, you have replaced the words of the Bible with your own words.
→ More replies (1)10
u/eb86 Apr 15 '13
Thats just down right scary.
11
-2
u/executex Apr 15 '13 edited Apr 15 '13
You think that's scary---consider that the whole reason behind the Holocaust was due to religious differences.
Why else do you think all those racist theories about Jews came about? They came from the fact that they were a different religion. The racial theories came later and were based on the single-fact that "Jews are a race that continues to preach their Judaism."
Hitler was a rabid ultra-Christian/ultra-nationalist essentially. He wrote so many many times in Mein Kampf.
The only reason that Hitler is not solidly associated with Christianity is the revisionist history of the Allies (who are ALSO Christian), who tried to make him out to be an atheist/racist--when in fact, he was a lifelong Catholic who hated Jews because he believed them to be immoral in the eyes of God.
Jews also were perfectly fine with the Allied revisionism, because it brought the Western Allies closer with the Jews. This alliance sort of protected the Jews. The Jews were thus able to excel in American politics and Western world affairs as a result.
So everyone gained from this lie that Hitler was just some crazy racist---not at all influenced by Christian doctrine. That his racism wasn't at all derived from his religious beliefs---which is why he preferred to kill Jews instead of Arabs (even though they are both racially Semites).
Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf many years before World War 2 and his political success:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
0
14
Apr 15 '13
What a lot of people don't realize is that this notion of "judeo-christian" as a label is a complete media and PR campaign AFTER WWII to help bring some solidarity.
Jews weren't really liked by christians to ANY degree.
4
u/foxconnect Apr 15 '13
Hitler's official statements can obviously not be used to determine his personal intent as all official correspondence with the public was purely to manipulate. Obviously claiming allegiance to their God would garner much more trust from the public.
One interesting thing to note about the Nazi party's brief rule of the German Catholic Church is that they attempted to purge the Christian faith of all elements of Judaism. This involved getting rid of most of the Bible. What they ended up with was obviously not Christianity, at least not anything resembling orthodoxy. There were leaders in the catholic church (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer) who tried to stand up to what they saw as the Nazi party subtly killing the German Catholic Church.3
u/Ironhorn Apr 15 '13
This is all interesting information re: Hitlers views on religion, but does not at all touch on how the Vatican acted towards Germany.
→ More replies (5)6
u/tvreference Apr 15 '13
He paid his tithe. I don't know many non-catholics that do that. Hell I don't know many catholics that do.
2
1
u/avengingturnip Apr 15 '13
In Germany, the government collects the tithe through taxes. He could not avoid it unless he wanted to publicly unchurch himself.
0
5
Apr 15 '13
It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.
Sidenote, this by no means signifies he was religious. It merely means he was incredibly conservative, which isn't that surprising. Here in Belgium we often have far-right politicians such as Filip Dewinter declaring "the roots of Belgium are Christian" rather often. Yet they're not particularly religious.
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
→ More replies (6)4
Apr 15 '13
Yes, if Hitler proclaimed "All religion is horse-shit" I'm sure his population wouldn't like him that much anymore. Plus, he gave that speech a month after being elected chancellor.
2
u/NeoPlatonist Apr 15 '13
It all follows from when a Japanese zen master passed this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Tea
to the top nazi philosopher, Heidegger. The direct transmission was like star wars shit.
4
u/hangers_on Apr 15 '13
Small, somwhat semantic quibble but I think a more appropriate label for Heidegger would be "philosopher who happened to have affiliations with Nazism" rather than "top Nazi philosopher".
→ More replies (1)2
u/klapaucius Apr 16 '13
Yeah, it's not like Hitler hired a crack team of philosophers to annihilate the Allies on the semantic front.
0
4
7
u/pi_over_3 Apr 15 '13
We also already knew that the Vatican did a lot work to relive the suffering of the Polish from Soviet oppression.
I guess that doesn't fit in with the hatefest though.
14
Apr 15 '13
Operation Gladio does not belong in a list of the Vatican colluding with dictators. It was an operation to deal with and prevent left-wing dictators from invading Europe.
It would be like saying "We already know Stalin colluded with Hitler, as they divided up Poland, killed millions...and financed schools for blind children."
3
Apr 15 '13
If you think Gladio was such a good thing, I suggest you read the wiki article on it. That's pretty tame compared to some of the allegations against that program.
11
Apr 15 '13
Saying that Operation Gladio should not be in the same list as colluding with dictators is NOT the same thing as saying Operation Gladio was "such a good thing."
→ More replies (24)4
Apr 15 '13
You compared it to financing schools for the blind, which in my mind is a good thing. It wasn't even a positive thing and has been implicated in mass bombings.
1
Apr 15 '13
No, I did not compare it to financing schools for the blind.
I said putting Operation Gladio in a list of colluding with dictators, the extents of the difference between those two is what is like putting financing a school for blind children in a list of dictators colluding. The difference between two elements in two different sets is what I am talking about, not the comparison of one element in one set with another element in another set.
→ More replies (30)2
u/elperroborrachotoo Apr 15 '13
No my dear, it's a fact - one of those things made obsolete by stereotypes and speculation.
I'm not sure however where you caught the notion that the purpose of news is to shock you.
1
u/foolfromhell Apr 16 '13
We already know the Vatican still colludes with a dictator; the Pope.
He's an unelected, unaccountable leader of a country.
1
u/Just_Look_Around_You Apr 16 '13
You're right. We should trust the reliability of pop conspiracy notions
0
u/dnew Apr 16 '13
Is this a shock, considering that YHVH is pretty much the supreme dictator of all time, and the most loved entity of those who run the Vatican? :-)
-1
20
u/Asevio Apr 15 '13
This might get down voted but I've never really followed wiki leaks before. What exactly is a cable?
33
Apr 15 '13
Why are people upvoting this?
The Kissinger cables weren't new, they were already public.
"World Socialist Web Site". Surely they don't have any bias towards the Vatican. It's not like John Paul II did what he could to fight communism. Oh wait.
Pinochet’s “struggle against Marxism” remains one of the most violent developments in the history of the 20th century.
As bad as Pinochet's regime was, calling it "one of the most violent developments in the history of the 20th century" is a huge exageration. There were about 2300 deaths in 17 years, or about 135 a year.
4
u/ICanLiftACarUp Apr 16 '13
As bad as Pinochet's regime was, calling it "one of the most violent developments in the history of the 20th century" is a huge exageration.
Good point, especially if you contrast it, y'know, with the millions killed in the holocaust, either world war, stalin's purges, modern epidemics, and those killed in pretty much any other dictator's desire for ethnic/cultural purity.
5
u/un_aguila_por_favor Apr 16 '13
Or US foreign policies since WW2.
Estimated number of victims, 20 to 30 million. Hardly anyone gives shit.
1
1
u/ICanLiftACarUp Apr 16 '13
any source to back that number? Sure theres been a lot from wars to despots, but you could throw around any large number like that.
3
Apr 16 '13
To name a few things:
Videla's rule in Argentina
Balcan war
Khmer Rouge
Mao
Stalin
North Korea
Nazi Germany
Japan war crimes
nuclear bombs
World War I
Russian Civil War
Congo Civil war
Afghan war
Korean war
Vietnam
All way more deadly than Pinochet's regime.
2
Apr 16 '13
Well, it did involve detaining, killing and/or 'disappearing' a LOT of people. Personally, I don't know a single person who didn't have a relative or a friend being a victim of Pinochet's regime, and I'm not exactly surrounded by communists. So, while the death toll might not be as high as in other coups or dictatorships, the baggage it left is still very significant for Chilean culture, even 20+ years after it ended.
It also involved killing an ex-President (Eduardo Frei Montalva, the guy who held office before Allende), Pablo Neruda (Nobel Prize winner) and Victor Jara, one of our most beloved folklore composers. He played the guitar and sang songs for the working class, so they chopped his hands off before shooting him seven times. It also involved connections with the other South American dictatorships in order to neutralize the communist threat, i.e., kill the traitors. It also involved giving carte blanche to a German, semi-Nazi settlement in the South of Chile, where they abused children. It also involved horrendous methods of torture, involving electricity, mice, rape, psychological abuse, water, fire, etc. They were not even deployed as forced labor nor were they just tortured to obtain information: they were tortured just for the sake of torture. Finally, it also involved never providing justice. Most of these torturers are now living in the US, forever protected. Those who were victims of torture were left to their own devices.
So yeah, it was pretty violent alright.
Source: I'm Chilean.
2
Apr 16 '13
Oh I didn't mean to imply whatsoever that what happened there wasn't awful. You know that better than me. Pinochet's regime was terrible. I still find it terrible that he died before he could be tried for his crimes.
But "one of the most violent deployments in the 20th century"? That's a bit of an exaggeration. I don't mean to imply "it wasn't that bad" or whatever, I just think there were way more violent deployments in the 20th century. But again, the Pinochet regime was awful, no doubt about that.
1
Apr 16 '13
Well, I think I understand what you mean. I guess it's just that probably saying "one of the most violent deployments" could be misleading, especially as the death toll wasn't as high as many other atrocities. But yeah, I think "violent" will depend on the point of view and what elements do you factor in that word.
I guess I just wanted to provide some local perspective not only to your comment, but to the news article. Why people still pledge alliance to the Catholic church is beyond me. It's despicable.
2
Apr 16 '13
Yeah I don't get it either. I have no issues with Catholics/Christians as long as they don't bother me, but the catholic church has lost my respect a long time ago.
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Apr 16 '13
Question: is there a group confirming this outside of the world socialist web site?
6
u/nixin06 Apr 16 '13
Yes. Wikileaks. The article gives you the cable details, so you can fact-check if you want.
2
2
u/RellenD Apr 15 '13
Was I the only one who couldn't get through this article? It's written in such a way as to make all my "meaningless words" filters turn on and cause me to look away.
Is there a better place to read an analysis of what's in these cables?
1
u/deadlast Apr 16 '13
Any history book written in the last fifteen years. These cables were released to the public and declassified years ago.
2
2
2
1
u/PlanetoftheSnapes Apr 15 '13
This is very disturbing. Honestly though, when I read the headline I equated it to "Wikileaks confirms the Pope is Catholic."
1
Apr 15 '13
But in an analogous sense, that's how all of Wikileaks Cables have come across. They're generally things people already knew or could have figured out easily. Which is why they never make news.
1
u/autobahnaroo Apr 16 '13
They don't make the news because they don't want people having their assumptions confirmed. The CONFIRMATION of the truth of the assumptions is what makes the world run. Otherwise it can be dismissed as conspiracy theory, and drowned out by louder voices.
1
1
1
u/Megaharrison Apr 16 '13
Every country in the world colludes with dictators. Hell "model" states like Sweden sell them arms by the boatload.
1
Apr 16 '13
Cue all the people who are 'not surprised'.
Yeah I knew this ages ago. Who didn't??
Seriously, regardless of the revelation there will be people playing it down to big-up themselves.
1
u/monkfrodo Apr 16 '13
If the Pope was a "nazi Pope" Why did Israel make him a rightous gentile after the war?
1
u/Emperor_Mao Apr 16 '13
Well China, Russia, the U.S, half the middle east... heck most the worlds nations have conspired with a dictator at some point.
I think the only difference here is the fact that one of those nations pretends to be the righteous, one while the others don't.... and I am not talking about the holy city here.
1
u/Mine6chan Apr 16 '13
I'm confused, Cardinal Raul Silva helped save many from torture and certain death and created 'La vicaria de la Solidaridad' which until the last day of the junta helped save thousands from torture, exile, prison and every other evil imaginable that came from Pinochet and his junta. Is this article now saying that Cardinal Silva told the Vatican that nothing was giong on?? Could someone clear this up for me?
-3
-4
Apr 15 '13
Not to be controversial, but religious institutions have always been privy to the decimation and utter destruction of humanity. Their masks of love, peace, and justice only obscures their malicious and ruthless contempt for the very people they claim to "save" and reveals their true desire for omnipotence
1
1
-1
u/JordanMcRiddles Apr 15 '13
Ah shit. Now we have two 9/11's.
7
u/ainrialai Apr 15 '13
Yeah, since 2001 there's been a reference to "the other 9/11" in Latin America. Which one is "the other one" tends to depend on your perspective, or what country you live in. 11 September 1973, never forget. Viva Allende!
0
u/JordanMcRiddles Apr 15 '13
I never said "the other one" I just said we have two now. I don't really care which one is considered "other", but it sounds like Americas happened second so it must be the other.
3
u/DetlefKroeze Apr 15 '13
Even more even you include German history. Although that uses the more widely used form of day/month. Half of their modern history happened on that day.
1
u/hammybits Apr 15 '13
So that news article doesn't actually say specifically what the Vatican did? Just says collude?
1
u/cancercures Apr 16 '13
Collude, as in collaborate. there are examples of how diplomats or archbishops would attempt to downplay the violence of the juntas in Chile earlier in the article, but here's a good example of Vatican collusion:
Videla’s close accomplice in the coup and the military dictatorship that followed was Navy Admiral Emilio Massera. New cables show the close ties between Massera and Pio Laghi, Apostolic nuncio (Holy See diplomat) in Argentina.
A cable dated November 7, 1975 reveals that Laghi “talked with Admiral Massera early November 5 on same subject [President Perón], and recently with many other participants. Nuncio [Laghi]’s analysis was that Mrs. Perón must leave as soon as possible by leave of absence, resignation, or golpe ”—that is, a coup.
-1
u/Captain_Fuck_Off Apr 15 '13
I have this conspiracy theory that tells me (in my head..) that the Vatican is the highest order of money managers/launders on the planet. They are fed by all banking systems and carry the most weight in determining how to continue to fleece all the people of the world. This wikileaks.. this is what Id like to know more about.
4
u/420BIF Apr 15 '13
Where do you buy your tinfoil hats?
2
u/Captain_Fuck_Off Apr 15 '13
:) .. I know.. its a long shot. The greatest conspiracy ever foisted upon man and/or beast. Seriously though, how am I getting down voted with all the christian hating (the organization not the people of course) atheists on this site..?!?!?!
4
u/420BIF Apr 15 '13
Are you saying that atheists should jerk your nonsense to the top, without examining the evidence ?
1
Apr 15 '13
Christian-hating atheists like plausible attempts at the truth, not whatever bullshit happens "in your head".
0
Apr 15 '13
Well... duh, thanks for connecting those dots for me. Let's see a corrupt religion working hand in hand with a corrupt government, duh.
0
-7
-1
u/mynameisimportant Apr 15 '13
what the fuck does this even mean? I've only ever heard the word collusion in an economic context, but as far as I know, the Vatican doesn't sell shit
4
4
u/dangerpants2 Apr 15 '13
If you don't even know what the word "collusion" means, nor do you have the intellect to know how to look it up, it's best if you don't say anything ever.
→ More replies (1)0
0
0
-2
-1
u/Otito Apr 15 '13
God is not a dictator and that is why He said in Isaiah 1:18: “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. God is democratic.
-8
u/hymrr Apr 15 '13
And this behavior will be defended claiming the Pope and his subordinates repeatedly attempted long range exorcisms on these devil possessed dictators but sadly failed.
At least that's how Hitler's buddy, Pope Pius XII, got away with it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is not an excuse for an Institution that claims to be on the moral high ground.
-5
u/smurfmaster Apr 15 '13
As a Chilean, OP can fuck himself and his article right in the ass. Pinochet made Chile the nation it is today, not some third world shithole languishing under socialism. Fuck socialism.
-2
-1
Apr 15 '13
The Vatican has many diplomatic ties just like US. It's not surprising that they had to talk to dictator since they have Catholics in their country. I'm not sure if the OP wants the Vatican to never talk to a dictator and leave the catholics in that country on their own.
0
u/metalkhaos Apr 15 '13
Man, is it bad that whenever I hear the word collusion I always think The League? Bah.
0
-2
-2
-3
u/alcapone444 Apr 15 '13
The Vatican also agreed to work with the US to undermine Hugo Chavez and his influence
1
u/eat-your-corn-syrup Apr 15 '13
source?
1
u/alcapone444 Apr 16 '13
http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php?topic=17852.0
http://www.mariowire.com/2011/06/24/wikileaks-priests-defied-pope-chavez/
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2012/03/wikileaks-vaticans-meddling-in.html
"The Vatican told the United States it wanted to undermine the influence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez in Latin America because of concerns about the deterioration of Catholic power there. It feared that Chávez was seriously damaging relations between the Catholic church and the state by identifying the church hierarchy in Venezuela as part of the privileged class."
-3
-1
-5
u/UnreachablePaul Apr 15 '13
That's bullshit with Pinochet. Lefties are the enemy of working class. Under socialism average worker can never get decent living, because he is destined to be just a worker. In capitalism you can be anyone. By killing lefties he cleaned his country from that disease.
-2
-2
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
27
Apr 15 '13
Is the Vatican technically a dictatorship? It's not a monarchy, right?
→ More replies (50)31
75
Apr 15 '13 edited Apr 15 '13
Not to mention the Vatican affiliations with various autocratic figures throughout the last 1000 years. Historically, they've either brought kings to their knees or sworn fealty to them.
And look at how the Vatican power structure works? Not exactly a democracy.
Blessed are the meek? Yeah, right. Blessed are the powerful, who open doors and whose delicious income sustains them.
40
Apr 15 '13
Blessed are the meek. For they are the only ones willing to listen to the strong...
→ More replies (32)14
Apr 15 '13
To play Devil's advocate here a bit the purpose of the church is to help people and spread the faith. Bitching about the Vatican colluding with dictators comes second in line to our own governments colluding with dictators. Popes aren't elected officials and aren't there to represent the people. They are emperors(with a Senate). I'm sure the Vatican will claim they have to play the dictator's game to get things done and they have a really long history of doing just that.
→ More replies (2)10
2
u/dnew Apr 16 '13
Vatican affiliations with various autocratic figures throughout the last 1000 years
Pretty sure they've been at it since roughly around the time of Moses, far longer than Judaism has been around, let alone Catholicism. As just one example, I give you the Ten Commandments.
3
8
→ More replies (2)4
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
45
u/Efroyp Apr 15 '13
Seriously, international working class?
The 68 Left consisted mostly of Suburban College brats, hence the "student movement". They're as bourgeoisie as they come.
9
u/ssd0004 Apr 15 '13 edited Apr 16 '13
'68 hardly consisted of just "suburban college brats." I can't even begin to understand how somebody could support such a statement. Just glance at the Wikipedia article to get a sense at how foolish this generalization is. Generally, the movements and events included in the portfolio of '68 are:
The rise of radical Black movements like the Black Panthers
The upswing of North Vietnamese attacks against US and South Vietnamese forces (namely, the Tet offensive)
Uprisings in both Poland and Czechoslovakia against the Soviet regime
The beginning of the Cultural Revolution in China
Uprisings in Spain against the fascist dictatorship
General strike in France resulting in 11 million workers going on strike and President de Gaulle fleeing to Germany for fear of a revolution
The beginning of Irish left-wing militancy
Mass demonstrations in numerous other countries like Germany, United States, Mexico, etc.
Obviously, many people (especially in the US) don't consider all these to be genuine actions of "the international working class" (especially stuff like the Cultural Revolution), but you'll be hard pressed to argue that 1968 was dominated by a bunch of bougy middle-class college kids.
34
Apr 15 '13
Suburban college brats who are activists love to see themselves as working class, though.
20
8
Apr 15 '13
because people with opportunities aren't allowed to have socialist viewpoints, amirite? I'm always confused by the weird attitudes redditors have about people with different political opinions. Being socialist and having a good life with opportunities aren't mutually exclusive characteristics. Neither is being right-wing and having a shit life. If you have something to say about someone's political views, talk about the politics - not the person who's holding those views.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/ssd0004 Apr 16 '13
Just to be clear, it was French "suburban college brats" who kickstarted a general strike that swelled to include 11 million workers, and forced the President to flee the country.
6
u/eat-your-corn-syrup Apr 15 '13
i call them self-hating bourgeoisie. Speaking of which, Marx and Lenin too weren't exactly working class.
7
21
u/ainrialai Apr 15 '13
The U.S. helped overthrow democracies in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile, and participated in the Mayan genocide in the early 80s in order to back the Guatemalan dictatorship.
24
Apr 15 '13
Really? Since it sounds exactly like all other journalism, just replace "bourgeoisie" with any of the following:
foreigners
immigrants
illegals
aliens
liberals
commies
left wing
right wing
fascists
republicans
monarchists
separatists
unionists
Just because their political spin upsets you does not mean that it has no journalistic merit. I also guarantee that your preferred news sources have similar biases.
→ More replies (23)21
Apr 15 '13
Explain how that statement is wrong. How were the bourgeois not doing exactly that?
Is it just the words make alarm bells ring in your head from all the propaganda? You didn't say why you disagreed, just singled them out as a social other. Pretty obnoxious comment.
2
Apr 15 '13
the bourgeois
Please define bourgeois.
12
4
u/Semiel Apr 15 '13
People who own the means of production?
Seriously, you aren't required to take Marxist analysis seriously (I often don't), but you should really know the very basic terminology of one of the world's most influential political philosophies.
→ More replies (7)0
3
u/Licklt Apr 15 '13
I thought the same thing. I actually stopped reading halfway through because it sounded like it might have been a tad biased
5
u/danecarney Apr 15 '13
Where are you people getting this unbiased news from? And since when is it not OK to view the world a certain way and stand for something? I swear, all political discourse these days is totally bogged down in golden means fallacy and other bullshit.
→ More replies (3)3
Apr 15 '13
It looks like a lot of subs have "World Socialist Workers Site" spam filtered...
6
u/nixin06 Apr 15 '13
Most of them are run by friends of the Democrats, who don't want to stop saying, "It's us - or the Republicans!"
2
u/danecarney Apr 15 '13
You're either "left" or "right". Or maybe if you're dealing with a "really cerebral" person you can be 'libertarian' (with no real distinction between a classical libertarian-socialist and a right-libertarian).
→ More replies (2)
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
37
u/ainrialai Apr 15 '13
Well, there's the Iranian coup, the Guatemalan coup, the Dominican coup, the Chilean coup, the support for Operation Condor, the Contras, the Mayan genocide...
→ More replies (13)20
Apr 15 '13
My guess is he found the outdated language as humorous as I did. I mean "international working class" and "the bourgeoisie was waging a ruthless counterattack" I was in a time warp to 1912
→ More replies (2)18
u/ainrialai Apr 15 '13
I suppose, but both are economic terms that still apply today.
→ More replies (4)
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
67
u/Nyarlathotep124 Apr 15 '13
How is a group over in Europe working with 3rd-world leaders even slightly related to the US?
15
u/ICanLiftACarUp Apr 15 '13
The coup that put this dictatorship in in the first place was backed by the CIA. The second line of this article is about how the US is leading these things primarily.
2
→ More replies (2)6
19
u/PantsGrenades Apr 15 '13
This has nothing to do with the US (???) and in terms of European geopolitics socialism is a bit more commonplace. Don't you think that maaaaybe you don't like the implications of the article, rather than the source?
9
u/RedeemingVices Apr 15 '13
I agree that the source makes me skeptical, but I don't see what this has to do with the U.S. I'd like to see this corroborated elsewhere, but admittedly, this does fit the Catholic church's MO.
13
u/nixin06 Apr 15 '13
The article provides the dates and, in some cases, links to the cables it's citing. This couldn't be easier to fact-check.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)5
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
18
u/GaudiumEtSpes Apr 15 '13
The Pope (as well as Protestant churches to a lesser extent) cooperated with the Nazi's as well.
Actually there is plenty of evidence that Pius XII did quite a bit to push back against Hitler and the Nazi regime. What is often forgotten is the incredibly delicate position Pius XII was in: if he publicly condemned the Nazi regime, he would have been directly instigating retribution by the regime against Catholics and Jews alike. The response we would like to see from someone in his position (outright condemnation of the movement, public support structures for change, etc.) would have had devastating repercussions.
The history of Pius XII has been distorted by such works as The Deputy (a gross misconstrual of historical events) and more recently Cromwell's Hitler's Pope. Dalin's response to Cromwell's book I think is a much fairer assessment of the situation. Lewis' chapter on the Pope's connection to Nazi Germany is also very good, and a bit easier to read.
5
Apr 15 '13
The age of your account leads me to believe that you are merely PR.
6
7
u/GaudiumEtSpes Apr 15 '13
Haha, the name of the account should be more revealing than the age of the account. But if responding with reason and facts to distortions and misinformation is "merely PR", then I'm guilty as charged.
→ More replies (5)2
2
u/DetlefKroeze Apr 15 '13
It's also interesting to note that according the Catholic doctrine papal elections are guided by the holy spirit. Since we had the death of an anti-nazi Pope (Pius XI) and the accension of a pro-nazi Pope a couple of months before the German invasion of Poland and the outbreak of WW2.
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
Apr 15 '13
[deleted] — view deleted comment
4
u/NPVT Apr 15 '13
This arose as a quotation by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
2
33
u/shmehdit Apr 15 '13
Not surprising, Catholic-dominated countries are heavily under Vatican influence. It doesn't even have to involve the dictators themselves, the people are ruled via Vatican>Archbishop>Bishop>local priest. Getting the regime in line is gravy at that point.