Catholic Stories

[SoybeanQueen]

Wow. I guess this is a handy weed-out question to know whether or not I want to be around any given person any more. Do you believe that one should forcibly convert children to their faith and kidnap them away from their family? Yes? OK, bye. Don't call me. Ever.

Also, anyone claiming they agree with this horse shit better not EVER say they're pro family values. Kidnapping and keeping a child from his or her parents is about as anti family values as it gets. I wish I could say I was shocked by this, but I'm not. There a subset of Catholics who, like most of the fundies we discuss here, only care about power. Sure, they babble on about human dignity and life and whatnot, but in the end they don't care if they can't control you.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

15 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Granted, Cessario is Italian and from a completely different culture than the US, but that an American Catholic publication would publish something like this indicates that the rhetoric about "religious liberty" is purely utilitarian, and that certain religions (i.e., Catholicism) should receive more freedom than others.

Sorry to point out, but he isn't Italian despite his italian last name, he was born and bred in Boston in 1944. Maybe you were referring at Vittorio Messori, an Italian journalist and historian, who in 2005 wrote the book quoted by Cessario.

Messori is known for his ability to defend very conservative positions and yet manage to continue to collaborate with important secular media, such as the Italian public television and TIME. Part of his fame and prestige with secular press comes probably from having been the very first journalist to interview a pope in 1993. He's known for having defended Opus Dei, believing in absurd miracles and interviewing then cardinal Ratzinger in 1984. In that interview Ratzinger showed in full his true colours of a reactionary conservative with the condemnation of the Liberation Theology.

Regarding the Mortara case Messori argues that it was politically exploited by the intellectuals and the politicians that at the time were interested in discrediting the papacy to pursue the creation of an Italian state. This is a clever argumentation, because it caters to the distrust harboured by many that are politically conservative but not very religious. Italy has always been a fractured state with many souls that aspire to autonomy. This has been especially true lately, with many questioning the legitimacy and the political reasons behind the unification of Italy in 19th century. Luckily Messori fails to convince  because the sheer facts of the episode are repellent to the Italian modern attitude. Conservative but not particularly religious people completely fail to see how kidnapping a child to educate him in a way contrary to his family wishes can be justified in any way. There are few taboos as strong as this in our culture.

Messori must have realised it because at this point he plays his jolly: Mortara's own memories. In them adult priest Mortara repeatedly thanks the pope and the divine providence for bravely bringing him to the safe harbour of the true faith. When I first heard of Mortara's case this was by far the saddest part, the level of brainwashing was astounding and its success complete. For his family it must have been a horrible horrible pain, to be negated like that.

I found out about the Mortara case watching a documentary about Inquisition on our public tv channel. In fact it, in 1958, was the last case discussed before an Inquisition court in Italy. And if you wonder why it was the last one, the reason isn't the sudden coming to Jesus of Pius IX shocked by the aberration he committed, but the creation of the Kingdom of Italy that erased the papal states from the maps and left the pope with no temporal power, no subjects over whom he could brandish the whip of the Inquisition.

I am happy when these nutjobs defend the Mortara case. First of all because it brings it back to the collective memory in all its ruthlessness. Secondly because in doing so these conservatives can't help showing their true disgusting colours.

 Sorry for the essay but this topic never fails to trigger me.

Edited January 25, 2018 by laPapessaGiovanna
typos

[laPapessaGiovanna]

To better understand the situation at the time and the political circumstances, it is interesting to compare the Mortara case of 1858 with the Montel affaire of 1840. The two cases are similar since both involve Jewish children baptized without the knowledge of their parents by servants convinced that the babies were going to die. Only the outcome was quite different.

Daniel Montel an his wife Miette Cremieux were French nationals. When they arrived in Rome in 1840 on their way to Malta they were expecting a baby. Baby who was born prematurely in Rome as soon as the couple set foot in the city. When they were offered to baptize their baby they refused cos they were Jews. Upon hearing that the chambermaid fearing the baby would have died soon, secretly baptized her. The couple not knowing what happened decided to prolong their stay in Rome. When the baby's health instead of declining improved the chambermaid alerted the ecclesiastical authorities that the baby had been baptized. The authorities seized the baby. While they were discussing if the baptism performed was valid, the couple alerted the French authorities in Rome. The French ambassador acted swiftly pleading with the pope to let the baby go back to her parents. The pope refused because a Christian baby couldn't be raised by Jews. The French ambassador objected that she was a French citizen and the Roman authorities couldn't seize her as they pleased. In the end a deal was reached, the pope entrusted the baby to the French ambassador's care in exchange for the promise that she would grow up in the Catholic faith without ever going back to her family. As soon as the child was in France she was given back to her parents.

As you can see the position of pope Gregorio XVI was the same as Pius XI's. What really made the difference in this case was the separation between church and state. The French state protected its citizens. The Mortara family was made of second class subjects of the pope as sovereign of the papal states.

[samurai_sarah]

On 24/01/2018 at 2:22 PM, Cleopatra7 said:

Quote

Those examining the Mortara case today are left with a final question: Should putative civil liberties trump the requirements of faith? We should be grateful if that question does not become pressing, but we cannot assume it will not. Christians who are tempted to side with the enlightened critics of Pio Nono should examine how much they themselves prize the gifts of supernatural grace that ennoble human nature.

(snipped for brevity from the article written by Cessori @Cleopatra7 provided)

Thanks to Vatican II that's irrelevant for Catholics. Since being a Catholic is not a requirement for salvation in the RCC, it means that by today's Catholic doctrine the kidnapping is indefensible. Sure, Cessori can make an argument based on Canon Law, and can argue that it was the law of the land that a child baptised into Catholicism had to be raised Catholic, but that doesn't make the forcible removal of the child morally right.

After all, loads of things used to be legal, and we now know better.

 

ETA: @laPapessaGiovanna

Thanks for providing the second case. It sheds a lot of light onto the politics and machinations of the time. I find it interesting, but not all that surprising, that the French would step up. After all, the French Revolution and its anti-clergy sentiments were just a generation ago, at the time.

I idly wonder, if the different outcome in the Mortara case had anything to do with the family originally coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After all Pope Pius IX refused to go against them during the Pan-Italian movement. Not that that would alter my position on the case - it's indefensible.

Edited January 25, 2018 by samurai_sarah
Minor riffle

[Fun Undies]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

Thanks to Vatican II that's irrelevant for Catholics. Since being a Catholic is not a requirement for salvation in the RCC, which means that by today's Catholic doctrine the kidnapping is indefensible. Sure, Cessori can make an argument based on Canon Law, and can argue that it was the law of the land that a child baptised into Catholicism had to be raised Catholic, but that doesn't make the forcible removal of the child morally right.

After all, loads of things used to be legal, and we now know better.

Just wanted to add to this, another source.  In the book: "Catholic Christianity", the author, Peter J. Kreeft, writes, "To baptize an unwilling adult or child against the will of the parents is a kind of spiritual kidnapping; it is unjust and illicit by Church law."  He cites the Code of Cannon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici), section 865, 868.

Of course that doesn't change what the Church did to Mortara, nor am I suggesting it isn't reprehensible (and I don't seehow anyone can defend it).  I just hope to assure people that if (when?) that were to happen today, that person/Catholic is violating Canon Law.  And in my opinion should be reported.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

It was forbidden back then too. The only notable exception was if the person performing the baptism was persuaded that the person to be baptized was going to die soon afterwards. It must have been very common knowledge for the chambermaids to know it. It is worth noticing also that the Mortara case happened five years after the baptism. The maid in fact had kept her mouth shut until when another one of the Mortara children fell ill, someone suggested her to baptize him and she refused explaining that she had already done it with one of the Mortara children and that the child hadn't died.

[nausicaa]

12 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Italy has always been a fractured state with many souls that aspire to autonomy. This has been especially true lately, with many questioning the legitimacy and the political reasons behind the unification of Italy in 19th century.

So, going slightly off topic, but this is really fascinating. Is this a more popular movement among conservatives? How much of it is a reaction to the EU and how much of it is a desire to fragment along ethnic lines? I'm guessing the Catholic Church is heavily against it, since wouldn't the papacy then lose political power if this were to happen?

[SusanAtTheLastBattle]

It looks like the impetus for Cessario's article is Steven Spielberg's long-planned movie about Mortara, based on David Kertzer's book. I've been looking forward to it for a long time; Tony Kushner's other screenplays for Spielberg have been wonderful. It was supposed to film last year, with Mark Rylance and Oscar Isaac, but it looks like Spielberg couldn't find a young actor he liked enough to play Mortara.

The editorial response to the controversy in First Things is... something. "I was an Episcopalian who decided that my Jewish wife could raise our children Jewish, now I'm Catholic and an editor of First Things and I have no issues with this at all!!1! Forcefully raising kids in the right religion is sad, but also maybe God wants us to? Jk jk." What a piece of work he must be.

[samurai_sarah]

On 25/01/2018 at 5:59 PM, nausicaa said:

So, going slightly off topic, but this is really fascinating. Is this a more popular movement among conservatives? How much of it is a reaction to the EU and how much of it is a desire to fragment along ethnic lines? I'm guessing the Catholic Church is heavily against it, since wouldn't the papacy then lose political power if this were to happen?

Won't lie, I have been mulling over your questions for days. And I have tried answering them, but it always turns into a novel of epic proportions. Plus, I'm not Italian, so fellow Europeans please correct me!!!

1. Is this a more popular movement among conservatives?

Ahem, "conservative" is an issue. A lot of established European conservativism is rather liberal in comparison to the US. So, the question isn't really clear, which means the answer is lacking. Sorry.

2. How much of it is a reaction to the EU and how much of it is a desire to fragment along ethnic lines?

Depends. Every movement has a multitude of reasons, defines itself in different ways, but I would say that they mostly support the EU.

3. I'm guessing the Catholic Church is heavily against it, since wouldn't the papacy then lose political power if this were to happen?

The papacy has already lost a lot of political power. And then it gets complicated.

I am aware that these are basically non-answers. Each of your questions is good, but requires a novel to answer. And a whole history book. Or ten. The only thing I can say with certainty is that papal political power is on the wane, and has been for some time in Europe.

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

Won't lie, I have been mulling over your questions for days. And I have tried answering them, but it always turns into a novel of epic proportions. Plus, I'm not Italian, so fellow Europeans please correct me!!!

1. Is this a more popular movement among conservatives?

Ahem, "conservative" is an issue. A lot of established European conservativism is rather liberal in comparison to the US. So, the question isn't really clear, which means the answer is lacking. Sorry.

Thank you! I didn't realize I'd opened such a can of worms; I have never heard of there being any current push back against Italian reunification and am kind of fascinated now. Then again, it seems everything old is new again, so I shouldn't be surprised. 

As for conservative, I meant Traditionalist Catholics, politically conservative by Italian standards. If they are major supporters, it seems a strange movement to me, since the papacy would lose even more political power than it already has. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by nausicaa

[Fascinated]

Interjecting momentarily to state, @laPapessaGiovanna, I love reading your posts. You put this English as a first (and only, really) language speaker to shame.  

As you were...

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 25/1/2018 at 2:49 PM, samurai_sarah said:

 

I idly wonder, if the different outcome in the Mortara case had anything to do with the family originally coming from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After all Pope Pius IX refused to go against them during the Pan-Italian movement. Not that that would alter my position on the case - it's indefensible.

Well, I don't know if it played a role as the Mortaras were papal states citizens at the time as far as I know (but I could be wrong). I agree that had they been citizens of the Duchy of Modena and Reggio (the state they came from) it wouldn't have made much of a difference as it was a satellite state in the orbit of the Austrian Empire that was a firm ally of the pope against the French and the Piemontesi.

[samurai_sarah]

3 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Well, I don't know if it played a role as the Mortaras were papal states citizens at the time as far as I know (but I could be wrong). I agree that had they been citizens of the Duchy of Modena and Reggio (the state they came from) it wouldn't have made much of a difference as it was a satellite state in the orbit of the Austrian Empire that was a firm ally of the pope against the French and the Piemontesi.

Thank you. I read somewhere that they had relocated from the Austro-Hungarian empire to toe Papal State, hence I assumed about their citizenship. My mistake.

 

 

17 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Thank you! I didn't realize I'd opened such a can of worms; I have never heard of there being any current push back against Italian reunification and am kind of fascinated now. Then again, it seems everything old is new again, so I shouldn't be surprised. 

As for conservative, I meant Traditionalist Catholics, politically conservative by Italian standards. If they are major supporters, it seems a strange movement to me, since the papacy would lose even more political power than it already has. 

 

I can't say much about the political power of the papacy in Italy, not being Italian. Sorry, I was answering you in more general European terms.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 25/1/2018 at 6:59 PM, nausicaa said:

So, going slightly off topic, but this is really fascinating. Is this a more popular movement among conservatives? How much of it is a reaction to the EU and how much of it is a desire to fragment along ethnic lines? I'm guessing the Catholic Church is heavily against it, since wouldn't the papacy then lose political power if this were to happen?

This more than a can of worms seems like a barrel lol.

I don't even know where to start from. Maybe from historical facts would be the best thing. Apologies if you already know what I'm going to write, it's just to make the field clear.

Italy never existed before 1861. The last time we were together in the same political entity it was during the Roman Republic first and Empire later. But we were in it together with 3/4 of Europe, Northern Africa and a good chunk of Middle East. It was a loong time ago. Also, something often overlooked is that the Italian peninsula wasn't Rome, it was a cluster of different civilizations either conquered with war or through alliance treaties. And in spite of the strong unifying action of the Roman culture local traditions, cultures and identities persisted.

When the Roman Empire crumbled Italy was divided and the various territories developed through history more or less independently. That means we had different languages, different traditions, different ancestries, different everything. Under spoiler there are some maps that better evidence it.

Spoiler

The green are the Franchi that will soon invade, the orange are the Longobardi, the pale yellow the Bizantini aka the Eastern Roman Empire.

More accurate map, same situation.

Here you can see Italy when the Papal States were created (orange and yellow). The green part is marked as Kingdom of Italy but it actually was Longobardia Major.

Here you can see the expansion of the soon to become Carolingian Empire, dark green and pale green.

Fast forward 200 years and here is Italy in 1000 ad. Northern Italy was under the influence of the Sacred roman Empire (aka the Germans, I know I know, it's more complicated than that). Pale yellow are the papal states. Violet the Eastern Roman Empire ans green the Arab Emirate of Sicily.

Here in green you can appreciate the extent of the Normans' invasion of the South.

I got tired of searching the web for accurate maps so I'm gonna skip a lot of turmoil and political changes with the Comuni and then the Signorie. This is probably the best period of Italian history, but a lot complicated to narrate. Here you have italy in 1499.

From now on the south more or less stays together under the Spanish domination or as ana autonomous kingdom. The north will slightly change borders (lots of turmoil, LOTS) every 20 or so years but more or less that's it till the Napoleonic invasions. But what really changed is that we were under the influence or direct domination of foreign powers till the unification in 1861.

Here you can see the results of Napoleonic wars.

In practice the whole peninsula was under French domination with the exception of Sardinia, Sicily and the former Republic of Venice that had been conquered and then given to the Hapsburgs in exchange for an alliance that didn't last for long.

Napoleon in the end lost badly and Europe was "restored" to its previous state, more or less. In fact the Republic of Venice and the Republic of Geonoa for example never came backto, with the Hapsburgs profiting from this, of course.

Here you can see Italy before unification. In the south (dark green) the kingdom of Borbons (a Spanish-Italian dinasty). In the centre (blue) the papal states. North East (pale green) is under direct control of the Austrian Empire. The North West (pink) is the autonomous Kingdom of the Savoys (French-Italian dinasty) that will soon expand to include the whole peninsula. The minor Duchies (Modena, Parma and Tuscany) are governed by Borbons or Lorenas (Hapsburgs relatives) family members.

Last but not least here is a map of the various languages and dialects currently spoken in Italy.

I think you can see what I mean with fragmented.

 

 

Unification of Italy is a long story, please excuse me if I cut it short and may my ancestors pardon me. The main reasons to pursue unification were:

-for the Savoys to become the kings of a bigger kingdom;

-for the Italian intellectuals to get rid of foreign influences an exploitation and of that middle ages residue of the papal states;

-bringing modernisation and industrialisation to an extremely backwards and impoverished country.

The Savoys formed an alliance with France against Austria  to conquer Northern Italy. The pope didn't like it because he knew that once they conquered the north they would come after Rome. He was prophetic. Cos that's what happened.

The Savoys wanted the south too for a couple of reasons: to become a state big enough to stand on its own (not relying anymore on the alliance with France to survive) and to put their hands on the Borbons riches and the treasure of San Gennaro, an incredible quantity of gold that became the foundation of the Bank of Italy. But they couldn't achieve this goal with an open war because France was unsurprisingly very much against having another big state at its border. So the brilliant mind of Camillo Benso count of Cavour thought of a better plan, he armed a thousand men following what can be defined a 19th century Che Guevara, aka Giuseppe Garibaldi, and sent them to spread turmoil in Sicily. Garibaldi's success was impressive, mostly thanks to the fact that the population was mainly dirt poor and desperate while the aristocracy and the king were impossibly rich. People fought along with Garibaldi for their freedom and better living conditions. 

I omitted a lot but this is more or less how unification happened. The answer to your questions in the next post cos this one is already too long.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Well, the biggest problem with unification was that it didn't really answer to the need for change expressed by the populations of the peninsula. All in all it was a big disappontment. The peasants in the south stayed poor and illiterate, the rich aristocracy stayed rich too. As Tomasi di Lampedusa magistrally said in The Gattopardo, "only the dialect spoken by the king changed, Piemontese instead of Napoletano" (the book is highly recommended,first because it's a great piece of literature, secondly because of it's historical importance). Regarding the south it would be important to note the phenomenon of "brigantaggio". It's acomplicated matter and not really something I am educated enough about to explain well, but this Wikipedia voice in Italian is really well written and documented, I suggest you to read the Italian page translated by Google because the English version of the page is quite poor in comparison. Brigantaggio is relevant because it was the main symptom of the deep disquiet of the south that in more recent times developed in the forms known as mafia (Sicily), camorra (Neaples and Campania) and 'ndrangheta (Calabria). This must be seen as just a part o the much more complex "questione meridionale", again a link to Wikipedia because I don't think I can even start to explain it without writing a book. In essence the thing is that there was a huge divide (economical, social, you name it) between centre-north Italy and south and after 150 years the divide is still there screaming the failure of all our governments at closing it.

In the rest of Italy the disappointment was similar, the new kingdom wasn't more modern or more efficient  nor granted more freedom than the old ones. It was very centralised since the beginning to oppose the huge differences between the different territories. The hyper centralisation of the new kingdom was deeply annoying for the northern populations used to be ruled by local governments and who associated far away governments with foreign dominations. The south was more used to it, but for this very reason it was doubly disappointing as they had hoped that with the unification the new government would take better care of local necessities.

A new Italian language was created with much effort by many writers and intellectuals during the 19th century, the most successful of them being Alessandro Mazoni with his Promessi Sposi (horrid book, a nightmare for every Italian teen as it's part of mandatory curriculum in high school).

Mandatory conscription was used as a way to mandate the mixing of citizens with different provenance and increase a sense of unity and the use of the new language to communicate, but was also one of the main causes of brigantaggio as it was perceived as an abuse of power.

In spite of these efforts, Italian remained a language mostly spoken by the elites and badly mangled and mixed with local dialects by the rest of the population. Literacy and industrialisation increased a bit but mainly in the areas that were already improving in these aspects. 

Anyway the brigantaggio in the south was considered as dead after 1870 when it morphed into the more vast "questione meridionale".

In 1871 the Kingdom of Italy conquered Rome and the Pope threw a massive rage fit, declared he was held as political prisoner and that all the heads of the Italian establishment were excommunicated. Very stupid move as this prevented more traditionalist and conservative Catholics from being involved with the politics of the new state. This meant that the new state was as lay as a state could possibly be while the vast majority of its citizens were very religious. But it also meant that the governments lacked the fundamental endorsement and influence that the Church approval would have granted and this surely weighed quite a bit. 

Governments were  mostly liberal in those decades, with a penchant towards liberism, not exactly what a country with so much need for investments, infrastructures and equality (economical, social, you name it) would have needed.

Anyway in this context WWI happened. For Italy it was the last unification war as it should have difined better the northern borders with Austria. Anyway 650.000 dead and 1 million wounded later the country was upset and quite literally bleeding from a war the population never wanted and that costed too much, all for some strips of land in the north, not worthy the trouble for most of the south.

Socialism was afoot and we were on the brink of a civil war caused by the terrifying living conditions of so many people who were already poor and now were poorer (mainly agriculture day labourers and factory workers). Upset that this would bring communism, socialism and every other bogeyman of the elites, the king put the government in the hands of a rising star of the conservativism who had a fiery socialist past, Benito Mussolini. I'm not going to talk about fascism cos this post is already waaaay too long. Suffice to say that after WWII this country was broken in more ways than one and more divided than ever, with a north that chose the republic in the referendum in 1946 and a south the overwhelmingly voted for the monarchy. Republic won a narrow victory. For many years conservative parties  all but disappeared leaving Italian conservatives with only one choice, the Democrazia Cristiana, the party that had the pope's blessing and who often did the pope's bidding (popes stopped being the princess on the pea and signed a Concordat with Mussolini in 1929, with which the Papacy was granted the Vatican State and special privileges in Italy in exchange for the recognisation of the Italian Kingdom and a silent approval of Mussolini). In those years we risked the civil war many times, the worst being that time when an idiot shot the Chairman of the communist party, Palmiro Togliatti. 

What really saved us from civil unrest was the economic boom brought by an industrialisation that happened at breakneck pace in the north and in particular in the north east (the north west was already the most developed part of the country). The south was only marginally involved, remaining mostly reliant on agriculture. Needless to say this exacerbated the divide between north and south. Social tensions were ignited by the mass migration from the south to the north.

All this subdued a bit with the spread wealth of the eighties and nineties. 

Italy is a founding country of the EU, but as it happened in the 19th century with the unification, it was something decided by the elites, the intellectuals, there wasn't a real public debate about it, much less about the euro. Never mind a referendum. Actually our Constitution says that international treaties cannot be matter for referendums. In our political landscape with rapidly changing governments it means that the people have no control over the most important decisions.

The EU, but more than the EU the euro, is controversial because it was sold to the public opinion as a great opportunity for our economy. Except that it wasn't. Our country was wholly unprepared for it. Or better, half the country wasn't up to it. Couple this with the 2008 economic disaster and you have a great deal of discontent and pressure for more autonomy and independence mostrly in the northern regions but everywhere really.

Just so you can appreciate how difficult the situation is somewhere. A small town in provincia of Trapani (Sicily) was exceptionally administrated by a commission after the council was released last year because infiltrated by the mafia. The commission found out that basically no resident paid taxes for many many years causing a debt in the order of 42 millions of euros. This is yesterday's news and just one example.

I tried to explain why Italy as a whole is fragmented and fractured. I feel I omitted so many important things that I fear I did a very poor job, but the essay is long enough. And I haven't said a word about the reasons for my region, Veneto (in the north east), that last october voted in a referendum to obtain more autonomy from the central government (the results were a whopping 96% in favor of more autonomy), is full of independentists. It would require another essay and it must wait for another post.

Edited January 29, 2018 by laPapessaGiovanna
Typos and things

[laPapessaGiovanna]

First of all sorry if this has become a monologue, but people asked so it's totally their fault 

I forgot to mention a couple of things in my previous post. Someone (I think @nausicaa) mentioned ethnicities when she inquired about the reasons behind independentist pushes. In the case of Italy I have to say it doesn't really apply, or maybe in limited circumstances (for example historically Sudtirolers, who are mostly of Germanic descent, have tried the independentist routes, via legal and illegal, aka terrorism, means, but that seems to be mostly a thing of the past since Alto Adige consistently votes for pro EU and pro united Italy parties now). We don't say it out loud but we know we aren't a "race", we know we are the result of thousands of years of a sort of melting pot. We have been repeatedly invaded in peaceful and in much less peaceful ways so many times by so many foreign populations that we are basically citizens of the world in a little peninsula named Italy. This doesn't mean that we can't be racist, because we are perfectly capable of that towards those ethnic groups that have lived among us as citizens for a long but that were never successfully integrated such as Rom and Sinti (travellers). Or towards people who immigrated more recently such as Albanians, East Europeans, North Africans, Africans, Indians, Chineses, Filipinos etc.

A special mention must be done for Jews.

There were many Jewish flourishing communities in southern Italy ever since the Roman times. Despite some moments that were worse than others due to particularly tense political situations but that generally didn't last for long, up until the 12th century the situation of Jews in Italy wasn't bad, there weren't pogroms and in many times and states they were considered normal citizens. Until that moment the various popes had ignored or sometimes even protected the Jews

Through the following centuries though they didn't have an easy life in Italy, mainly due to the disproportinate influence of the Papacy and to the fabricated blood accustions. Especially in the south during the XVI century, previously flourishing Jews communites (30.000 Jews only in Sicily) were expelled when the south fell under the Spanish domination. They took  shelter in the northern cities, less dependent from the papacy and outside the control of the ultra Catholic Spanish domination. Most favourite cities for Jews looking for a place to live and prosper were Rome (depending on the pope of the time inclination towards them), Ferrara, Venice, Milan and Florence. Many lived in Rome despite the restrictions placed upon them and the discrimination they faced their presence was tolerated under some popes. The relationship between Jewish communities and the various local governments changed a lot through the centuries and for long periods they were oppressed and persecuted. Cities like Venice welcomed a good number of Jews escaping persecutions elsewere, this brought their numbers to grow a lot and the Catholic hierarchy grew worried and put pressure on the state to do something about it. Venice, willing to avoid controversy and wanting to stick as much as possible to its independence both from Rome and from the German Emperor (the German Emperor in those centuries was the go to for the Italian states when there were controversies among them or with the papacy, because he was the liege lord of most northern Italy's states) on one side and on the other wanting to keep the lively and valuable Jewish community in the city, came up with the idea of the ghetto in 1516. What is now known as a bad term was just the name of a neighbourhood in Venice (it came from the verb ghettare that was a specific operation used to work metals that was the main job in that neighbourhood). Jews were required to live in that neighbourhood and in the following centuries it was expanded to include other neighbourhoods that also took the name of ghetto (ghetto nuovo and ghetto nuovissimo). Pope Paul IV in 1555 wrote the papal bull Cum Nimis Absurdum that greatly discriminated against Jews and mandated the creation of a ghetto in Rome. The other sovereigns of the various Italian states took the cue and built ghettoes in their cities, but in general refrained from applying most of the other measures mandated by the bull. This situation changed radically at the end of 18th century when the influences of Illuminism brought many Northern Italy sovereigns to considerably attenuate discrimination against Jews. And then at beginning of 19th century with the Napoleonic invasion and the creation of the republics under the French control, French law (codex Napoleonico) was applied everywhere and all restrictions on Jews were lifted and ghettoes abandoned. With the Restoration in 1815 things went backwards once again but were never really like before especially in the states outside the pope's direct control. Unfortunately for the Mortaras they lived in the Papal States under Pius IX direct control. All restrictions were definitively abolished in the Statuto Albertino (1848) that was the Constitution of the Kingdom of Sardinia that then became the Constitution of the unified Kingdom of Italy. 

In 1938 the absolute worst happened. The fascist regime that hadn't previously singled out Jews (some were key members of the fascist party and of the fascist elites, such as Aldo Finzi and Guido Jung) the fascist party capitulated to the requests of its ally Nazi Germany and approved the Racial Laws (but the seeds of racism were definitely there before as many fascist intellectuals were known antisemites). It's probably the most shameful thing we ever did during the regime. The pope kept a very ambiguos position on the matter. In essence the Catholic hierarchy thought that Jews had to be mildly discriminated for their religion but not for their race. It was the contrary of what the fascism postulated, but discrimination nevertheless. In general the Racial Laws in Italy were milder than in Germany and while the regime favored the deportation of refugee Jews into inprisonment camps, many Italians thought that the laws were absurd and did their best to hide and aid many people. The worst happened when the regime collapsed and the 8th September 1943 the Armistice was proclaimed, Nazis invaded Italy and took the control of Rome and the centre-north. On the 6th October 1943 the Nazi SS gathered all the Jews from Rome's ghetto and sent them to their death in the extermination camps. The Pope didn't say a word against this abomination. The same happened in all the cities under Germany's control and even an extermination camps were built in a former factory to process rice, the Risiera di San Sabba. It must be said that if the highest authority in the Catholic Church stayed silent lower level priests (for example the future pope John XXIII was commemorated by the Knesset in an unprecedented way for having saved thousands lives during the WWII and later having sought reconciliation and justice in the Vatican relationship with the Jewish people; among simple priests we can remember don Enzo Boni Baldoni but there were others too) did their best to help Jews often risking their own lives. It wasn't enough to make up for the Vatican's guilty silence and its willingness to collaborate with Fascism and Nazism unfolded for example in the Lateran Treaty first and then the Reichskokordat.

[47of74]

Yeah fundie Catholiics sinking to new lows  by attacking the Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin.

Quote

The Rev. James Martin is a Roman Catholic rock star. His books, including one on Jesus Christ and another on the saints, have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. The director Martin Scorsese has twice hired him to consult on movies with religious themes. Television producers love him: Back when Stephen Colbert had his Comedy Central show, Father Martin popped up frequently as its “official chaplain.”

So the reaction when he agreed to speak this month to a group of parishes in central New Jersey was unalloyed elation, right?

Wrong. Within days of the announcement, parish officials were in a state better described as dread.

Check out the websites and Twitter accounts of far-right Catholic groups and you’ll see why. To them Father Martin is “sick,” “wicked,” “a filthy liar,” “the smoke of Satan” and a “heretic” on a fast track to “eternal damnation.” They obsessively stalk him and passionately exhort churchgoers to protest his public appearances or prevent them from happening altogether.

The article goes on to say that even guys like Archbishop Chaput, who hardly would be described as progressive in any sense, said these people are going waaay too far.

[Cleopatra7]

What gets me is that Fr. Martin is hardly “progressive” when in comes to LGBT rights. He’s not saying that same sex couples should get sacramental weddings. He’s not saying that the language in the catechism about same sex desires being “intrinsically disordered” should be changed. He’s not saying that Catholic hospitals should be forced to do gender reassignment surgeries. All he’s saying is that Catholics should be nicer to LGBT people on an interpersonal level. That’s it. But even this is too much for the self-appointed members of the lay Inquisition, who think that “real Catholics” should tell “sodomites” to get AIDS and die (not an exaggeration, I’m afraid).

[Cleopatra7]

I don’t like to do two posts in a row, but this is a really good article on how the cesspool that is Catholic Twitter is whipping up virtual lynch mobs against Fr Martin and other public Catholic theologians who are considered to be insufficently “orthodox”:

https://dailytheology.org/2018/02/04/a-failure-in-public-theology-the-non-defense-of-james-martin-sj/

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Things are going on in court re Cardinal Pell. This week we should be able to know if there will be a process against him. Accusations are pretty harsh, he isn't accused of just covering up abuses, he's accused of having abused kids. I wonder what will be the Vatican's position if this goes to trial. Pell has always been supported by the hierarchy and by the pope himself

Spoiler

Cardinal George Pell is set for a tense wait for a decision over whether an abuse case against him will proceed to full criminal trial in Australia when the committal hearing against him wraps up this week.

The Vatican treasurer is the most senior figure in the Holy See to ever face criminal charges, and the past three weeks of evidence has revealed details of multiple allegations of historical sexual abuse.

The 76-year-old Cardinal, who stood aside from his senior post in Rome when he was charged in June last year, will not hear a final decision from the magistrate on whether the case will proceed to trial for up to two weeks, possibly longer. He has strenuously denied all charges.

Vatican treasurer Cardinal Pell faces final week of historical abuse hearing.

 

The 76-year-old Cardinal, who stood aside from his senior post in Rome when he was charged in June last year, will not hear a final decision from the magistrate on whether the case will proceed to trial for up to two weeks, possibly longer. He has strenuously denied all charges. 

This week the remaining 50 witnesses will give testimony at Melbourne Magistrates Court where the case against Pell has been heard since early March.

When the hearing closes Thursday, submissions will be made by both Pell's defense team and the prosecution for the magistrate to assess.

Protesters and supporters outside court

Pell has attended Melbourne Magistrates Court every day often accompanied by friend and adviser Katrina Lee, from the Archdiocese of Sydney.

For the first five days of the hearing, the court was closed to the public and the media as it heard video-link evidence from his accusers.

A handful of both protesters and supporters, some holding placards, have greeted Pell on the steps of the court each day. He strongly denies all the allegations against him.

Police and security guards have kept the Cardinal a safe distance from onlookers.

In Australia, a committal hearing operates in a similar way to a grand jury hearing in the US, except here the defense team can test the prosecution evidence.

When it concludes, the magistrate will then make a decision about whether the case should proceed to a full trial at a higher court.

...

One allegation heard was that Pell allegedly abused an accuser during a visit to a lake in the 1970s. Pell was said to have been invited along with another priest by a large Catholic family he knew, to join them for water skiing and afternoon tea.

The Cardinal is also alleged to have committed abuse at a swimming pool where he was seen interacting with swimmers over several summers in the 1970s.

Another allegation accuses him of abusing a victim at a cinema in 1978 during a screening of Steven Spielberg's 1977 hit science fiction film Close Encounters of a Third Kind.

The first day the public and media were allowed back into the court, the father of a man who was allegedly abused by Pell spoke of his son's fatal descent into drug abuse.

The court also heard that it would have been "impossible" for Pell to have committed abuse during his time as Archbishop of Melbourne, a post he held between 1996 and 2001, while wearing his heavy official robes.

Several witnesses told the court that Pell was generally shadowed by a priest whose duty it was to look after the Cardinal during his official duties.

The court also heard from several witnesses that it would have been noticed if any members of the choir went missing for any length of time after they left the Cathedral following Mass services.

During the committal hearing, a leading abuse advocate came under fire by Pell's defence team, as well as the work of an author who wrote a book on some of the allegations before charges were made.

Bernard Barrett, a retired academic and volunteer for victims lobby group Broken Rites, was accused making false allegations against Pell when an accuser contacted him via his mother.

Often raising his voice and banging his fist on the table, Robert Richter, Pell's lead barrister, accused Barrett of trying to make a name for himself by making claims against Australia's most senior Catholic.

Richter also hit out at a mother of an accuser who changed her police statement after reading a book about some of the allegations by ABC journalist and author Louise Milligan.

The mother, who works as a nurse, cried while giving evidence and said she wanted to add in a "memory" she recently recalled: that she had waited for long periods outside St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne in her car for her son who sang in the choir during Mass services.

Richter accused the mother of adding in the "relevant" detail after a book by Milligan called "Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell," was passed around between family members.

Milligan is a witness in the case and set to be cross-examined this week. The court heard from the mother of another alleged victim who later died of a heroin overdose that she'd asked Milligan not to include her interview in her book. The mother had feared it could taint legal proceedings.

However, Milligan went ahead and included the woman's details in her book, which is still on sale in Australia, everywhere except in the state of Victoria where the case is being heard.

Pell set to return to seminary to await news

The Cardinal is expected to return to a seminary in New South Wales after the hearing ends on Thursday to await news of the decision about whether he will face a full trial later in the year.

In an exclusive report in January, CNN revealed Pell has been staying in the Seminary of the Good Shepherd in Homebush, Sydney, with 40 trainee priests while he fights the case.

Pell previously held the eminent senior roles of Archbishop of Melbourne and Archbishop of Sydney before moving across to Rome in 2014. He was soon appointed the senior role of Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy and became a trusted figure close to Pope Francis.

At a news conference at the Vatican in June last year when he was charged, Pell said he had been the victim of "relentless character assassination."

"I'm innocent of these charges, they are false," Pell said. "The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me."

Maybe our Australian FJers can point to local sources with more info. @Blahblah @Karma

[Karma]

You seem to have covered it pretty comprehensively, @laPapessaGiovanna.  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-22/george-pell-committal-hearing-robes-too-heavy-sexual-offences/9577450

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/george-pell-witness-dropped-as-evidence-could-lead-to-more-charges/news-story/79bfed32cf10fdb95baec867f1507158

[47of74]

Now Timmy has chimed in.

Quote

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, a prominent Catholic leader in the United States, said Friday there is no biblical defense for separating families, condemning the practice as "unjust" and "un-American."

"If they want to take a baby from the arms of his mother and separate the two, that's wrong. I don't care where you're at, what time and condition, that just goes against -- you don't have to read the Bible for that. That goes against human decency. That goes against human dignity. It goes against what's most sacred in the human person," Dolan told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "Cuomo Prime Time" Friday.

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that at least 2,000 children had been separated from their parents since the implementation of the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy.

Dolan suggested Attorney General Jeff Sessions incorrectly applied scripture in quoting Romans 13 to defend the policy on Thursday.

Timmy can get lost as far as I'm concerned.  I'm positive he and many of his brother clergy voted for that orange son of a bitch so his crocodile tears me nothing to me.  They bought that song and dance from fuck face about outlawing abortion and gay marriage and putting certain groups of people - such as women - in their places again.   Now they want to complain.  Too little too late.

[47of74]

As is often the case a woman had to step up and take care of stuff when the priest was out of town and his replacement was a no show

Quote

The Dublin Rathdown TD offered to lead the prayer in front of everal hundred people at the Church of St Therese in Mount Merrion.

She did not read the Gospel or perform the consecration of the bread and wine, as these can only be carried out by a priest.

When contacted yesterday, Ms Madigan said it was a “sad reflection of the times we live in that there are no priests available to say Saturday evening Mass in one of the busiest parishes in Dublin”.

“A lack of ordinations and the age profile of priests mean a shortage is inevitable. And it’s not just here, I know this is an issue for many parishes across the country,” she said.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by 47of74
spelling

[Petronella]

What is “culter”?

[47of74]

4 minutes ago, Petronella said:

What is “culter”?

LOL thanks for the heads up, I fixed that.

A culter is probably what one would call a rabid branch trumpvidian.