Thursday, November 15, 2012

Progressive Catholics claim precedent for anti-traditionalist stance

Progressive Catholics of an earlier era
showing support for state socialism

(Dissociated Press) Progressive Catholics from across the U.S. met this week in San Francisco to proclaim their opposition to the "ultra-traditionalist patriarchal Catholic Church."

"There is a long history of courageous Catholic opposition to orthodox Catholic dogma" said Helga Quisling, president of the Catholic Womyn and men for Choice and Power, an organization of progressive Catholics. "Especially during the past century there were progressive Catholics who followed their conscience and stood with secular groups fighting for (national) socialist change."

Quisling noted that womyn are particularly oppressed today by "foreigners in our wombs who have lived for too long where they are not welcome."

"We salute our progressive secular brethren and sistren who oppose rigid antiquated Catholic teaching about the 'sanctity of life' and 'humble obedience to God' and 'love for the least among us' and other patriarchal dogma" exclaimed Quisling, who carried signs that read "Today the Church. Tomorrow the World. " and "socialists need lebensraum" and "It is my destiny to cleanse my womb of unwanted tissue".

"There have always been socialist Catholics who rejected the hierarchal power structure of the Vatican and sought common cause with the State. We have a right to free birth control, and the Church must pay for it!" Quisling noted.

"Socialism is a cause that courageous Catholics have fought for in the past", Quisling declared. "'Sanctity of Life' has always been a patriarchal ruse to oppress the volk."

"We stand with socialists, and salute with them. Socialism is the future, and forward-looking Catholics must not be shackled to traditionalist Catholic dogma."

Quisling smiled and stood tall, flicking her wrist smartly. "We catholic SOCIALISTS salute and stand with our predecessors yesterday, today, and tomorrow".


  1. Michael,

    You really are crazy, aren't you? Not only that, you've scored an enormous own goal.

    The image you've used of high Catholic Church clergy and National Socialists giving the Nazi salute is too good...

    It was only because the Catholic Central Party voted for Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933 that allowed Hitler to gain dictatorial powers. Only for the Concodat, which was supposed to guarantee the independence of the Catlolic Church in Germany. And which wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

    The Catholic Church shared with Hitler's National Socialists dislike of induced abortions. In Hitler's case, because it deprived him of future canon fodder. In the case of the Catholic Church, perhaps to keep their numbers up. In the Philippines, because of the Catholic Church's dominance, contraception is strongly discouraged. And the population is exploding, making poverty even worse.

  2. Next: the right part of Egnor's brain will declare the left part a communist and file a petition to secede.

  3. It's bad enough that I have to write this to inform you. Now I have to explain it to you as well.

    There was a lot of badness in the 1930's. Catholics participated in some of it. At least they didn't sign a pact with Hitler to divide up Poland, like the atheists did.

    The Catholics who participated in the badness abandoned the traditional teachings of the Church in favor of a trendy progressive-socialist cause, which is what National Socialism was.

    "Progressive" Catholics today who spurn the traditional teachings of the Church have ancestors.

    There. I've done the Cliff Notes for you.

    1. Michael,

      No. The Catholic Church agreed with Hitler to share power in Germany in 1933. It was senior high ranking Catholics who agreed to the Concordat, which they thought would guarantee their independence. The Catholics could have stopped Hitler, but they didn't.

      The '30s was a crazy time. Many people were extremely worried about the threat from the Communists, and they ignored the greater threat from the National Socialists. Many countries adopted right wing authoritarian governments to forestall Communism, including Austria, Hungary and Spain.

      And as a result, Stalin had his paranoia strengthened. Stalin's pact with Hitler was designed to protect Communism. He had no trust that Britain or France would protect Poland if Germany invaded after Austria and Czechoslovakia. So the pact brought him apparent safety and a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and Germany.

      And no - National Socialism wasn't a trendy progressive-socialist cause.

      The Catholic Church willingly engaged in anti-Communist alliances with conservative political parties - and they were conservatives, not progressives.

    2. National Socialism was quite trendy, socialist, and progressive, in Germany, and had massive support, at least until the war. Hitler was wildly popular by the mid-30's.

      It may have been popular, but it was neither socialist or progressive. It was especially not socialist as you have defined the term.

    3. National Socialism was... socialism. Obviously.

      National Socialism was quite trendy, and viewed by millions of Germans as very progressive. Hitler's most enthusiastic audiences-- without rival-- were among academics and college students. His most passionate rallies were at universities.

      His weakest support (except for communists) was among conservatives and particularly Catholics (his lowest vote totals were in the Catholic regions, particularly Bavaria).

      Learn some history, ace.

    4. National Socialism was... socialism. Obviously.

      Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. Obviously.


    5. Just like liberals believe in liberty, and progressives in progress.

      National Socialism is a form of socialism, just as International Socialism, democratic socialism, etc are forms of socialism.

      Deal with it.

    6. Michael,

      Get your terms right. You're confusing 'socialism' and 'Marxism'. Communists make the same mistake as you do; Hitler didn't nationalise the banks, therefore he wasn't a socialist (wrong).

      The German historian and writer Sebastian Haffner noted that Hitler was socialist because he attempted to control the entire population socially. All social groups - such as chess clubs, cycling clubs, etc - were taken over and run by Nazi party members very early on. Individuals weren't allowed to have a private life - they worked, attended rallies, engaged in social activities run by the Nazis.

      The opposite of 'socialism' is 'indidualism'. After WWII, the East German government continued the social control (socialism) in addition to instituting Marxism.

      You've still haven't answered my point. The Catholics could have stopped Hitler in 1933 by voting against the Enabling Act, but they didn't. And they wound up their political parties as payment for the Concordat (which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on). Agreed to by conservative, not progressive, high ranking Catholic clergy (including the later Pope Pius XII).

      Hitler's support in the universities amongst students and professors was nationalistic, not progressive.

      Before 1933, German bishops were telling their congregations not to vote for the Nazis (vote instead for the Catholic parties), so of course Hitler's support was lower in the southern states.

      Whether Stalin was a greater threat than Hitler is a moot point. Do you have any method of rerunning history? All we can say is that Hitler was the one to start the war and had previously announced his intentions in 'Mein Kampf'.

      Stalin was paranoid, but he had some reason for being paranoid. Britain and America had troops in Russia during the Civil War, intervening against the Bolsheviks. Poland fought a short war against Russia immediately after WWI. The Baltic states and Finland were previously parts of the Russian Empire (although not an adequate reason for taking them over again).

    7. No, actually. "National Socialist" doesn't mean "socialism, obviously". Learn some history dimwit.

      Hitler didn't nationalize banks or industry. Hitler didn't transfer ownership of corporations to either the state or the workers. Hitler didn't nationalize farms or make them collectives. In short, Hitler didn't do any of the things that would indicate a socialist state.

      But since you have demonstrated time and again that you don't have the slightest clue what "socialism" actually means, you didn't realize this.

    8. Hitler explicitly explained that his socialism was of a deeper kind, in which he controlled the whole of society.

      You are right that he did not nationalize industry. He believed that industrialists were more capable than bureaucrats at running businesses. In that sense he was much smarter than communists, and it showed in the strength of the German economy compared to the Soviet economy.

      IG Farben was a clear example. It was not nationalized, but they did Hitler's bidding, 100%, or they took a shower, so to speak.

      Socialism, of the National Socialism variety.

    9. Michael,

      'He believed that industrialists were more capable than bureaucrats at running businesses. In that sense he was much smarter than the Communists, and it showed in the strength of the German economy compared to the Soviet economy'.

      Remind me again who won the war.

      Actually, the German industrialists didn't have a free hand in running industries. German industry was heavily under the control of the state and its bureaucrats. The control, fortunately, wasn't efficient or effective. Soviet industry was much more efficient at massively out producing German industry - tanks, airplanes, guns, ...

      When Speer took over control of armaments production towards the end of the war, he was able to increase production, despite the effects of the Allied bombing campaign.

      IG Farben weren't particularly efficient in running industry. They built a synthetic rubber factory at great cost next to Auschwitz which didn't produce a gram of rubber.

      You still refuse to address the point that the Catholics could have stopped Hitler in 1933, but didn't. All for the sake of a Concordat, agreed to by senior Catholic clergy, including the future Pope Pius XII.

      And all because people were worried about the threat coming from the Communists, instead of worrying about the threat coming from the National Socialists.

    10. Of course it was wrong for Catholics to cede power to Hitler. He quickly destroyed the Centre Party. Hitler was misunderstood by many early on, which is no excuse, given what the Nazis obviously were and what he had written in Mein Kamph.

      And people were indeed worried about the very real threat from the atheists (communists), and didn't fully understand the threat from the pagans.

    11. Michael,

      You're crazy. You need to read some history books. I suggest Richard Evans' superb trilogy 'the Coming of the Third Reich', 'the Third Reich in Power' and 'the Third Reich at War'.

      The Central Party agreed to go out of existence as part of the price of the Concordat. Agreed to by conservative high ranking Catholics, not progressive or even liberal Catholics.

      You're an idiot. When you are referring to Communists, call them Communists. They might be in the main atheists, but not necessarily. And atheists are quite capable of being conservatives or liberal too. Viktor Klemperer, who survived the war because he was married to a Christian, was a non-religious Jew and a conservative. And you can't redefine Nazis as pagans, because a lot of them were and remained Christians.

    12. He's not an idiot, he is egnorant. He is capable of learning things but simple does not want to. The Nazis were bad, therefore, they must be leftists because in his world everything on the right aka US is good, and everything on the left aka THEM is bad. He is emblematic of the gigantic problem the Republicans have created for themselves, attempting to build their alternate version reality up to the point where they actually convinced themselves it was real, until they finally got mugged by the real reality. (And if you haven't gotten the point yet Mr. Egnor, this is what is significant about your totally wrong election prediction; not that you got it wrong, but that you willfully chose to ignore the enormous amount of evidence that was staring you in the face telling you that you were wrong in favor of trying to construct your own alternate reality, only to faceplant into actual reality when the election returns came in.)