If this is a journalist...

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 13 2005, 05:08 AM'] So let me get this straight: The consensus is that Jewish children during World War II should have been kidnapped (it is kidnapping) by the Church because the Church chose to baptize them?

Two things:

1) That's sick.

2) Were the baptisms even valid? The children were too young to make a decision, and their parents did not consent. Isn't parental consent required for baptisms of children below the age of reason? Otherwise, wouldn't it have been a forced baptism, not to mention a forced conversion, that would have been not only illicit but also invalid?

In any event, regardless of the "needs of the Spirit" and all that carp, I think it was wrong for Pope Pius XII to kidnap Jewish children and I hope that it prevents his beatification. It's sad enough that he is already Ven. Pope Pius XII. [/quote]
Wrong.

The children were not kidnapped.

Maybe it's hard for you to comprehend how real God is? Or maybe you just like to argue? Or maybe it's both.

Pope Pius XII DID NOT kidnap any children.

If you think the "needs of the Spirit" is garbage - then you have much to learn.

Anyone who puts the needs of the flesh before the needs of the Spirit is foolish. Hmmm... Eternity vs. about 70 years? Which is the greater need? Hmmm... that's a "hard one" - No... not hard... except for those of little faith.

If needs of the spirit is garbage then NOTHING matters... do whatever we want. If there is no god then nothing we do matters and there is no right or wrong.


Think with logic, it'll get you far.

[Good Friday]

Here's logic for you: [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64598"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64598[/url]

It turns out that the Vatican didn't even do what the article claims that it did; it didn't kidnap Jewish children from their families, in fact, it instructed clergymen to do the opposite: it instructed the clergy to return the children to their families. This means two things:

1. The media was lying (who's surprised there?).

2. You folks have been arguing for something that the Vatican didn't even do -- kidnapping Jewish children. But just because you [b]thought[/b] that the Vatican did it, you argued in favor of it. Will you now argue in favor of what the Vatican actually did -- the total opposite of what you've been arguing for? In fact, the Vatican did what I thought it [b]should have[/b] done all along: first, it had ordered that Jewish children in Christian care should not be baptized because they were too young to consent and their parents were not available to consent; second, it ordered the return of Jewish children.

According to Ironmonk, I have "much to learn." It seems that the people here who are arguing [b]against[/b] the unanimous decision of the Vatican and of two popes (Pope Pius XII and then-Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, later to become Pope John XXIII) -- have much to learn themselves. They have much to learn about Christian charity and compassion. The popes knew what those things meant, which is why they returned the children to their families and ordered them not to be forcibly baptized in the first place.

What's amusing is that I actually thought about it and made my own decision based on my conscience, unlike those here who didn't even think about it and just argued what they [b]believed[/b] was the Vatican decision. Now it turns out that I was right, and that the Vatican did what I thought they should have done all along -- imagine that, someone who used his conscience was actually right.

Your defense of what you [b]thought[/b] Pope Pius XII did is still sick; fortunately, the pope didn't do it.

On one final note, Ironmonk, I was not saying that the "needs of the Spirit" were carp -- I was saying that your perception of the "needs of the Spirit" is carp. I don't think the Holy Spirit wants Jewish children ripped away from their parents. Apparently, neither did the Vatican after all. Too bad for you.

[Good Friday]

Bumped for the mods. Happy Chanukah! :rotfl:

[Good Friday]

about . . .

[XIX]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 13 2005, 10:34 PM'] Bumped for the mods. Happy Chanukah! :rotfl: [/quote]
Happy Yom Kippur. Happy Rosh Hashana.

Those are the big Jewish holidays that should be getting the attention that Chanukah currently has. At least from an Orthodox Jewish standpoint it should be.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 13 2005, 11:13 PM'] Here's logic for you: [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64598"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64598[/url]

It turns out that the Vatican didn't even do what the article claims that it did; it didn't kidnap Jewish children from their families, in fact, it instructed clergymen to do the opposite: it instructed the clergy to return the children to their families.  This means two things:

1. The media was lying (who's surprised there?).

2. You folks have been arguing for something that the Vatican didn't even do -- kidnapping Jewish children.  But just because you [b]thought[/b] that the Vatican did it, you argued in favor of it.  Will you now argue in favor of what the Vatican actually did -- the total opposite of what you've been arguing for?  In fact, the Vatican did what I thought it [b]should have[/b] done all along: first, it had ordered that Jewish children in Christian care should not be baptized because they were too young to consent and their parents were not available to consent; second, it ordered the return of Jewish children.

According to Ironmonk, I have "much to learn."  It seems that the people here who are arguing [b]against[/b] the unanimous decision of the Vatican and of two popes (Pope Pius XII and then-Cardinal Angelo Roncalli, later to become Pope John XXIII) -- have much to learn themselves.  They have much to learn about Christian charity and compassion.  The popes knew what those things meant, which is why they returned the children to their families and ordered them not to be forcibly baptized in the first place.

What's amusing is that I actually thought about it and made my own decision based on my conscience, unlike those here who didn't even think about it and just argued what they [b]believed[/b] was the Vatican decision.  Now it turns out that I was right, and that the Vatican did what I thought they should have done all along -- imagine that, someone who used his conscience was actually right.

Your defense of what you [b]thought[/b] Pope Pius XII did is still sick; fortunately, the pope didn't do it.

On one final note, Ironmonk, I was not saying that the "needs of the Spirit" were carp -- I was saying that your perception of the "needs of the Spirit" is carp.  I don't think the Holy Spirit wants Jewish children ripped away from their parents.  Apparently, neither did the Vatican after all.  Too bad for you. [/quote]
Your conclusions are wrong again nate.

I am glad you found the artilce.

It doesn't change the fact that the needs of the spirit outweigh the needs of the body.

Not too bad for me nate... The reason I defended the Pope is because I did think about it. IF it was true, I understood why it would have been done. Nothing more.

I can only go by what info is given to me. The truth to the matter does not make me wrong in the least. You do have a lot to learn.



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited January 14, 2005 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 14 2005, 11:00 AM'] Your conclusions are wrong again nate.

I am glad you found the artilce.

It doesn't change the fact that the needs of the spirit outweigh the needs of the body.

Not too bad for me nate... The reason I defended the Pope is because I did think about it. IF it was true, I understood why it would have been done. Nothing more.

I can only go by what info is given to me. The truth to the matter does not make me wrong in the least. You do have a lot to learn.



God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
PS... I also have a lot to learn.

We all do.

Just some more than others


God Bless,
ironmonk

[curtins]

ok ironmonk

looks like you did a great job but who did you email and what did that person do to merit your response?? sorry i didnt read through the whole thread just skimmed it

now [quote]Isn't parental consent required for baptisms of children below the age of reason?[/quote]

no
lets say a baby is born and the mother dies like right then and there- then the baby is going to die- ANY CATHOLIC may baptize that baby (with any old water) in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit- to wash away origional sin so that baby may be with God in heaven.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jan 14 2005, 08:41 PM'] ok ironmonk

looks like you did a great job but who did you email and what did that person do to merit your response?? sorry i didnt read through the whole thread just skimmed it
[/quote]
The article in my post:

[quote]If This Is a Saint...
By DANIEL JONAH GOLDHAGEN[/quote]


Is what merited my response.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Theoketos]

I think that the question is whether they should have been baptized and whether there baptisms are valid is there was no true consent, then obviously it is not the will of the Church.

I think that Max is right to say that once some is baptized the Church has the obligation to protect the faith of the individual.

[ironmonk]

From NewsMax.com
[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/18/144428.shtml?j=716704&e=iron_monk@hotmail.com&l=143149_HTML&u=13440608"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/...HTML&u=13440608[/url]

Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2005 2:37 p.m. EST
[b]Hitler's Pope Plot Ignored[/b]

The recent, starling revelation that Adolf Hitler planned to kidnap Pope Pius XII wasn't worth reporting in the New York Times.

Nor was it paid any attention by a gaggle of critics who despise the pope's memory, according to Catholic League president William Donohue.


Story Continues Below


He commented this weekend on the way some have reacted to the news that Hitler had ordered the kidnapping. "An Italian newspaper claims to have uncovered a 1946 document that says Pope Pius XII sought to block the return of Jewish children (who had been hidden by Catholics from the Nazis) to their original families after the war, and immediately the New York Times runs a story on it.

"Moreover, a number of Jewish organizations and pundits jump on the story, making demands on the Vatican; one critic called for an international investigation.

"We now know that the story appears to have been wrong on every salient point. No matter, we have yet another story on the pope, printed in another Italian newspaper, that says Hitler wanted the pope kidnapped. Only this time the response has been quite different.

"Though the wire services and many major newspapers at home and abroad carried the story, readers of the New York Times have yet to read about Hitler’s plot.

"As reported by the British news service Reuters, 'shortly before the Germans retreated from Rome, SS General Karl Friedrich Otto Wolff, a senior occupation officer in Italy, had been ordered by Hitler to kidnap the pope.'

"According to the Italian newspaper, Avvenire, Wolff subsequently arranged for a secret meeting with the pope; he went to the Vatican in civilian clothes at night with the help of a priest. Wolff assured the pope that no kidnapping would occur, but warned him nonetheless. The newspaper said Hitler considered the pope to be an obstacle to his plan for global domination.

"Writers like Garry Wills, James Carroll, John Cornwell and Daniel Goldhagen have sought to paint Pope Pius XII as 'Hitler’s Pope.' But if they’re right, why did Hitler want to deep-six his buddy? Maybe the New York Times will offer one of these professional Pius bashers an opportunity to explain himself on its op-ed page. After, of course, the newspaper first runs a news story on the event.”




God Bless!
ironmonk

[Sinner]

I was watching EWTN news the other day and I am pretty sure they addressed this article and the finding was basically that the story was bunk, and that the children were actually allowed to return to their families except for a few for reasons of safety, not religeous belief.... you might wanna check it.

[Sinner]

......... or you could just stick ur fingers together with superglue.