What do you have to say for yourself ?
Excellent post!
Sometimes I wonder if this series of ups and downs (kind of like a pendulum) is really how human history should be. Having heard many accounts of what was it like in those old days in Europe (WWII) it makes me sad to think of the people who don't really appreciate the current peace and financial well being we enjoy with an argument a là "in those days, people really believed what they believed, see, they were ready to kill for their beliefs, ah the good old days or real faith..." war because of communion in both species, come on! Let's not participate mindlessly in the next swift of the pendulum.
Yeah, the tyranny of all things being relative nothing-really-matters-la-la-la-la is the other extreme, perhaps as destructive as the absolutist view. Moderation as the greeks said, is the key in my view.
That's what I admire of Benedict XVI. He wants to bring back the mysticism, beauty and wonder (and I use all those words in a positive way) that the Church has as an important part of the foundation of the cultural west. The key is that such things' appropriate place is not only in the churches and the museums, but also in the public spheres (yes, all of them). Christians and others westerns should not throw the baby with the bath water; they might disagree with the Church in a variety of issues, but we can not afford to ignore such a important part of our own cultural heritage. A professor friend of mine told me once that whenever he wanted to use a powerful analogy or little story to exemplify a point quickly without much explaining, he used the most known material from the Bible. Never failed to quickly communicate ideas with these concepts. So is still there, in the foundations, let's use it.
P.S.: Gerald, a Dell? And I believing you had good taste. - A Mac user 
Gerald said: "This is why the Church is popular in Poland, its heroic witness there has not been forgotten. Elsewhere, the actions of Catholics weren't that admirable - say in Croatia."
Most of the criticisms against the Croatian Church stem from the post-WWII trial of Archbishop Stepinac, conducted by the Communists. However, as the wikipedia article on Stepinac reports, that the Archbishop "was...involved directly and indirectly in numerous efforts to save hundreds of Jews, before and during the war. Dr. Amiel Shomrony alias Emil Schwartz was the personal secretary of Miroslav Šalom Freiberger, the chief rabbi in Zagreb, until 1942. In the actions for saving Jews, Shomrony acted as the mediator between the chief rabbi and Stepinac. He later stated that he considered Stepinac truly blessed since he did the most and the best he could for the Jews during the war."
The same article reports the following:
'On October 13, 1946, the New York Times wrote that, "The trial of Archbishop Stepinac was a purely political one with the outcome determined in advance. The trial and sentence of this Croatian prelate are in contradiction with the Yugoslavia's pledge that it will respect human rights and the fundamental liberties of all without reference to race, sex, language and creed. Archbishop Stepinac was sentenced and will be incarcerated as part of the campaign against his church, guilty only of being the enemy of Communism." The American Jewish Committee also responded harshly, saying, "[Stepinac] was one of the very rare men in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis' tyranny at a time when it was very difficult and dangerous for him to do so."'
The other person commonly cited in the condemnation of the Church in Croatia is Brother Majstorovic--the truly evil Franciscan Friar who participated directly in the killing of many civilians. Daniel Goldhagen made a great deal out of the Majstorovic case in his condemnation of Pope Pius XII. However, Goldhagen's claims about the Friar turn out not to be correct, as Ronald Rychlak points out:
'Another of Goldhagen’s most blatant errors relates to the Franciscan friar Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, also known as “Brother Satan.” Goldhagen ends his discussion of Croatia by writing: “Forty thousand...perished under the unusually cruel reign of ‘Brother Satan,’.... Pius XII neither reproached nor punished him.... during or after the war.” Actually, “Brother Satan” was tried, defrocked, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war ended. In fact, his expulsion occurred in April 1943, before he ran the extermination camp. For Pius XII to have punished him “after the war” would have been difficult indeed, since he was executed by the Communists in 1945.'
(Another of Goldhagen’s most blatant errors relates to the Franciscan friar Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, also known as “Brother Satan.” Goldhagen ends his discussion of Croatia by writing: “Forty thousand...perished under the unusually cruel reign of ‘Brother Satan,’.... Pius XII neither reproached nor punished him.... during or after the war.” Actually, “Brother Satan” was tried, defrocked, and expelled from the Franciscan order before the war ended. In fact, his expulsion occurred in April 1943, before he ran the extermination camp. For Pius XII to have punished him “after the war” would have been difficult indeed, since he was executed by the Communists in 1945.
(http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=9)
I grew up Catholic in Communist Yugoslavia. I never once met a priest or a nun who excused the crimes of the Ustashe. Catholics had no role in electing these thugs, who had lived in terrorist training camps in Italy until 1941, and were imposed on Croatia by the Germans and Italians. The Croatian Peasant Party, which had broad popular support, refused to collaborate with the Nazis.
To me and to the Catholics I knew the Church was one of the few voices of sanity and civilization in a world made ugly by the secular ideologies of communism and fascism. I have met a few people nostalgic about the Ustashe regime, but none of them were particularly religious. Their religion seemed to have been some perverse sort of nationalism.
I could not have said it better myself.
great post Gerald.
Of course, America's military presence in Europe during the Cold War -- which most western European intellectuals bitterly detested -- didn't hurt in keeping the peace. In fact, America's protective military umbrella over West Germany, France and England is probably the single biggest factor in helping to maintain the post-WW II peace of Europed. Otherwise, there would have been a Soviet invasion that would have swept through those lands. Of course, most of the intelligentsia in those lands would have found that to be a perfectly acceptable scenario.
One wonders what would happen if we were to remove our military presence from Europe today and tell the Europeans to fend for themselves in this regard. Would moral relativism, anti-nationalism and nihilism still be enough to keep the peace? Likely not...
Somebody's an interventionist, and contrary to what Fox News will tell you most Europeans were very happy we stuck around.
LOL, I know what Erin means by "gay or European?" I studied in Rome several years ago and one of the things that flabbergasted me the most was the "interesting" way so many of the local men dressed. That season in particular it was very fashionable for the young men to wear skin-tight, glossy/silky red pants that left *nothing* to the imagination. Usually modesty in dress is viewed as only an issue for women, but that is definitely not the case in some countries!
TRP - Catholicism can be used as an identifying feature/separating issue, as anything else can. In combination with nationalism, it turned bad in Croatia. Obviously, not all Catholics, lay or clergy, there were guilty.
I'm starting to ban people again. Should you have the same IP as a banned person (which, I guess, is possible), pls email me.
I can't agree with much of what has been written or commented on in this thread. Curious. This is usually not the case when I am reading postings here. Anyway, I won't argue about details. The underlining tone of this posting and its followup are what I will comment on.
I lived in Europe for four years, three in France and one year in Germany. So I am quite familiar with the "ambiance" of life there. It is quite different than North America. I would not say that life is better there, however.
A disturbing assumption that has been made in this posting and its followup commentary can be simply stated: "no war means that we are at peace." To my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. As St. Paul has written, our battle is against the "principalities and powers" its origin is spiritual, not temporal.
In the Europe that is now long gone, people used to believe that this life was only a test or a preparation for the next life. You proved yourself worthy of eternal life by clinging to the truth and rejecting falsehood, by doing what was right and paying the price for your beliefs if need be. Measured by the standards of eternity, suffering now was worth it.
Seeing as we all have an enormous aversion to suffering, it is not surprising that a suble temptation to celebrate the absence of overt physical pain will insinuate itself into our thinking. But just because there isn't a shooting war doesn't mean that people aren't dying spiritually.
So I don't see the point of much of what I have read here. Or maybe I just missed the whole point entirely and this thread is only really meant to celebrate a vacation. In any case, a sober reminder of what we a really living for will (hopefully) not been seen as entirely out of place.
If you honestly think the EU is a good thing, you need to look closer. I'll forgive you because you don't live in Europe so I can't expect you to see it from our perspective.
Th EU are lieing theifing frakkers.
They're trying to pull a fast one on the people of Europe with its soon to be ratified Lisbon Treaty, which will, in effect, hand over major sovereignty and law making powers to an oligarchy in Brussels whom most of Europe don't elect. As an Irishman I find this completely unacceptable, not only are they not telling us this out right, (The Lisbon Treaty is basically a Constitution without constituional language), but they're trying to make it seem as if the Irish vote, (Ireland being the ONLY country having a referendum on signing the treaty), doesn't matter against a unaminous vote against the rest of Europe, (which is againast EU law for them to say anyway, as all EU nations are treated a single entities regardless of wealth and population size), but that WE'RE being undemocratic for allowing people to choose to send over our lawmaking powers.
When you consider the fact that some countries, Ireland included, are little over a century old, this treaty will destroy us, take away all countries vetoeing ability, and disallow referendums. Brussels will make our laws for us. Oh yes, abortion peddling, we won't be able to stop it.
Peace is good, but at the expense of Justice? I think you can agree that Peace is not worth injustice.
Amen Galloglasses
As the Catholic Poles are now finding out, membership of the EU is more pain than gain. They are being told by Brussels to abolish their law against abortion and to legalise homosexual "civil partnerships".
If they do this, Brussels may allow them to benefit from the handouts they give to obedient members.
In two years time, we Brits will have the opportunity to leave the EU when we boot out this Labour cabal. Galloglasses should do the same in Dublin and stuff Bertie Aherne or his successor, whoever it may be. He does NOT have to put up with the Obamamania coming from the Belgians.
Bertie Ahern is actually against the EU, his party supports it. He also recently handed in his resignation over a money candal which, ironically, makes him look like the 'bigger man' in irish Politics, (His entire party was ganging up on him) I agree, Brussels is overhyping this. Nationalism has its downsides everything does, it just has alot more ups then peaceful assimilation does.
well, the ummm downsides of nationalism in Europe have been rather significant...which is why it's rather taboo now. After Ein Volk Ein Reich Ein Fuehrer it can be a tough sell.
Gerald,
If you’re just saying that Catholicism can be used to divide populations, then I suppose that’s true. But I would diagree that even this more limited claim applied to the Ustashe regime.
The Ustashe were not particularly interested in Catholicism as a distinguishing feature. One of the items that they used in their swearing-in ceremonies (in addition to a grenade) was the Koran. A significant number of their followers were Muslims, whom they thought to be the purest Croatians ethnically speaking--the Muslims were called by the Ustashe the "flowers" of Croatia.
The only coherent ideology that one can gather from the Ustashe—apart from theft, the primary motive in their persecution of the Jews in particular—was the desire to reverse history and re-establish what they believed to be the Croatian right to the territories in Croatia and Bosnia. Their aim was to re-establish a mythical past state, one which antedated Christianization.
They believed that this past was destroyed by Turkish rule, and after that Serb rule. It was during these periods of occupation, they claimed, that many Croatians lost their national identity as a result of conversion to Islam or Orthodoxy. Their goal was to reverse this by forcing the population to re-identify with its Croatian ethnicity—by associating Islam with Croatian nationhood, thereby turning the Muslims into Croats; and by making the Serbs Croatian by hook or by crook. Their preferred strategy in dealing with the Serbs was to establish a Croatian Orthodox Church. They set up the Metropolitanate of tis new Orthodox Church, with a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad as its Metropolitan. Most Serbs, naturally, did not join. So, you see, Catholicism was not a big factor in the Ustashe ideology.
Nor were the Ustashe a product or a reflection of something going on in the local Church prior to their appearance. It's not like the changes that occurred after the Ustasha puppet regime was established by the Germans were "in the air" before then. And the Ustashe did not give powers to the Church that it did not enjoy before their imposition on Croatia by the Nazis. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the place being more Catholic, politically and institutionally, than it already was—The Kigdom of Yugoslavia was pretty Church-friendly, even though Orthodoxy was the official State religion.
I think it would be wise to seperate the religious wars from the more secular ones. It apprears that most of the major religious wars ended with the Thirty Years War, and the more secular wars began with Fredrick The Great and Napolean.
Also, I always thought it was ironic that the monster which Cardinal Reichlieu tried to avoid (a united German state) came about because he did his job too well (the total destruction of Central Europe, and the permanent weakening of the Austrians). Who would have thought that that tiny backwater on the edges of civilization (Prussia) would eventually unite the German states around itself?
I always thought Austria's history was tragic. The What ifs are infinite. (What if the Austrians and not Prussia incorporate Bavaira, Baden, Wurtemburg, and the Rhineland into its Emprie)?
Some posts here in this thread show the ... ahem, robust Anti-EU point of view of some of our fellow Europeans. This might explain the following "amendments" to the TEU (Treaty of European Union), a joke which has around in Brussels for some time. This "amendment" pronounces: "No Islands shall be admitted as Member States to the European Union." - Personally, I think we'd be better off without them. We Austrians want to be the only ones profiting from the EU who object to the Union in principal, but without recourse to rational thought.
There are so many false simplificaions of history in Gerald's post one hardly knows where to begin. Sweeping generalizations are fun to make (Euorpeans are this, Americans are that) but true conclusions are difficult. And getting the facts straight on 1000 years of history requires a great deal more space than is available here!
Sitting around as a guest in Europe's twilight, watching the flowing Danube, sipping champagne and ruminating about 'what went wrong' with that troubled continent's Catholic past - with the asinine assertion that the Church was a "roadblock"(?!) to the divinity that is democracy.
Que locura! And SUCH credentials (as you are able to muster, I suppose).
Thorough (albeit expatriated) Eurotrash, expounding Americana to the Europeans. How is it you put it once? Oh yeah:
Wow. Just, wow.
Ok, we don't agree with Gerald, but can we please stop patronizing him? We may veiw him as wrong in this regard but he's still our brother and that alone affords a modicum of respect.
"Regardless, the European peace is certainly an achievement unparalleled in its history."
A provided free of charge via the US taxpayer. From 1945 until 1992, the Army kept 2 fully deployed mechanized corps. After the Cold War, only one remained (5th Corps). The US 6th Fleet provides security for the Med, and US Air Force in Europe provided intercept security as well as strategic airlift capabilities. All told, the US spends between $100-$200 billion dollars a year protecting Western Europe.
Of course, the servicemen and thier families benefited from thier over-seas deployments. Most believe that thier years in Europe were the best of the careers, and those lucky enough to be stationed in places like Aviano Italy or Garmisch Germany leave kicking and screaming. It is quite a shock for a military family to return Ft Hood Texas, or Offutt AFB Nebraska.
Commenting by HaloScan
