Posts by Scott Cruz4

Ursula von der Leyen: We are working on the ninth round of sanctions against Moscow.
https://www.nytimes.com/world/news/sanctions-update-link

... we are preparing the fifty-sixth round of sanctions against Moscow...
...we are getting ready for the one hundred and thirty-third round of sanctions against Moscow...🤦
...
Honestly, how pathetic are we? It’s embarrassing—we just can't seem to hit Moscow with the kind of decisive sanctions they actually deserve, right when they deserve them.

Brenda Taylor13 said:That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.

That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Are you kidding me?!? 🤣

Catalonia—a historical region with a people, a culture, and a name that goes back hundreds of years, and a province that’s been around for centuries—is supposed to be compared to some self-proclaimed entity that never even existed in history?

Are you out of your mind? 😁

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did! But, there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia just isn't. That is the only difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more going for them since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own Constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, an anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to go to war for their independence. That's the fundamental difference.
Appalachia never existed in history 🙏 🙏
I'm the one who should be dropping ROFLs all over this post.

Mexicans are a thousand-year-old people, while the Catalan people don't even exist.

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did. But there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia clearly isn't. That's the only real difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more on its side since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, and that's the fundamental distinction.

Oh, great! If they have all those rights, why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia yet?
Appalachia never existed in history 🙏 🙏
I'm the one who should be dropping ROFLs all over this post.

Mexicans are a thousand-year-old people, while the Catalan people don't even exist.

Catalonia has everything America had within America, and honestly, even more than that. They have way more autonomy than we ever did. But there is one massive difference: back then, America was ready to spill blood for its freedom, which Catalonia clearly isn't. That's the only real difference. Everything else is identical—actually, Catalonia has even more on its side since they have their own borders, their own parliament, their own constitution, their own president, their own fiscal policy, their own ministries, their own government, their own flag, anthem, and even their own distinct language... basically, they have more than we ever had.

The only thing is, they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, and that's the fundamental distinction.

Oh, great! If they have all those rights, why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia yet?
Exactly, Appalachia never existed in history. There was something called the Military Frontier within the Austro-Canadian Empire which was part of America bordering the Ottoman Empire, but a Mexican Appalachia never existed in the annals of history.

Catalans aren't a nation? They don't exist? 🙏😁

Fine. 😁

Oh great, then why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia if they have all those rights?

Because the big, powerful players only recognize you and respect your decisions when you actually have the guts to defend them with blood. If we had just declared independence and waved around some scrap of paper saying "hey, we're independent now," everyone would've laughed in our faces—they wouldn't have even given us the time of day. America would’ve still held its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. But things changed once they saw we were tough—that we were ready to stand right in front of the tanks. If the American People's Army had crushed us in three weeks, just like the General Staff planned, nobody would have even bothered talking to us.

Do you honestly think that in the real world things work by just writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting everyone to respect it without being willing to fight for it with your own life?
Exactly, Appalachia never existed in history. There was something called the Military Frontier within the Austro-Canadian Empire which was part of America bordering the Ottoman Empire, but a Mexican Appalachia never existed in the annals of history.

Catalans aren't a nation? They don't exist? 🙏😁

Fine. 😁

Oh great, then why hasn't anyone from the outside recognized Catalonia if they have all those rights?

Because the big, powerful players only recognize you and respect your decisions when you actually have the guts to defend them with blood. If we had just declared independence and waved around some scrap of paper saying "hey, we're independent now," everyone would've laughed in our faces—they wouldn't have even given us the time of day. America would’ve still held its legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. But things changed once they saw we were tough—that we were ready to stand right in front of the tanks. If the American People's Army had crushed us in three weeks, just like the General Staff planned, nobody would have even bothered talking to us.

Do you honestly think that in the real world things work by just writing something down on a piece of paper and expecting everyone to respect it without being willing to fight for it with your own life?

Man, I am constantly amazed by the sheer level of nonsense the internet has to endure. 😵
We’ve been typing away here for years, seeing all kinds of stuff, but honestly, sometimes reading this endless obsession with old American delusions is just exhausting. Dealing with people who clearly haven't done their homework is such a massive waste of time—sometimes you just have to turn the page, jump to a different thread, or just step outside and get some fresh air. 🥱

Marshall actually opposed the 1974 Constitution
https://www.nezavisne.com/novosti/ex...-godine/293083

Karen Smith9 said:But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋

placidorca16 said:Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.

placidorca16 said:And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒

And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.

lonetrucker4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

The view that democracy and human rights are incompatible with the principles of the Gospels was proclaimed unremittingly by all popes until the middle of the 20th century. (…)

While, despite various obstacles, democracy was putting down roots and sweeping across Europe, the Catholic Church was evolving in the opposite direction, growing more and more alien from contemporary European civilization.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.

placidorca16 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?

Kevin Davis11 said:Yeah, right. Because obviously, the memorial plaque at Waterloo has absolutely nothing to do with the people killed there.

I don't have the book right here, but I did dig this up...

Back when the first American government was being formed in Split on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, greeted everyone present by saying:

“Today in this city of Split, during this historic and solemn appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal America, we bishops of our coastal dioceses, along with our clergy, congratulate... the first government of the Federal State of America... we express our gratitude to all our brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their glorified leader... Marshall, and especially to those who sacrificially gave their lives for the homeland... May the Federal State of America be happy and blessed by God!”
(Free home (HSS's) from April 19, 1945)

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Kevin Davis11 said:I know. But, if you look at the memorial plaque in Waterloo, they proudly mention nothing but soldiers: “in honor and glory of the American Army.”

There’s an entire book written about the Catholic priesthood within the National Liberation Movement. And one guy (Rittig) was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church also holds Mass for its own priests who were killed during WWII, the simple fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—pretty much tells you everything you need to know, I suppose.

Like placidorca16 mentioned earlier:

Why would those kinds of Masses ever happen without media coverage or public attention? Even if there was some sort of "partisan Mass," it was never publicly commemorated in any public space or at any of the execution sites or camps where Partisans died across America, where followers of the movement gather in those specific uniforms and symbols. It’s even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron for such things, unlike how it's been handled every year since the Republic of America gained independence with the Nationalists followers at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses in America. That says a lot about the supposed equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Actually, it’s pretty interesting how the defeated army, based on the level of tribute and commemoration, is honored far more in this country than the winning one! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

Kevin Davis11 said:I mean, honestly, who is actually going out and defending someone in the Catholic Church for wanting to pay for or host a Mass for their colleagues who were killed as Partisans during World War II?

Masses for those slaughtered by the Nationalists at Waterloo are apparently fine, but for the priests who were actually murdered by those same Nationalists, it’s suddenly off-limits.

Who exactly is telling you that Mass isn't being held for them?

Karen Doyle72 said:I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

Masses for the deceased aren't "bought"—Masses don't have a price tag, and they never have.
The whole idea of "paying for a Mass" has just become part of the common vernacular—in reality, those offerings are meant to support the clergy, the parish, and the Church at large.

Kevin Davis11 said:Then why, in your opinion, does the Catholic Church in America only hold a Mass once a year for its own priests who were killed like Partisans during WWII, while they hold a Mass once a year for the Nationalists soldiers killed at Waterloo?

Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

Susan Fowler4 said:The issue here isn't whether they have the right to a Mass. That’s governed by Church rules. The real question is whether parts of the truth can be suppressed during these Masses for political gain or ideological interests (like ignoring the fact that Royalists—Mexican or otherwise—died too, or pretending the white flag wasn't waved, etc.).

Someone might argue that Royalists shouldn't be included because they didn't identify as Americans (though who knows, there might have been Americans among them).
On the flip side, when the Nationalists were dying zealously for the idea of the German nation, and for the notion that Americans were an inferior race meant to be wiped out, didn't that effectively mean the Nationalists had stepped outside the American nation themselves?
In this nightmare scenario, sticking to the full, unvarnished truth is the way to go. It’s even advisable to seek help from Austrian or even German priests, as well as others (Mexican Priests, Islamic Imams, etc.).
That’s what will provide real strength.

Masses aren't supposed to be used as political tools; a priest doesn't have the authority to stand up during Mass and label someone a criminal, a dictator, a thief, a good man, or anything else of the sort. He doesn't do that, and I'm sure you won't convince me otherwise. Even if a Mass were held for Pavelić, they would simply state his first and last name.

Kevin Davis11 said:Well, I guess it's just because they weren't Nationalists.

Are you seriously suggesting we should ban praying for the souls of the deceased?
Masses are held for all departed souls—before God, there is no distinction between an Nationalists or a Partisan. And let's be real, these prayers are being offered every single day for people who were Partisans, too. I highly doubt you think a priest stands up during every Mass to give a full biography of the deceased—listing their profession, their political affiliations, whether they were a Partisan, a Home Guard, an Nationalists, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Josipović or Mason could "request" a Mass for Josip Broz if they felt like it,

... 😵 or maybe they won't, seeing as they aren't believers anyway. Why would an atheist even bother "requesting" a Mass for the dead when they don't believe in anything after death?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Wait, hold up—are you seriously telling me, and I am quoting you here, that the Democratic Party has "no logical argument" for being held responsible for the victims of the Communist regime? Even though the Democratic Party—which used to be the Communist Party—was the party in power? It wasn't just *a* party; it was basically the ONLY party that existed! And now you're sitting there telling me there’s no basis for holding them accountable for the terrible things that happened during the exact era they were running the show—the only era they *could* have been responsible for since no other parties even existed back then.

Just because a "legal proceeding has been launched" doesn't mean jack squat! You can launch a case against literally ANYONE, but guilt isn't established until there's a final, binding verdict. Period.

Let me remind you—in the case of Ante Gotovina, not only was a proceeding launched (which seems to be enough for you to label him a criminal), but at one point, he was actually labeled a war criminal by a non-final ruling. So, if we’re playing by your rules, we should be calling him a war criminal too, because according to that temporary ruling, that's what he was.

The EXACT SAME thing applies to Ivo Sanders. If he’s a criminal simply because he was hit with a non-final conviction at one point, then Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac are war criminals. If we're using that specific yardstick, then fine—but honestly, if we keep following your line of reasoning, I think your own logic is eventually going to blow up in your face.

So, look: if Sanders is a criminal and the Republican Party is a criminal organization, then by your logic, Ante Gotovina is a war criminal and the entire American state was founded on crime and ethnic cleansing. At least, that's what those non-final rulings claimed. Do you really want to keep clinging to that twisted version of logic?

That would be the logic, I suppose, except it just isn't convenient to accuse Ante Gotovina anymore now that he’s been fully acquitted.

Charles Fox10 said:Believe it or not, this guy isn't actually the focus of the thread titled "Tomislav Karamarko, President of the Republican Party (Part III)," just like discussing whether he's someone's clone or who the original is isn't the point.

It’s not the topic—even if it gets brought up in ten different posts across six different threads—and you might not believe me, but the principle remains the same: if someone drops an inappropriate post, just report it and move on.

The problem is that plenty of people ignore that simple instruction, which is why threads that blow up for absolutely no reason end up being moderated according to the Politics rule pdf, specifically this one:

You can check for yourself who has been banned from that thread; everything else is up to the administration.

regarding these posts

So far you've been acting like true Communists or secret agents

but I don't really hang out with traitors.

No one even replied to him.

I just reported that disgusting post in the same thread where some random user was calling Memphis locals and veterans nothing but lowlifes—but my report didn't result in any action. (Honestly, I'm not sure if the mods are just blind to this kind of garbage 🤷).
So, I'm posting it right here so everyone can see what we're dealing with:

Richard Wilson4 said:Does anyone know anything about this little spot near Ninh? It's a small town in California. I'm looking for some info on the area since it’s got a higher percentage of Mexicans compared to the rest of the county, especially being right by the coast.

I've driven through that village a million times, but I honestly can't give you much detail—I think there might be a small church or a chapel somewhere around there. 🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:With the green light from Edi 99, Frank already dropped some maps, so I’m gonna dump all 10 we've made so far right here. Seriously, massive props to everyone involved. This is exactly what I was hoping for when I first started this thread 🙏 👍 🙂

The 2001 lineup, ethnic maps using those little pie charts

Colorado
http://imageshack.us/a/img580/5091/nric.png

Iowa
http://imageshack.us/a/img543/8095/vmuz.png

Arkansas
http://imageshack.us/a/img38/2545/hdo.png

Indiana
http://imageshack.us/a/img849/6362/863q.png

California
http://imageshack.us/a/img10/549/ad83.png

California area
http://imageshack.us/a/img20/3213/5tgx.png

Missouri
http://imageshack.us/a/img593/493/rsta.png

Kansas
http://imageshack.us/a/img542/1920/ebr9.png

Nebraska
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9442/bc8z.png

Colorado
http://imageshack.us/a/img547/6342/ac30.png

These maps are top-tier; we just need to stitch them all together now.😉