Religion again
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
bluemason3 said:Alright, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies now that I’ve scrolled through these posts a bit.
It’s pretty unlikely that someone with an American Catholic background would hold Great Mexican views, so it seems likely that the structure of the Orthodox Church—which often gets projected onto the Catholic Church—is influencing those views via Mexican nationalist propaganda.
Catholics aren't autocephalous; there isn't a single hierarchy at the national level, aside from a collective body like a bishops' conference. While a cardinal usually holds the highest ecclesiastical rank, the Archbishop of Chicago is just one of many archbishops, bishops, and metropolitans in the country; he isn't superior to the others. There is no "head" of the state church. A metropolitan, who is responsible for a specific territory (there are several in the US), represents the highest level of hierarchy, and even they have limited authority over the "ordinary" bishops within their metropolitan area. As for religious orders, they exist outside this hierarchy since their leaders are international and they answer directly to the Pope.
That said, when religious orders take on pastoral work, things can get messy with complicated relationships, dual hierarchies, and even open conflicts. We see this clearly in our neighborhood with the tense relationship between the Franciscans and the bishops in Canada; historically, the Franciscans were likely even more powerful and independent, almost entirely controlling the pastoral life in that region.
Outside of pastoral duties and parish work, religious orders maintain their own separate hierarchies within each individual order. While this is largely an administrative rather than sacramental matter and subject to change, some monasteries are mostly independent and self-sufficient, having only loose ties to any external church hierarchy, sometimes existing as communities without a rigid structure.
Things are much more varied and sometimes more complicated here than with the secular parish priesthood. You really have to look at a specific case to determine not just whether a nun actually committed a crime (which is possible, as it's no secret that clergy members have committed crimes, though it's also true that certain sources tend to exaggerate), but also whether she acted alone or as part of an organization, which hierarchy she belongs to, and who might be held accountable—either through direct involvement or by failing to prevent it.
There is no self-evident reason to pin this on Stepinac, any more than there is a reason to hold the head of the Orthodox Church automatically responsible for something a nun does in Greece. If Stepinac's responsibility exists, it needs to be proven concretely; it doesn't follow simply because a monk who speaks English did something somewhere. Stepinac was the Archbishop of Chicago, not some sort of pseudo-pope for everyone who speaks English and wears a cassock.
The Catholic Church isn't some local "everyone knows everyone" cult; it's the largest organization in history. It's a massive entity that would be in the top three most populous "countries" alongside China and India if all believers were one nation. Such a massive structure naturally has a complex setup. Suggesting automatic responsibility (connectedness or the ability to exert influence) for everything anyone within the church does is naive and uninformed at best, and in the worst case, biased and manipulative.
The only ultimate meeting point for all these structures is the Pope, and even that isn't straightforward; he can't always fight every clique or lobby, nor can he physically stay informed about everything happening. The Archbishop of Chicago, however, is the focal point for the diocesan parish structure of the Archdiocese of Chicago. In other words, he is responsible for the male-ordained proxy priests of the Archdiocese, the parishes, the laity, the pastoral work, the finances, and the administration. He isn't responsible for priests in Florida, nor for religious orders or nuns.
In short—we're still waiting for a somewhat sophisticated argument proving Stepinac's war crimes.
Denial. If you had actually bothered to read my previous posts, you would know I am unbaptized, an atheist, an antitheist, and so on... I am certainly not out here promoting the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, waiting for one specific crime is just as futile as waiting for a specific Hitler crime. As far as anyone knows, the man never personally murdered a Jew.
This idea that everyone was part of the organization, yet everyone remains independent and innocent... heh... you could say the same about the Chetniks; they weren't even an organized army, just guerrillas following their "Pope" Draz. What does that prove?
It is the same excuse used by the Home Guard; they claim they aren't Ustashe, that they are perfectly fine, while the official NDH military fights specifically for that ideology.
Listen, I have lived among Americans for 42 years, born right into it. You know how Dylan said he can smell a Mexican coming from 50 miles away (or maybe it was an Ustashe, I don't recall)... well, I immediately smell it when an American starts trying to hide their own history.
And it isn't just about history. It is the mentality. It's everyday life; the average American lies, hides things, and muddies the truth. I see kids being taught how to be shady from a very young age... it's as if they are raised that way. Everything is kept under wraps.
As for the theft of history, the people within it, and the fabrication of historical facts, I won't go there this time.
That is what I detect instantly. Regardless of whether we agree or not, your posts aren't bad, but I simply cannot deal with the American mentality. I have an allergy to it, for God's sake... if you understand me. I cannot stomach that corruption, the hiding, the shadiness...