Absolutely true. Unquestionably so. Said so multiple times myself in here.
Still a Catholic sin too tho.
Mass Grave of Over 200 Children Found at Former Canadian Residential School
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Still a Catholic sin too tho.
It's quite a bit beyond that though. If the criticism was just "the Catholic Church was involved, so they knew of the poor conditions and did not do enough to help", I wouldn't care enough to even comment. A bunch of people here were taking the position that the Catholics were murdering children for not being Catholic enough, which is not only so wrong as to require rebuffing, it's also a viewpoint that erases the government's responsibility by making religion the driving motivation. You can't simultaneously believe the reality that the government was taking children away to erase their culture and believe the fiction that Catholics were murdering children for their religion. And that's pretty inarguable at this point, as the continued rage (elsewhere on the internet, independent of what we're saying here) is aimed almost exclusively at Catholics. Calling it Catholic murders has completely deflected blame from the Canadian government in public discourse, and we're back to "which buildings are being set on fire?"
That was reference to Magdalene Laundries in Ireland.
The opulent stuff in churches are almost all voluntary gifts from the wealthy. If you'd like to argue that those people likely profited from slaves and that ruins fancy churches, go right ahead. Believing the church pocketed money from child labor run directly by the clergy and managed to buy elaborate golden archways from that is downright silly. That's not what happened.
The irony here is so, so thick. The Church made institutions in impovershed places where groups of people lived communally, they worked communally for the institutions to function and the basic needs of the residents were met through their group efforts, and now a bunch of communists are calling that slavery because the individuals there weren't paid in cash. Like, what they hell, guys.
So what? They have a record of forced, unpaid labour in the same country. So why should we assume benefit-of-the-doubt elsewhere?
They'e knocking over colonial statues too.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Why not? These things aren't mutually exclusive in any way.
I can and do.
No, the Canadian government shares blame. The Catholic church has been taking up all this space because you keep insisting they're the real victims in this scenario instead of, you know, the kidnapped and murdered children.
Well, I would say murder through negligence.... which probably was actually more torturous that if they were straight up murdered.
That being said, BOTH the Catholics and the Canadians wanted their culture erased. They both believed if they weren't devote enough, that's what caused the child's death. It definitely wasn't seen as God's, the church or the state's fault at the time
It’s absolutely what happened actually. Whether a “voluntary gift” from wealthy imperialists or the product of Church enterprises and investments, the end is the same as these child labor mills.
Because they raped and beat them. Also it’s still exploitation because the church absolutely still moves that money up the administrative chain.
They aren't in any practical sense. Watch how this works:
And look, suddenly all non-religious motives have disappeared! Isn't it amazing how that works? Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds on the internet should understand that if people can blame any act of violence on religious beliefs, they will ignore every other factor. Never mind that this is total crap, there is nothing in Catholic beliefs that says if children are devout enough God won't let them die. That's insane nonsense. But the big-brain "religion is the cause of every war" crowd online is active, and apparently fans of burning churches, and all of you are associating yourself with that.
Prove it. Show evidence that a single penny was transferred out.
"Devoted" to Canada as they saw it. Not to a deity. That's a fair description of assimilationist policy.
Religious motives disappeared? I meant that the children weren't devoted to God enough. If they just prayed hard enough, they would have lived. They thought the children died because God wanted them too. Why would they bother looking after them? It's god will
30 seconds of an internet search would find you a BUNCH of Christian rhetoric from THIS year about poor/minorities/Covid patients/other religions etc that exemplifies what happened in Canada back then. Go look up what a bunch of Christians said about Palestinians. It's the exact same rhetoric - if you don't believe in God hard enough or the right way, you deserve to die and there is nothing Christians can do about it.
This stain of what happened in Canada hasn't left our Western souls... because the same idea let thousand die last month
No, you read that backwards. Non-religious motives disappeared.
a) I guarantee you're exaggerating all of this.
b) I guarantee you're talking about protestants, ones who are actual heretics from a Catholic perspective. The Catholic church does not condemn a person for not being Catholic. It does, however, look down on those who would claim in the name of the Christian God that nonbelievers deserve death and God would have saved them if they believed more.
There is an item for the Holy See in at least this financial report. I assume that’s gonna be a regular occurrence going back to the 90’s. Also an item for income from charitable activities, which would be income from the laundries in the past. So, the accounting of that income and that expense are handled together. Tahdah.
Edit: On second glance that may be income in both cases. I’ll go ahead and spend more than one search on this I guess.
Edit2:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/magdalene-laundries-report-783760-Feb2013/?amp=1
Ok, so, while horrible for-profit business managers, the income brought in was considerable and would’ve been accounted alongside broader expenses of the church like pensions as shown above, pensions inarguably higher for those further up the administrative chain, etc.
Last edited:
There are two items for Holy See in that report. 1 is income, the other is expense, and they are exactly the same number. I'm not sure exactly what that money was doing, but the net money going to the Holy See in this report is exactly $0. There is also an item for income from charitable activities, true. Their trust brought in $16k through charitable activities. And spent $4.78M. The profit from their charitable efforts was -$4.76M, and the difference is made up in donations. I'm sure you recall, you were claiming they profited from these things, which leads to the next section:
They weren't for-profit business managers at all. They laundries did not exist to do laundry and make money. They did laundry for the same reason everyone works, to be able to afford necessities. They did work so they could feed the residents and maintained the facility, and didn't even manage to do that without grants and donations. They did not profit. Nor does this information say that they money running the facilities was handled with general Church funds, so even if they managed to pull in an amount of money less than a rounding error in the Church's total budget, you still have nothing to suggest those funds were handled together.
Perhaps, just maybe, you came into this argument with a misguided perception of the situation based on popular anti-Catholic statements you have heard.
You’ll note these are different decades (Ireland has far less contracts with the church for services these days) and the intent was simply to show that these funds are all accounted together, and therefore can be interchanged. Essentially, the money from x is considered when paying for y, and in a modern context that’s as close to saying y is paid for with x as is physically possible.
Literally showed that such funds are accounted together, and therefore handled together. Also, it’d have to be handled along with general church funds because they didn’t bring in enough money to keep the laundries running in many cases and therefore had to take donations.
Popular anti-Catholic statements about the rape and abuse at these non-profit sweatshops, yes.
So, you're arguing that because the Church was losing money by putting donations in to keep them afloat, that's the same as profiting from them? if I give a homeless person $10, that means my money is tied to them, so it's the same as profiting off of the homeless? Your logic is... questionable.
Are you and the homeless person the same entity? If a division of a corporation loses money it gets money from another part of the corporation. That division is still bringing income to the corporation.