Let me get this straight, the Catholic Church...

Let me get this straight, the Catholic Church, that stood for the protection of Native Americans against colonial governments, supported the Haitian Revolution, and fights for self-determination in South America and Africa (not to mention their role in South European, Polish, and Australian socialism) is reactionary and must be abolished, but witchcraft is epic,progressive and materialist because they affirm trans people?

Attached: blessed are the peacemakers.jpg (660x838, 158.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Why anyone would get imprisoned and executed for praising medical devices is beyond me…

Religion and superstition are reactionary. They're not even bourgeois or feudal, they're beyond that. It's like primitive or slave society shit.

Lol, what dude? I'm not even an expert in this area, but just growing up in LA and elementary education I know better than that. Read up on the California mission system and how they destroyed the local civilizations of native peoples and then enslaved them to work at their missions.

Attached: Death_of_Father_Jayme.jpg (601x392, 86.63K)

Encomiendas were a thousand times worse than misiones, which actually protected them from being enslaved by the spanish. And that line was about Bartolomé de las Casas, who wrote the first treatise of human rights in the world.

Also I love how you try to shill for a completely primitive way of life right after , really highlights the coherence of internet "marxists"

But they were enslaved by the missions. How can you protect someone from being enslaved by enslaving them?

And yes, despite the actions of individual priests the Church itself remained against slavery from the time of las Casas up to its abolition

Attached: Dw-HooXX4AATAAo.jpg (816x248, 73.43K)

Read the Peasant War in Germany

I only studied Franciscan and Jesuit missions in South America, where the "slaves" worked decently, never got whipped, and the profits got put back into the community itself, were they different in North America?
I doubt some friars who took vows of poverty wanted to accumulate any riches given that they had no one to pass them to


You're really trying to shill for slavery? Why do you call yourself a christian socialist?

how many layers of retardation are you on OP


From what I've read there was no slavery within the missions in southern barzil/northen argentina, and they were generally pretty good places to live(if you can handle the whole religious atmosphere) with a developed economy and culture(although the jesuits never ordained any Guarani).

My point is that it wasn't slavery at all, despite what your American History books written by masons might say. Most such communities (that I know of) were voluntary and even attracted escaped slaves. But sure, believe what the bourgeoisie says about the Catholc Church

They probably didn't do it because of not being allowed to thanks to the revolutionary environment in the Philippines under similar circumstances, I'm guessing

Also you dumbasses should learn what quotation marks are, my point is that it wasn't slavery at all

Explain how slavery isn't slavery.

Indians were initially attracted into the mission compounds by gifts of food, colored beads, bits of bright cloth, and trinkets. Once a Native American "gentile" was baptized, they were labeled a neophyte, or new believer. This happened only after a brief period during which the initiates were instructed in the most basic aspects of the Catholic faith. But, while many natives were lured to join the missions out of curiosity and sincere desire to participate and engage in trade, many found themselves trapped once they were baptized.[21] On the other hand, Indians staffed the militias at each mission[22] and had a role in mission governance.

To the padres, a baptized Indian person was no longer free to move about the country, but had to labor and worship at the mission under the strict observance of the priests and overseers, who herded them to daily masses and labors. If an Indian did not report for their duties for a period of a few days, they were searched for, and if it was discovered that they had left without permission, they were considered runaways. Large-scale military expeditions were organized to round up the escaped neophytes. Sometimes, the Franciscans allowed neophytes to escape the missions, or they would allow them to visit their home village. However, the Franciscans would only allow this so that they could secretly follow the neophytes. Upon arriving to the village and capturing the runaways, they would take back Indians to the missions, sometimes as many as 200 to 300 Indians.

The work day was six hours, interrupted by dinner (lunch) around 11:00 a.m. and a two-hour siesta, and ended with evening prayers and the rosary, supper, and social activities. About 90 days out of each year were designated as religious or civil holidays, free from manual labor. The labor organization of the missions resembled a slave plantation in many respects.[29][notes 6] Foreigners who visited the missions remarked at how the priests' control over the Indians appeared excessive, but necessary given the white men's isolation and numeric disadvantage.[30][notes 7] Indians were not paid wages as they were not considered free laborers and, as a result, the missions were able to profit from the goods produced by the Mission Indians to the detriment of the other Spanish and Mexican settlers of the time who could not compete economically with the advantage of the mission system.

Attached: jim jones.jpeg (720x754, 138.44K)

this is only the liberals with a red fetish. The catholic and orthodox is actually pretty based.

Man is a religious animal. Despite which mode of production we have we have always had religion and probably always will.

Attached: DZYYlHEU8AAspA_.jpg large.jpg (886x960, 99.51K)

Indian Labor at the California Missions Slavery or Salvation?

Here's an article for you:

Ah yes, the famous plantations where the slaves had a say in governing the plantation and worked 6 hours day in a structure of 3 hours of work, 3 of rest, and 3 of work, with 90 days of rest a year
If that's slavery, european peasants suffered even harsher slavery, or do you think, they could move freely either?
You have absolutely no idea of the historical context, thanks for the laughs

You're not doing a good job convincing me to join your child fucker cult.

Yeah I'm sure the writer would call workers under the USSR slaves as well

Captives? Prisoners? What's a better term?

I'm not convincing you of anything, you argue like a teenager, just pointing our your hypocrisy, can't believe you actually compared misiones to slave plantations

The Catholic Church has done more for the advancement of the working class than any Leninist ever has or ever will, because as an institution it's actually integrated into the working class, unlike your vanguardist parties composed of oligarchs

Attached: soul.png (517x374, 205.76K)

Who am I? I've never claimed to represent anybody in this thread.

I didn't make any such comparison.

Thought you were the guy I was replying to, nevermind then.
Anyway, the point of the thread is not evangelisation, but the discussion of the ahistorical notion that the Church is an agent of reaction always in the pocket of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie that freemasons have spread since the French Revolution, when in reality it was always seen at best as a necessary evil by them, and usually as an impediment to their power that had to be eliminated, like when the Marquis of Pombal expelled the Jesuits from Brazil

Attached: church militant.jpg (576x442, 30.34K)

Superstition and religion are rubbish.

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (753x800, 169.94K)

I really like CathComs but trying to paint the history of the Catholic Church in the Americas as liberatory is delusional lmao. It had it's moments and there were certainly great Catholics, but the Church itself was complicit far more often than not.

This is such an absurdly bad faith argument after your hollow claims about the history of the Catholic Church being somehow aligned with socialism to such a large extent. Many pagan religions also have elements relevant to socialism. Whereas Christianity has notions of the Absolute and the dialectic of the Trinity, pagan religions (at least African ones which I'm most familiar with) have a tentative material basis – a forest spirit more directly represents the material relation between the ecology of a patch of woods and the human settlement, so when the town converts to Christianity and cuts down the grove because it's no longer sacred, during the wet season the river floods the banks without the tree and root system to hold it back and washes away half the town. (Actual situation I saw in West Africa)

The fuck? The catholic church is aristocracy.

Attached: 17.jpg (744x1023, 185.9K)

absolute state of egoists

Yeah, I bet he didn't even go to cloud disneyland afterwards either.

Attached: Heaven.jpg (1600x804, 691.91K)

I wasn't thinking of traditional pagan communities, just the modern ones.
You are right that such communities are usually very involved in the preservation of the natural environment, but you shouldn't confuse superstition with materialism. Hinging environmental preservation on a mere belief that the spirits dwell there doesn't give it a solid foundation and opens the path for situations like you described, that happened because the community didn't know the role of the grove in their environment, rather than the conversion.
On a related note, Laudato Si was really positive to discredit Christians who were climate skeptics, by giving strength to scientific arguments via the Church itself

You can do better

Attached: St. Francis.jpg (480x360, 64.16K)

What make your spirits more objectively true than their spirits?

I'm not saying we should defend the environment because of "my spirits", but because of the scientific fact that we need to do it to survive as a species

Alright, put another way. You say believing in spirits dwelling in nature is superstition. How is your belief system not a superstition?

Well, there's no scientific evidence to support it, so from that scientific point of view it is. That doesn't impede my faith

That's well and good, but just as you aren't liable to give credence to other people's superstitions I'm not liable to give credence to yours.


Attached: one sikh dude.jpg (750x500, 47.23K)

But like I said in
that is not why I made the thread friend
Unless the fact you don't give any credit to my religion makes you think it's ok to rape nuns and kill priests, castrate them, and display them publicly with their genitals in their mouth

Attached: Catholics are evil octopii.jpg (416x407, 66.92K)

I fucking keked.

For (You)

Attached: 2QrbRlQ.jpg (684x626, 192.39K)

That wasn't Christian communism.

Can priests be super reactionary?
Are priests etc always ebil or super reactionary?
Can they be communists?
Does this make religion any less retarded?

No. Both should be abolished.


tipped and fedorapilled

Damn right

Attached: 14.png (500x447, 95.91K)

christcucks fuck off

Attached: 16c6a3b7422c8c5c4c6b1a647948feba.jpg (736x489, 89.13K)

Imagine how edgy the 14-year-old felt uploading this image
I'll pray for you kid

Attached: thot.jpg (480x480, 43.53K)

The catholic church also called the spanish civil war a holy crusade against bolshevism

I would also fight with Franco if I had to pick a side, which I don't, so meh. Do you expect to literally try to exterminate the Church and have their endorsement?

Do you expect the revolutionaries to not attack the institution that had been the backbone of reactionary thought in Spain for over a century? They supported the absolute monarchists over the liberals, they supported Rivera's dictatorship, they were openly against the Republic for taking away education from their indoctrinating, child-raping hands.

Any person who actually cares about working people would support the absolutists over the cristinos and their impoverishing land reforms lmao, you're so utterly cucked by liberalism you don't even realize it and think you're some edgy revolutionary
In the end you'll always be a useless and harmless ideologue, a dog that barks and doesn't bite


Also, if the church cared about working people, it would have supported the Republic's land reform.

yes, those of us that aren't privileged intellectuals think that having bread to eat is more important than rich men being allowed to vote

To speak without irony for a second (don't make me regret it with your basic pedo slanders please), at that point the situation was already critical in terms of church-state relations. Even the falangists, who wanted a supreme, central, hypermodern state tried to woo the Church, despite thinking the state should control it, while the left factions of the republic kept pushing more and more towards anticlericalism, to the point basque republicans were the only ones who even tolerated Catholicism, as it had been turned into a completely political issue
And speaking of the Basques, their implementation of distributism and Catholic support for such projects as the Mondragon have done more for working people than any marxist land reform, since it actually created a system within the bounds of the market economy that is as fair as it can, with as little wage differences as possible and common ownership of the stock

Attached: Christ and Cross.png (869x500, 409.78K)

WEW LAD the ideology

The Catholic Church literally ran tha residential schools in Canada which had the explicit purpose of destroying indigenous culture and society. There was always widespread deaths of children (often from neglect, poor conditions, malnutrition, etc) as well as sexual abuse. It permenatly fucked several generations of indigenous people in Canada.

Anti-clericalism had been a part of the spanish workers' movement for over a century. The church (as a whole, not individual basque nationalist priests) was predisposed against the republic from day one, calling it "A divine punishment" (The words of Pedro Segura y Sáez, not mine). Stop pretending that catholicism in Spain has ever been, outside of specific cases, not a force for reaction and nothing else.
Also, why call yourself a christian communist when you're obviously not a communist?

I did not knew about such progressive and nice role of Catholic Church in history. I knew that there were nice people, but did not know that the organization is nice too. Cheers, OP!

You're all wrong. This is the correct answer:

Attached: Anprim Cathjuche.jpg (945x630, 50.63K)

In Iberia there were no medium-scale bourgeois property owners, large estates were sold in whole to burghers who contracted workers under salary, rather than renting them the land, which sometimes was done for a couple generations in some cases if the portion of the crops was included.
But sure, I'm glad, what the masons told you is the truth, peasants were just brainwashed by the Church obviously, my ancestors were all just a bunch of uneducated idiots for wanting their land to be conditionally theirs rather than working from sunrise to sundown for a wage that kept them barefoot and forced them to make soup out of weeds

the internet ain't for the faint of heart, stick to fox news

Attached: 3x14_Cox_realizes.jpg (944x712, 96.01K)

Who the fuck cares? You can believe in your magical sky daddy if you want to. Means absolutely nothing in material terms.
The Catholic Church should have zero political influence though. Gay marriage, birth control, abortion, euthanasia and all the rest should be legal and socially accepted.

"Witchcraft" is worse than Catholicism.

They are still assblasted about the french revolution

just say "jews" next time, retard

Attached: pepepunch.gif (359x371, 404.52K)

Masons were an actual organised entity and their history with the Catholic Church is well documented. They were especially influent from the American and French Revolutions until the end of classic liberalism, and very publicly so. Do you think they wouldn't leave their mark on historiography? Reply to the actual post, unless a bourgeois coddled intellectual like you can admit he's wrong for once

They go to third world countries ravaged by disease and scarcity and tell them that condoms and birth control are evil. What could be reactionary about that :DDDD

Attached: theFeedingTubeOfTheInternet.png (457x500, 59.17K)


Attached: based Diderot.jpg (850x400, 50.27K)

catholicism serves the regressive interests of the bourgeoisie and justifies the perpetuity of private property through lib-tier democratic policies; only by way of revolution will the heads of its adherents roll to be publicly mocked, inshallah.

Attached: fiveseveredheads.jpg (599x337, 24.56K)

Most Christcoms come from Catholic backgrounds but that doesn't mean that the church itself is or ever has been socialist/leftist. Really it only started leaning left in the 80s when America started murdering nuns and priests in LA.

Pretending that the church is communist is just as cringey as LARPing as a french revolutionary in 2019 honestly.

t. Sunni

You quit trying to post such outlandish fake news, you hear?

It’s also important to remember that different branches of the church can be radically different politically. While Oscar Romero was organizing anti fascist resistance in Latin America, JP II was instigating anti communist sentiment in Eastern Europe.

based catholic church was the first vanguard party

I knew this is the direction you're taking once you've compared the two

Dismantling it?????
When has that happened LMAO?
t. Australian
Everyone here hates te Catholic Church because they touch kids man

I've been able to personally REDpill at least my immediate family on the subject by explaining to them that the Catholic Church is a foreign entity and that their lands should be confiscated like in the Spanish Republic

also pope is just general secretary of the curia (aka the papal bureaucracy), conclave is the central committee. catholic just means "universal" or something more like "has total monopoly on interpretation of faith and encompasses all true believers. it is has a universal scope of action" or "has universal applicability to all people".

i'm not OP merely a troll

Real talk. No one likes Condoms, no one. The only reason that Population Growth is bad is because of Capitalism. If we had Communism…or at least State Capitalism there would be no reason to worry about women giving birth all the time. More people is always better if resources and education are controlled.

Fucking do it. Love watching imperialists squirm.

also personal thought but men and women shouldn't be sex crazy lunatics.

Also the Christcucks were right about Birth Control. Birth Control is literally sterilizing the Earth.

Soon most animals won't be able to give birth and all the frogs will be gay.








Like what?

I’ve been saying these Christian “””””socialists””””” should be banned for a while now

In Iberia there were no medium-scale bourgeois property owners, large estates were sold in whole to burghers who contracted workers under salary, rather than renting them the land, which sometimes was done for a couple generations in some cases if the portion of the crops was included.
But sure, I'm glad, what the masons told you is the truth, peasants were just brainwashed by the Church obviously, my ancestors were all just a bunch of uneducated idiots for wanting their land to be conditionally theirs rather than working from sunrise to sundown for a wage that kept them barefoot and forced them to make soup out of weeds

Attached: Dw6LPrKWkAAC_-T.png (2048x1123 2.33 MB, 2.31M)

absolutely based


Attached: holyland.png (489x750, 152.89K)

Lmao Christcucks are literally medieval

why do christcoms consistently make the worst posts here ?

Attached: atheisttard.png (500x300, 86.67K)


As a general rule, before making post like these, stop and ask yourself if you are asserting that whoever you disagree with is a Tumblr caricature.

At least choose a cool one.

Attached: atomika.jpg (600x913, 95.72K)

At least they read books unlike you.

Not even when I posted as a CathCom did I do this. I mean I'll still correct people on things which are objectively incorrect about the church historically and theologically, and I still don't believe in completely removing the church by force where it is unnecessary to do so, but you won't hear me defending the church in cases where it literally collaborated with reactionary groups and the capitalist state, especially in the case of South America where they sometimes did so against other Catholics. That would be like me defending the Orthodox church when it collaborated with the Tsar, hoarded wealth, and retained huge amounts of land which it gained through both its connections to the state and engaging in laundering. That's not to say I don't believe religion is shaped by its material conditions, but you seem to reject that it ever was and argue that it has remained consistent this entire time as an unshaped body which has not engaged in the same profit motivated actions other organizations have when it clearly has done so.
Read Kierkegaard

Attached: camilo_torres_con_campesinos_colombianos.jpg (564x423 131.27 KB, 34.3K)

Also, where the hell is ChristCom poster during threads like this? Would be interesting to see him argue given this posters anti-USSR and anti-bolshevik view.


Nice job cutting my sentence off on purpose. Yes, the church should be subject to the same laws everyone one else is subject to, maybe even more so. I never said differently. If they engage in such activity, it is necessary by law (assumably the law in a socialist society) to intervene and arrest those who engaged in the crime and who are complicit in it. I hold the same opinion for any organization and religious institution. Don't attempt to twist what I said as if I am condoning molestation of any kind.

Attached: 070.jpg (730x780, 44.22K)

My friend read Kierkegard and went insane. Now he thinks all politicians are literal demons and if you play their speeches backwards you'll get hidden messages.