Politically conservative and Pro-Nazi Protestants organized a movement of German Christians in 1933. Michael Burleigh in Sacred Causes has this to say about it:
They wished to revivify Protestantism by incorporating those things that had made Nazism such a potent force. Their banner consisted of a cross and the initials SC with a swastika in the centre. This was not the first or the last time that a Protestant Church inclined towards a secular creed in the expectation that its adoption would fill empty pews, a cycle those Churches have endlessly repeated with environmentalism, campaigns against the Bomb and soft Marxism ever since.
But Burleigh errs in not including the Catholic Church, which has learned to whore after the spirit of the age with almost as much energy as Protestants.
But Burleigh errs in not including the Catholic Church, which has learned to whore after the spirit of the age with almost as much energy as Protestants.
And the Catholic Church has been “whoring after the spirit of the age” a lot longer than the Protestants have….
Bravissimo, Leon.
Questions: What point is he trying to make? What is “soft Marxism?” Is trying to make the planet safe for posterity by supporting safe development of our shared environment an unchristian endeavor? Is not wanting to see parts of our natural environment bombed to smithereens in order to test destructive weapons (when we already know what these weapons will do) an unchristian attitude?
Are not Catholics just as concerned as Protestants about the future of the planet?
After reading about this man on the Wikipedia I note that he is an historian. Therefore, I wonder at his idea that Protestantism needs to be revivified anymore than Catholicism. The New Evangelization?
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think that he has missed the whole point about the Nazis. They believed that the German people were superior to all others. They were racists. They thought that they were so superior to everyone else that they should be in control of the world. “Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles in der Welt.”
I have spent a lifetime visiting churches, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, as well as a couple of meetings of other religions. They all say that their creeds and cultures are better than their competitors. The truth is that everyone wants to be told this because it makes people feel good to think that they lead a superior lifestyle. However, it seems to me that none of these religions has effectively dealt with the evil inclinations of humankind.
I suppose that the rainbow flag is a recent edition of the traditional Protestant flag. I have never seen it before. It is very ugly if its intent is to make people feel superior to others.
A rather superficial comment. As a general rule, there is nothing original and interesting when people go along with the powers that be. That’s essentially the normal human behavior. The amazing and unusual thing is when they do not. Catholic history presents remarkable examples of the latter. You should focus on the many priests that sacrificed their lives (or at least put them at risk) to resist Nazism, instead of making shallow and moralistic comments about “the Church whoring after the spirit of the age.” It is stupid to presume that we would behave any better than they did if we faced the same situation.
Carlo, are church leaders — Catholic or Protestant — supposed to “go along with the powers that be,” or are they called to something higher? I don’t think anybody diminishes or dismisses the heroism of Catholics like St. Maximillian Kolbe or Bishop Galen of Muenster, nor Protestants like Niemoeller or Bonhoeffer. But honoring their heroism doesn’t mean ignoring collaborators who placed political considerations ahead of moral and spiritual ones.
Among today’s collaborators are those w/in the institutionalized Christian churches who appease Islam and ignore the worldwide persecution of Christians, especially in Muslim countries.
Joseph:
I stand by what I said. You wrote:
“the Catholic Church has been “whoring after the spirit of the age” a lot longer than the Protestants have”
I found it to be an almost meaningless over-generalization of a complex history, and I think we better look at our own moral failures rather than preaching generically moralistically about “church leaders.” I still do.
Carlo, do some research on what’s been called the “papal pornocracy” (talk about whoring after the spirit of the age!), then get back to me.
Besides, since when does looking at one’s own moral failures conflict with looking at the moral failures of church leadership?
Methinks you would prefer to have us ignore the rather sordid history of institutionalized Christianity on all fronts — especially the Catholic one.