The ghetto clearings
#21
(10-13-2012, 05:55 PM)Tim Wrote: Today in the US because of the lie of multi-culturalism it's seen as racist to not want your county to be invaded by new people. <. . .> Ethnos means country and they were defending their country from an invasion

Neighborhoods are not countries. These people were not defending national borders, they were rejecting fellow citizens.

Actually, the "invader" here was not the black person, who had been in the United States for centuries, but rather the Italians, Irish, Polish, Germans, etc., who were the newcomers.


(10-13-2012, 04:27 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Another question: if a person was a first-born American prot, from a family of immigrants from a tiny prot country, living before WW I, and they converted to the Catholic faith, where would they have gone to Mass? 

Well, one must remember that Mass at this point in time was always in Latin. But that's a good question.

Jones mentions in his book an incident where a black woman went to a Catholic ethnic parish. She was Protestant, but she was interested in Catholicism. The priest told her that it would be better for her to go to the parish down the street. Naturally, she felt insulted. Jones justifies the priest saying that he would have told a non-ethnic white potential convert the same - that is, it wasn't racism. But, we are not told where this woman lived, why she chose that parish to go to. If the parish was territorial, and she lived within its boundaries, by law it was the parish she belonged to and therefore it was wrong to direct her to another church. But again, we don't know this detail.

To answer the question of where the convert would go, we have to keep in mind that parishes have geographic boundaries; you are assigned a parish based on where you live (the Archdiocese of St. Louis has a  Parish Finder, here, and a map of the boundaries - this is a great illustration of the concept) . This is true in current canon law, and it was more true in pre-Vatican II norms. So the American convert would have to go to his territorial parish.

Sometimes, ethnic parishes were personal parishes, that is, parishes that have no boundaries but rather exist to serve a certain category of person. But often they were normal territorial parishes that happened to be in ethnic neighborhoods and therefore were dominated by people of a certain ethnicity. So our hypothetical convert could just have ended up going to an ethnic parish, where he would never quite fit in. But, considering that the boundaries of ethnic territorial parishes were pretty much the boundaries of ethnic neighborhoods, perhaps he wouldn't have.

So, in short, I really don't know. But it would be nice to get an answer on this!
Reply
#22
(10-13-2012, 06:43 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 06:36 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 06:31 PM)GeorgeT Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 04:27 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Another question: if a person was a first-born American prot, from a family of immigrants from a tiny prot country, living before WW I, and they converted to the Catholic faith, where would they have gone to Mass?  It sounds like the Irish parishes were the only English speaking ones, and they would have treated this convert as an outsider because they weren't Irish.  Is that right?

I am sure they would go to what Catholic church that was their ethnicity. I imagine any Catholic would be welcome in an Irish Church, except if you were English (understandably). It's not like people were barred at the door if you weren't the right nationality.

Remember that these people that came over to America, didn't do so to give up or abandon their heritage. For example, the Irish were facing a slow genocide by the english, many were faced with the choice of moving to a foreign land or death. They arrive in a totally new country, vulnerable and naive to those that would take advantage of newcomers. The ethnic groups would band together for protection, comfort, and a similar faith. Ethnic parishes were a natural extension of the ghetto. It was a way to preserve their heritage that they loved so much. Knowing who you are, and where you come from, is a vital part of one's identity. I grew up learning about how strong my ancestors were in defending their faith at all costs. And also the shame it would bring to my people should I ever give it up. Knowing where I came from is an essential part of my make up that grounds me and makes me what I am.


Sorry. my mistake, the above post is mine, not Mr. T's, I didn't realize he was logged on.

Where would an English person go then?  Just wondering, because my parents are both from a tiny prot country and for them to convert would be like getting them to agree to leave their heritage behind.  You can count on one hand the number of ethnic Estonian Catholic priests in the whole world, and neither of them live nearby!

Your parents would go to the priest's parish that they converted with. They had to know a priest and at least one other Catholic to learn the Catechism and convert. If they went to an Irish parish, they wouldn't have to forsake who they were. It just meant that they would be participating in some amazing Irish Catholic saint feast day parties!

An English person could go to anyother church they wanted. Remember, it was common to have 3 churches in a 5 block radius.
Reply
#23
(10-13-2012, 06:51 PM)verenaerin Wrote: An English person could go to anyother church they wanted.

No. Unless there was a personal parish for Englishmen, he would have to go to his territorial parish.

Canon 94 § 1 of the 1917 Code: Through one's domicile or quasi-domicile, one's pastor and Ordinary are determined.
Canon 107 § 1 of the 1983 Code: Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

This cannot be stressed enough. Before Vatican II / the 1983 Code, even, you could not baptize your child outside your assigned parish without dispensation from your pastor*. And I'm sure there were other rules like that one that were loosened up later.

* edit: found the relevant canon:

738 § 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; but its conferral is reserved to the pastor or other priests with the permission of the local Ordinary or of the same pastor, which in case of necessity if legitimately presumed.
§ 2. Even a traveler may be solemnly baptized by his own pastor in his own parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise any pastor can solemnly baptize a traveler in his territory.
739. In another's territory it is not permitted to anyone, without the required permission, to confer solemn baptism even on his own residents of [his own] place.

So, the convert had to be baptized by his pastor, that is, the pastor of his territorial parish his bishop, preferably.

744. The baptism of adults, where this can be done conveniently, should be deferred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wishes, [baptism] can be solemnly conferred by him or one delegated by him.
Reply
#24
(10-13-2012, 06:49 PM)m.PR Wrote: our hypothetical convert could just have ended up going to an ethnic parish, where he would never quite fit in.

And do some of his temporal punishment (for not having converted his nation before he immigrated) in this life!
Reply
#25
(10-13-2012, 06:24 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Were the blacks really 'just like the Mohammedans'?  Snipers, etc.?  I didn't know that.  I wonder why Jones didn't make that point.

Yes they would shoot white people for being there in Cabrini Greens, though that was after they were the only ethnics left there. The social engineers were using them for ethnic cleansing as Jones explained concerning Detroit circa 1943. I was relating the story of Cabrini Green at about the same time.

The snipers were a result of their gang drug culture which too is the product of the social engineering gone wrong as Jones explains calling them "black ops" as in CIA not their color. These criminal behaviors can be linked to the pill, which ruined  the Black Family, and created a problem to this day Remember Chicago is the murder capital of the WORLD. You are safer as a soldier fighting in Afghanistan.

I make the comparison because Jones used the Greek ethnos or country and the Mohammedans were invaders. Though the blacks did not plan this and were being used by the social engineers they would appear as invaders to the ethnics living there. When all the he grocers named Vito are gone where do you get Peccorino Romano ? In Sam's soul food grocery ? Not a chance, that day was still four decades away, from super markets that carried all ethnic foods.

This is way before multi-culturalism. Poles had Polish Culture, and Sicilians had Sicilian Culture. Before Cabrini Green the Sicilians had Feasts with street vendors and wires strung across the street with little girls dressed as angels being pulled back and forth.They raffled a live goat and the wining family cooked it in their back yard. Jut like in the Godfather.

There was no homogeneous US culture. The South was the south and it had lots of different cultures. Some one from New Orleans was most likely Catholic and ethnic, while some one from Atlanta was a Baptist and thought the Catholics were evil. The North in the big cities were small enclaves of European cultures defined by Ethnicity and Catholicism. Here in Chicago if you wanted Kielbasa you went to Milwaukee and Division streets. if you wanted Lutfisk you went to Foster and Clark. It was that defined.

tim
Reply
#26
I understand that in the South the blacks appreciated being segregated.  I suppose it would have been better to let them stay that way up north too, by building them their own neighborhoods, but the white liberals wouldn't hear of it, I guess.  The whole idea seems to have been to create chaos, much like what I understand the masons enjoy doing.
Reply
#27
(10-13-2012, 07:56 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I understand that in the South the blacks appreciated being segregated.  I suppose it would have been better to let them stay that way up north too, by building them their own neighborhoods, but the white liberals wouldn't hear of it, I guess.  The whole idea seems to have been to create chaos, much like what I understand the masons enjoy doing.

Northerners were more likely to be racist than a southerner, since many would have never seen a black person before. At least in the South, there was a convivencia, a way of living, that everyone has gotten used to.

Jus look at the white flight 30-40 years ago.
Reply
#28
People prefer to hang out with folks who are like them.  That's just human nature.  Of course to a liberal, that makes one a racist.  What it actually makes one is normal.  Lions hang out with lions and zebras hang out with zebras and when they mix disaster usually befalls the zebra. 

In my city, the big controversy when I was a kid was busing.  Due to white flight there weren't enough white kids attending inner city public schools so they forced kids in the suburbs to attend public schools in the urban core.  Being a kid I don't recall if they bused urban black youth to the suburbs as well but they probably did.  Anyhoo, it caused great consternation from both whites and blacks with politicians and other do gooders simply clucking their tongues at them and wagging their fingers and telling them to stop being racists.  Naturally, the liberals didn't have to worry about their own children being carted all over God's creation because they all sent them to private schools. 

Some things are more important than race, however.  Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in a neighborhood surrounded by a bunch of black traditional Catholics (if such people exist in any great numbers) than a bunch of white prots. I have much more in common with people who share my faith than people who merely share my skin color. 
Reply
#29
(10-13-2012, 08:14 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 07:56 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I understand that in the South the blacks appreciated being segregated.  I suppose it would have been better to let them stay that way up north too, by building them their own neighborhoods, but the white liberals wouldn't hear of it, I guess.  The whole idea seems to have been to create chaos, much like what I understand the masons enjoy doing.

Northerners were more likely to be racist than a southerner, since many would have never seen a black person before. At least in the South, there was a convivencia, a way of living, that everyone has gotten used to.

Jus look at the white flight 30-40 years ago.

Watch the videos and you'll  understand you have been sold a bill of goods by the social engineers. Poles didn't know from racism they saw them as different ethnic peoples. The Siicilians in my story knew about Africans they are part African, and at home could row to Africa on a calm day.

This current notion of Racism was born in the 1960's by the social engineers. The reason for white flight was the social engineers and block busting as V has posted the link in her comment. Martin Luther King lost his crusade in Chicago, because he thought all whites were monolithis as down south. Jones quotes Dorothy Tillman in her bewilderment not understanding why white people called themselves Poles, Italians, or Irish. It was way over their understanding.

One last point, today, when no one would bat an eye, do the blacks not intergrate the burbs, but stay in their own neighborhoods or their suburbs? Because all people want to live among their own. Before the crash the middle class blacks were gentrifying their neighborhoods like South Shore and many others, ot moving to Hoffman Estates. This is the lie of multi-culturalism, we like to visit other but want to go home to our own.

tim
Reply
#30
(10-13-2012, 07:43 PM)Tim Wrote: This is way before multi-culturalism. Poles had Polish Culture, and Sicilians had Sicilian Culture.

Isn't that multiculturalism, too?

It is really a matter of scale. I think we can all agree that diversity of cultures at the global scale is good; that is, Chinese being Chinese in China, Italians being Italian in Italy, Australians being Australian in Australia, etc. But diversity at the level of the home can be chaotic: one kid asking for rice, another kid asking for pasta, the other kid asking for whatever it is Australians eat. Etc.

Similarly, Poles being Polish in one block, and Sicilians being Sicilians in the very next block, is only acceptable as a temporary accommodation. Eventually, they have to mix with each other and the wider culture.


(10-13-2012, 08:27 PM)DrBombay Wrote: In my city, the big controversy when I was a kid was busing. 

That was a weird, abhorrent practice. Jones discusses it a bit in the book - it looks like the bishops, specially the Irish bishops (the majority), actually supported it, which created friction between them and the faithful that opposed the practice (specially the Poles).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)