T
Tablefor9
Guest
Exactly.So its about the individuals in the Church and not its doctrines and teachings.
Exactly.So its about the individuals in the Church and not its doctrines and teachings.
It is not about doctrines and teachings which are binding on the conscience of every Catholic. You are correct in saying it is not about that.So its about the individuals in the Church and not its doctrines and teachings.
Lol! Wow, you and… you know who. You ask me for a defense and before I can write a word you have already decided that our "modern or near-modern Catholic historians will present those details about the Albigensians as if they are basic historical fact, but they are actually lies and it’s a textbook example of bearing false witness on a large scale.Ok, I’ll give you one concrete example. After the second wave of battles in the Albigensian Crusade, Catholics in the north of Italy were not terribly supportive of the fighting. From what they knew of the Cathars that lived among them, their sense of morality tended to be exemplary, they were pacifists and good neighbors. They had bad doctrine and were certainly heretics if not entirely non-Christian, but good people who didn’t deserve to die. This, at least, is what Catholics in the north of Italy had to say.
In order to combat the spread of disfavor toward the Crusade, the Catholic clergy in Italy launched a campaign of vilification against these heretics. They knowingly (and quite effectively) bore false witness to the tune of incest, homosexuality, and bestiality among other things that weren’t necessarily all sexual, claiming that the heretics encouraged these things and did them in secret. As a matter of fact, the French word associated with the ethnic origin of some medieval gnostic dualist heretics came to be closely associated with homosexual acts, and that word, once associated thusly, made its way into the English lexicon strictly as a pejorative term having nothing whatever to do with ethnicity by that point- and that is why “bugger” means what it means. Did you ever wonder about that? I did. It’s derived from a French term for Bulgar, but it retains none of its ethnic implications.
At any rate. That particular crusade was questionable in and of itself, but when the Catholic clergy engaged in a coordinated effort to spread misinformation via propaganda in the interest of helping the laity be more hawkish, that would be a time when the Catholic Church removed its white hat. By the way, some of your modern or near-modern Catholic historians will present those details about the Albigensians as if they are basic historical fact, but they are actually lies and it’s a textbook example of bearing false witness on a large scale.
That doesn’t involve the promulgation of any particular teaching that is binding on the conscience of all Catholics, it’s just some lies about heretics designed to help people hate them more. But I would say it is an example of the Catholic Church removing its white hat.
In my defense, you did ask for it. Repeatedly. Does that satisfy you?
Without “people”, there would be no Church. Since ordinary humans are what comprises the Body of Christ then it follows that many times in the last 2000 years the white hat has fallen in the dirt, only to be picked up, brushed off and put back on againSo its about the individuals in the Church and not its doctrines and teachings.
More than most likely, the go-to example would be Evangelicals in the deep South during the middle of the 19th century, and while a handful of them were abolitionists, the vast majority of them were basically supporting of slavery. This has been said, by Evangelicals and non-religious folks alike. Here’s a good book. amazon.com/Theological-Crisis-Steven-Janice-Lectures/dp/0807830127Exactly.Would we say the Evangelicals have taken off their white hat because some persist in passing out Jack Chick tracts, some clergy persist in making anti-Catholic remarks from the pulpit? Not exactly the Church’s style.
It’s exactly what you asked for.What are you doing here?
I know, I am just trying to figure out if the point is to take a jab at Catholicism or the individuals within.Without “people”, there would be no Church. Since ordinary humans are what comprises the Body of Christ then it follows that many times in the last 2000 years the white hat has fallen in the dirt, only to be picked up, brushed off and put back on again![]()
I don’t have the time to engage in an involved discussion about the Albigensian Crusade with one who has already decided that my position would be made up of lies as part of a large scale bearing of false witness on the part of the Church.It’s exactly what you asked for.
I could do a different one, if you don’t like that one. Following the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre, Pope Gregory XIII ordered that a Te Deum (hymn of praise) be sung in celebration of it. This practice continued for many years, although of course some other things were going on in France as well- it did spur a movement to prioritize nationalism ahead of sectarian differences of religion, but the thing the pope did was still really bad. He also had a medal struck that said “Slaughter of the Hugenots” in Latin, and depicted an angel with a cross and sword next to slaughtered Protestants.What are you doing here?
Rethink this: do you not see how this is a poorly framed question?You are carefully framing this in such a way as to pick a different question and answer that one instead. Never in this thread have I asked you to tell me whether the Church taught anything contrary to Christ’s moral teaching (doctrinally, I presume). Never did I ever do that. But that is the question you have chosen to answer.
I asked if the Catholic Church has ever, at any point, taken off the white hat. Your response to a different question (one of your own making) leads me to believe you’re inclined to say the white hat always stays on, but I don’t know for sure.
I would counter by saying that in nearly every example you could give of the white hat coming off, the person wearing the white hat is a basically good person or entity that feels like certain things are necessary or that their situation demands it- and then later, with the benefit of perspective, they realize that the white hat came off and mistakes were made.Rethink this: do you not see how this is a poorly framed question?
Certainly our 2015 knowledge will inform how we view events from 1,000 years ago, while at the same time we are considerably disconnected from the understanding of those times, no?
As you very well know each of your examples are easy to state but may take pages to adequately answer. History is complicated and messy and many members of the Catholic Church have acted less than “Christian”, some have been downright horrible people.I could do a different one, if you don’t like that one. Following the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre, Pope Gregory XIII ordered that a Te Deum (hymn of praise) be sung in celebration of it. This practice continued for many years, although of course some other things were going on in France as well- it did spur a movement to prioritize nationalism ahead of sectarian differences of religion, but the thing the pope did was still really bad. He also had a medal struck that said “Slaughter of the Hugenots” in Latin, and depicted an angel with a cross and sword next to slaughtered Protestants.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Gregory_XIII_medal.jpg
The white hat came off when those things happened. Or so I would say.
Is that a more acceptable example? Again, no doctrines were made, and Catholics were not required to like the medal or…well, certain Catholics were required to sing the stupid insensitive thing, but it wasn’t a matter of doctrine. Just so you know though, this is what I mean when I talk about the white hat coming off.
What does that even mean?Is it a Catholic Church that always wears a white hat?
History is complicated and messy, but I’m basically asking about how Catholics approach Church history and the narrative that they choose to run with. Obviously, the normal narrative for you guys would be that the holy and indispensable Catholic Church stood up for what was right, or at least did a better job than anyone else in trying to attain that. But there are certain points where things do get complicated and messy, so I’m asking if a serious Catholic approach to history can involve a narrative where the white hat comes off. At certain points, this type of narrative is perfectly natural to those who are not Catholic, I would venture to say that many students of history would say it is consistent with a Neutral Point of View. And the Catholic who denies such a narrative is going for something more partisan and less NPOV.As you very well know each of your examples are easy to state but may take pages to adequately answer. History is complicated and messy and many members of the Catholic Church have acted less than “Christian”, some have been downright horrible people.
So for what are you looking? What is it you wish us to say? And please, one more time, what are you doing here? What do you hope to achieve?
A hat is worn on a head. The Head of our Church is Christ, therefore the white hat has never come off. The Body, on the other hand, has crawled around in the dirt from time to time.History is complicated and messy, but I’m basically asking about how Catholics approach Church history and the narrative that they choose to run with. Obviously, the normal narrative for you guys would be that the holy and indispensable Catholic Church stood up for what was right, or at least did a better job than anyone else in trying to attain that. But there are certain points where things do get complicated and messy, so I’m asking if a serious Catholic approach to history can involve a narrative where the white hat comes off. At certain points, this type of narrative is perfectly natural to those who are not Catholic, I would venture to say that many students of history would say it is consistent with a Neutral Point of View. And the Catholic who denies such a narrative is going for something more partisan and less NPOV.
More than anything else, I’d say I’m exploring how Catholics look at history and how NPOV vs. “being partisan” is treated from your perspective. And as it so happens, looking at Church history basically involves judging people and groups and entities at different points in time and in different situations.
My hope is that I can get a bit more of a grasp on how Catholics approach their own history, along with the tags of POV, NPOV, partisan and so forth.