Catholic Church and Power?

[HabemusFrancis]

I wonder sometimes, is it a good thing that the Church is no longer powerful ( when compared to the middle ages?)

It seems that Catholocism is its strongest and has most support when it is in lands where it has had little power (i.e Poland, Ireland, United States, Africa…)

Perhaps part of the reason that Continental Europe is so secular is because of historical abuses when Catholic Church ran the countries of Italy, Spain, France, etc.

I know this sounds counterintuitive, but does not the Church sometimes become holier when it is challenged and loses its temporal power? I may be accused of heresy, but I think it is good the Pope only rules the Vatican, and no longer the Papal States…

He is indeed a Godless Atheist, but Hitchens has a good quote on this which I will paraphrase. " The Church has many altruistic and truly goodhearted people. It makes its case with talk of fellowship, love and uplift. It all almost causes one forget how barbarically it behaved when it was powerful and making offers that could not be refused."

I just feel men are inherently corrupt flawed, (including bishops and preists) and behave better when we and they spread Catholocism through example, persuasion, and sermonizing rather than dictat and force. Thats just my opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems that Catholocism is its strongest and has most support when it is in lands where it has had little power (i.e Poland, Ireland, United States, Africa…)

Hmm… I think that your analogy really falls apart with Poland. It’s true that the Church didn’t have any secular authority during the time of Soviet-style communism, but the reason the Church is strong there is that it was so prominent there in the centuries leading up to the post-WWII era…

Hitchens has a good quote on this which I will paraphrase. " The Church has many altruistic and truly goodhearted people. It makes its case with talk of fellowship, love and uplift. It all almost causes one forget how barbarically it behaved when it was powerful and making offers that could not be refused."

Hitchens makes an interesting point, but I think his reasoning is flawed. He suggests that the Church acted badly because … it is inherently bad? I would arge that “barbaric behavior” is more indicative of the “time when it was powerful” than anything inherent in the Church…

 

[ricofall]

You have to consider the time in which you speak of. In the middle ages, religion and power went hand in hand. If your prince was a Catholic, so were you. That was the way they thought. This was not a perfect system and since power was in the religion, it attracted corruption and sin to a heavy extent not matter what your faith was.

However, we can see examples of faith guiding governments now. Our country was an example in the early years…not anymore

Other countries use religion to influence their policy and laws. They are technically secular governments that make laws based on moral and ethical standards as they see it. The Philippines are an example of this. Around 80% Catholic, but they have a secular government. Abortion is completely illegal, however birth control pills are allowed to some extent.

I believe we need something like that. Where are government is somewhat secualized, but takes its influence from Christian ideology. Perhaps then we would not be selling Plan B to 15 year olds (younger if possible).

 

[edwest2]

I wonder sometimes, is it a good thing that the Church is no longer powerful ( when compared to the middle ages?)

It seems that Catholocism is its strongest and has most support when it is in lands where it has had little power (i.e Poland, Ireland, United States, Africa…)

Perhaps part of the reason that Continental Europe is so secular is because of historical abuses when Catholic Church ran the countries of Italy, Spain, France, etc.

I know this sounds counterintuitive, but does not the Church sometimes become holier when it is challenged and loses its temporal power? I may be accused of heresy, but I think it is good the Pope only rules the Vatican, and no longer the Papal States…

He is indeed a Godless Atheist, but Hitchens has a good quote on this which I will paraphrase. " The Church has many altruistic and truly goodhearted people. It makes its case with talk of fellowship, love and uplift. It all almost causes one forget how barbarically it behaved when it was powerful and making offers that could not be refused."

I just feel men are inherently corrupt flawed, (including bishops and preists) and behave better when we and they spread Catholocism through example, persuasion, and sermonizing rather than dictat and force. Thats just my opinion.

You’re covering a lot of history, which I think many are unaware. By the way, I hate the word power. You’ll have to provide some examples of diktat and force, so that a discussion can occur.

Opinion is high on my list of words I hate. I prefer right and wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Hi Ed. How refreshing it is to see you hate the word opinion. It does seem rather a wishwashy flakey term doesnt it?

Ok, I was a history major in college so I picked up quite a bit.

1. The Spanish inquisition: Sure I suppose it was good in some respects, i.e keeping faithful pure and saving poor souls from the fires of hell. But it was rather coercive wouldnt you agree? It was saying to the pagans, heretics, and relapsed Jews/Muslims of Spain " you will be Catholic if we have to beat and burn sense into you!" This happened not just in Spain, but Portugal, The New World, Italy and other places. It only officially ended in Spain once a secular government took over in 1820 or so. The last man killed by inquisition was a teacher who taught his students deism ( the philosophy of jefferson.)
2. The Mission systems of the Portuguese and Spanish. In 1494, the Pope divided South America between Spanish and Portuguese. The Vatican blessed the conquest on condition that they do everything possible to get the natives into the Catholic Church. Though the Mission system did protect the natives from slavehunters it seemed somewhat patronizing and degrading to natives ( particularly as they were used to generate revenue for missions and were forbidden from ever leaving:blush
3. Legal, physical suppression of Gailileo and copernicus and their scientifically correct (but heretical) view of the solar system.
4. The sponsorship of several fascist entities in 1930s-40s in Europe including Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain,Mussolini (somewhat idk?) and Ante Pavelic in Croatia. I admit that Pius tried to save Jews from Hitler though who believed in Norse mythology, not RCC)

The Croatian thing seems really bad. The Vatican gave Pavelics government its full support, as did the Croatian Catholic church. What did it do? It fully cooperated with the Nazis in killing off Jews, Gypsys as well as killing off/ mass converting Serbian Orthodox Christians.

Look I know there are bad actors in the Church as well as in society at large. I think its best when church leaders have little temporal power (power to raise armies, enforce laws, make their own, have leaders obey them). Spiritual power ( like waht JPII had) is good as opposed to temporal ( what most of renaissance popes had)