Catholic Truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManRay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that you guys are once again missing the point of my post. I know you know about these things, and still remain catholic (scary, but fine):). My questions are centered around an organization that claims it has possessed a same truth, a same authority since Jesus…AND YET historically has breached every obvious moral absolute. If the church isn’t bad but the people in it are bad then fine, but this would be an inconsistent and illogical position in any other line of thinking (cognitive dissonance). It would seem to me that an individual would become cardinal, priest, or bishop in part because of knowledge. Where did the knowledge go? Why didn’t anyone clue them in? Sure it’s not the church - it’s the people in the church. That doesn’t make any sense, and is a real easy cop-out. There are papal bulls sanctioning slavery…and yet it isn’t the church it’s the people in the church. The Albigensian Crusade lasted 45 years, initiated by Pope Innocent (awesome irony) to expunge Catharism in some little french town. One of the Popes ambassadors was killed so the pope in not so many words ordered the imprisonment and killing of every Cathar for 45 years!!! Is the extermination of heretics (basically a person who doesn’t agree with you) just people in the church, and not the church? I’m not seeing a plausible reconciliation… I’m seeing sidestepping. If it was just people in the church, why did a pope ask for forgiveness of the church? Was he just talking about a few people? Really?
ManRay-

Your synopsis and objection only makes sense if, at any time, the Church actually taught that these atrocities were OK. If you can dig out a chatecism saying any of these are church teaching, then I’d say you have a leg to stand on. Anything short of that, and I say that only proves what we are (and have been saying for 2000 years). A ‘Papal Bull’ is not official church teaching…it is something different.
 
Whether it be the holocaust, the inquisition, molestation cover ups the slave trade etc
Each of these would properly be the subject of its own thread. Did you know that there is an inquisition recorded in the Bible? In Deuteronomy 17, we read: “If there is found among you . . . a man or woman who . . . has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, . . . then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones” (Deut. 17:2–5).

The text says the Israelites were to “inquire diligently” whether the thing was true. This did not refer to asking a few informal questions and then stoning the person on that basis. That would like having a lynching. As with any case of capital punishment commanded by God’s word, a public legal proceeding—a trial—was called for. The diligent inquiry was thus a legal inquiry—an inquisition. Its purpose was to protect the person accused of practicing a false religion, to make sure he really had committed the crime in question. Legal safeguards were built into the process: “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you” (Deut. 17:6–7). By making sure there were multiple witnesses, and that the witnesses were serious enough to take the lead in the execution itself, the chances of a false conviction were reduced.

If the accused had committed the crime of idolatry, he was to be executed to protect the community, lest the false religion spread among God’s people. Even one’s intimate companions had to be turned over to protect the community: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ . . . you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. . . . You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God. . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you” (Deut. 13:6–11).

If the community needed to be protected from private individuals spreading false religion, it certainly needed to be protected from religious leaders such as prophets and visionaries—who already had reputations as holy men—doing so: “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods’ . . . you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. . . . But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God” (Deut. 13:1–5).

The penalty for practicing false religion even applied to whole towns: “If you hear in one of your cities . . . that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ . . . then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly” (Deut. 13:12–15).

These are strong words, but they are part of what God’s inspired word declares. Those practicing false religions—whether individuals, religious leaders, or whole towns—were to be put to death to protect the broader community. This is not to say that such measures are meant for our time and culture. But they do form the biblical background to similar practices—used by both Catholics and Protestants—in the Christian age. Given scriptural passages such as these, we cannot simply condemn our ancestors from atop a twenty-first-century moral high horse. Whether we are Catholic or Protestant, our forebears read these passages and felt bound in conscience to implement them in their own societies—a fact we cannot discount in forming a moral appraisal of their actions.
When the nazi’s came to power it didn’t really lift a finger
That’s what the popular press would have you believe. The truth is much different.
 
…and I might add that the Spanish Inquisition (of which there were many and not limited to the Spanish one or catholics) were initiated by THE STATE…not the church.

Oh…and ManRay…you forgot the other battle cry of “Galileo”. 😉
 
ManRay-

Your synopsis and objection only makes sense if, at any time, the Church actually taught that these atrocities were OK. If you can dig out a chatecism saying any of these are church teaching, then I’d say you have a leg to stand on. Anything short of that, and I say that only proves what we are (and have been saying for 2000 years). A ‘Papal Bull’ is not official church teaching…it is something different.
I’ve understood quite the difference - a papal bull is partly if not mostly a decree - which is a rule of law. So when bulls are at odds with something it isn’t official church teaching, but when they support something then they are referred to. I understand.
 
Do not take offense! - I’m not accusing - I’m asking!
How does a Catholic reconcile claims of truth, benevolence, and love in relation to what seems to be (historically speaking) an endless stream of vagaries, atrocities, confusion, and what anyone would claim to be as nothing less than evil? Whether it be the holocaust, the inquisition, molestation cover ups the slave trade etc…i.e. There are actually papal bulls that sanctioned slavery. How does the Catholic reconcile this, and why does it seem that the church who is allegedly in sole possession of this ‘truth’ seem not to be able to recognize this truth in real time??? One of the arguments that I’ve heard is that as soon as the church realized it was wrong (or accepted that is was) then it made the necessary corrections - and ‘poof’ -the gates of hell did not prevail. This seems like a strange concept to juxtapose with a church that is supposedly already in possession of this truth, and authority?? Don’t you think? I’m constantly called a moral relativist by the religious, but it seems that the church is super guilty of moral relativism. When it was cool to own slaves - it supported it. When the nazi’s came to power it didn’t really lift a finger, and one could completely argue that the ghettoization of the jews was largely in part because of it. Why didn’t the church know what the truth was, when it claims it has always been in possession of it? I was visiting the holocaust museum on line and came across this photograph which completely freaked me out: This is on the holocaust museum website:
View attachment 15243

There are tons of these…
View attachment 15244
View attachment 15245

Does it bother any Catholics that Ratzinger was a Hitler youth?
So when you did your Ph.D did you have to check your sources?

Try applying the same intellectual rigor here.
There are so many historical inaccuracies in your question that it merits a FAIL.

Try harder.
 
He was forced to be a part of Hitler Youth, and left as soon as he was able.
 
It seems that you guys are once again missing the point of my post. I know you know about these things, and still remain catholic (scary, but fine):). My questions are centered around an organization that claims it has possessed a same truth, a same authority since Jesus…AND YET historically has breached every obvious moral absolute. If the church isn’t bad but the people in it are bad then fine, but this would be an inconsistent and illogical position in any other line of thinking (cognitive dissonance). It would seem to me that an individual would become cardinal, priest, or bishop in part because of knowledge. Where did the knowledge go? Why didn’t anyone clue them in? Sure it’s not the church - it’s the people in the church. That doesn’t make any sense, and is a real easy cop-out. There are papal bulls sanctioning slavery…and yet it isn’t the church it’s the people in the church. The Albigensian Crusade lasted 45 years, initiated by Pope Innocent (awesome irony) to expunge Catharism in some little french town. One of the Popes ambassadors was killed so the pope in not so many words ordered the imprisonment and killing of every Cathar for 45 years!!! Is the extermination of heretics (basically a person who doesn’t agree with you) just people in the church, and not the church? I’m not seeing a plausible reconciliation… I’m seeing sidestepping. If it was just people in the church, why did a pope ask for forgiveness of the church? Was he just talking about a few people? Really?
So now you loose all credibility by making the earlier statement that you are not trying to offend and “I’m not accusing - I’m asking” and then making this statement. There is no further reason for response.
 
If he truly repented of the evil he had done, and worked tirelessly for the rest of his life to make amends for it. I doubt he could become a saint, but he could have at least achieved redemption.
Be careful of the difference between a Canonized Saint and a saint.

Canonization is reserved to the Holy See and occurs at the conclusion of a long process requiring extensive proof that the person proposed for canonization lived and died in such an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be recognized as a saint. The Church’s official recognition of sanctity implies that the persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked and mentioned officially in the liturgy of the Church, most especially in the Litany of the Saints.

The saints are many people believed to be in Heaven who have not been formally declared as saints (most typically due to their obscurity and the involved process of formal canonization) but who may nevertheless generically be referred to as saints. All in Heaven are, in the technical sense, saints.
 
Do not take offense! - I’m not accusing - I’m asking!
fair enough but you are asking an awful lot in a single thread…
How does a Catholic reconcile claims of truth, benevolence, and love in relation to what seems to be (historically speaking) an endless stream of vagaries, atrocities, confusion, and what anyone would claim to be as nothing less than evil?
We do so in this manner…
  1. We look at what is taught by the Church…teaching can sometimes be quite different than action.
  2. Related to the above, we are able to realize that people are imperfect, but imperfect people do not diminish the truth of the teaching
  3. We look at the totality of what the Church has done both in teaching and in action. You point out some admittedly bad things. But have you investigated and discovered some of the good things.
    How about the university system for one.
    Catholics started hospitals and schools at all levels.
    How about Catholic contributions to science…did you know that it was a Catholic monk who proposed the Big bang theory?
    During the Dark ages aster the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Monasteries served to preserve much knowledge that otherwise might have been lost.
    Today - as in much of her life - the Church is the largest Charitable organization on the planet.
How does the Catholic reconcile this, and why does it seem that the church who is allegedly in sole possession of this ‘truth’ seem not to be able to recognize this truth in real time??? One of the arguments that I’ve heard is that as soon as the church realized it was wrong (or accepted that is was) then it made the necessary corrections - and ‘poof’ -the gates of hell did not prevail. This seems like a strange concept to juxtapose with a church that is supposedly already in possession of this truth, and authority?? Don’t you think? I’m constantly called a moral relativist by the religious, but it seems that the church is super guilty of moral relativism. When it was cool to own slaves - it supported it When the nazi’s came to power it didn’t really lift a finger, and one could completely argue that the ghettoization of the jews was largely in part because of it. Why didn’t the church know what the truth was, when it claims it has always been in possession of it?
Each of the items you mention above should be a thread of it’s own…And - don’t take offense when I point out that it is actually a violation of forum rules to ask multiple questions in one thread. I realize that your central question is how the Church reconciles some things that, to you , seem quite contradictory…As an individual Catholic I have tried to answer this above.

As to these specifics…Actually if you do a search you will likely find that each has already been discussed here many times.
I was visiting the holocaust museum on line and came across this photograph which completely freaked me out: This is on the holocaust museum website:
View attachment 15243
Does it bother any Catholics that Ratzinger was a Hitler youth?
Being a Hitler youth was a requirement of the Law…If he were not a member…he would have been jailed or worse.
Does it bother you that, while he was a Hitler youth, he was also (illegally) studying for the priesthood?

As for the pictures you post…yes they can be disturbing…but if you think about it for awhile you might realize a few things…for instance…
If the British had a spy in Germany - would he not freely give the Nazi salute in order to further the goals of his country?..Likewise, the Bishops, (rightly or wrongly) attempting to serve their flocks and to perhaps influence events for the better (God’s spies and subversives if you will) might give the salute for the same reason…To further the aims of their country (the Kingdom of heaven).

I’m sure you will receive many many better responses…but that is my 2 cents worth.

Peace
James
 
Does it bother any Catholics that Ratzinger was a Hitler youth?
My now-deceased mother-in-law used to send “care packages” to her nephews who were all in the German army - swastikas on arm bands and all. Youth believe what they are told, mostly, they idealize. Do you think Hitler started out saying: “I’m going round up 9 million people I don’t like and kill them! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

You have a concentration camp your country built and maintains at Guantanamo, what are you doing about it? Why did you allow the torture? Did you think it was right?

Now I suppose you could, if you were someone who valued objective information, look at the good that has come from the Church and through it, but that might not be anywhere near as fun as personal outrage over things you are far removed from.

Just what do you think the Truth that the Church has, is? Start with the Gospels and anything you don’t understand, ask. Then, apply to yourself.
 
My now-deceased mother-in-law used to send “care packages” to her nephews who were all in the German army - swastikas on arm bands and all. Youth believe what they are told, mostly, they idealize. Do you think Hitler started out saying: “I’m going round up 9 million people I don’t like and kill them! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

You have a concentration camp your country built and maintains at Guantanamo, what are you doing about it? Why did you allow the torture? Did you think it was right?

Now I suppose you could, if you were someone who valued objective information, look at the good that has come from the Church and through it, but that might not be anywhere near as fun as personal outrage over things you are far removed from.

Just what do you think the Truth that the Church has, is? Start with the Gospels and anything you don’t understand, ask. Then, apply to yourself.
ManRay doesn’t live in the USA, and isn’t a man called Ray.

ManRay posted a link to his/her identity and out of some sort of respect not shown to us in the way his/her questions are asked I won’t pass on any personal details.

But given the CV posted online I would expect better written and researched questions, and a more intellectual (and therefore more respectful and open minded) tone than the badly written and sloppily constructed posts we are getting from the OP.
 
Never called Ratzinger evil…hmmmm - So Hitler could have become a saint? That’s wild stuff.
Yes Hitler could have become a Saint. That’s the beauty and immensity of God’s love. He forgives all who seek His forgiveness. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust, were Hitler to fully repent his sins and seek to amend his life (would be very hard to do of course given the vast number of sins he committed) but only God would know. Look at Saul. Killed Christians in large number before converting and eventually becoming an Apostle!

As for the Hitler Youth thing, don’t take that to heart. Almost every male child was automatically forced into the Hitler Youth. It wasn’t something you camp outside for days to wait in line to sign up for. And all the saluting and what not was happening YEARS before Hitler took power and turned into a tyrant. To be fair, the Pope was at the minor seminary when stuff got nasty. So trying to make the Pope look like a nazi won’t work as it does not reflect the reality of what happened.
 
I just want to say that I love each and every one of you. This is good stuff.
 
I’m certainly glad you are asking and not accusing, but you have jumbled so much into one run on train of thought that I’m not certain I understand the question anymore. Please don’t take offense. I’m not accusing… I’m asking…

What is it that you really want to know?

Do you want a point by point debate on every action that any member of the Catholic Church has done in the last 2000 years? If so, the answer would probably make a really fine collection of books that I would likely enjoy reading but will pass on trying to write.

Do you want to know how it was possible for the humans running Christ’s Church to make very bad choices and at times border on outright evil? That’s pretty easy. Jesus told us in so many words that it would happen. The first Pope denied that he ever heard of Jesus and once provoked Jesus to the point where He said “Get behind Me Satan” (calling our first Pope Satan). If the first Pope was such a screw up, why would we expect better from the future Popes? But what your missing is that the Pope does not lead the Catholic Church… The Holy Spirit does… The Pope just runs the day to day operations. The Pope (and all the clergy) are humans that are often led astray by political ambition and riches. The Holy Spirit leads in the right direction. Some Popes follow, some Popes go astray…

It’s understandable that people become confused by this. They hear Catholics talk about the infalablity of the Pope and think it means we think he can’t make mistakes. He can burn toast just like the rest of us. We know it and we love that about him. He just can’t teach in error. What the Holy Spirit says, goes… Period… And the Pope can’t change it… That part is infalible. The rest, well, he’s forgiven… He’s only human.

God bless and i hope I answered at least a part of your question…

Oh, and I hope you don’t take offense by the tone some of our answers have had. We hear this a lot and not always from folks looking for answers. Sometime we hear it from folks just looking for a fight. It tends to wear on the nerves. We know that God will forgive us and we hope that you will forgive us too. It’s been kind of tough lately with a lot of attacks.

Again… May God bless and guide you on your search for answers…
 
I’ve understood quite the difference - a papal bull is partly if not mostly a decree - which is a rule of law. So when bulls are at odds with something it isn’t official church teaching, but when they support something then they are referred to. I understand.
It’s simple.

See the CCC for church teaching. Not following the church teaching results in sin, mistakes, and scandal. Bulls are not the CCC, there can be errors in them and a few of them countered errors in previous ones. Don’t get all hung up on Bulls. They are not the rule of law per se as you suggest.
 

Each of the items you mention above should be a thread of it’s own…And - don’t take offense when I point out that it is actually a violation of forum rules to ask multiple questions in one thread.As to these specifics…Actually if you do a search you will likely find that each has already been discussed here many times…

I think ManRay is a classic Troll from his responses–he really dosnt want to discuss any particular topic–he’s just spouting atheist broadsheet sermons–I’d peg his age about 15

Likewise, the Bishops, (rightly or wrongly) attempting to serve their flocks and to perhaps influence events for the better (God’s spies and subversives if you will) might give the salute for the same reason…To further the aims of their country (the Kingdom of heaven).

From (circa) 1933 onwards it was legally required to give the Hitler salute
 
Yes Hitler could have become a Saint. That’s the beauty and immensity of God’s love. He forgives all who seek His forgiveness.
While stationed in Germany in the 1970’s I attended mass “on the economy”. Father Mueller was the pastor of the church I attended. It turned out the Father Mueller use to be SS-Hauptsturmführer Mueller of the Waffen-SS and served 8 years in Spandau prison for war crimes. I have never met a more Godly man than he. He never made excuses for his sins but thanked God daily for His love and forgiveness. Everything is possible with God!
 
I think ManRay is a classic Troll from his responses–he really dosnt want to discuss any particular topic–he’s just spouting atheist broadsheet sermons–I’d peg his age about 15.
You may be correct…but I try not to make such determinations. I mostly leave such things up to the moderators.

If you are correct about his age, then maybe we should be paying very close attention…After all - we are the smartest we will ever be between the ages of 14 and 18…After that it’s all down hill…😃

Peace
James
 
While stationed in Germany in the 1970’s I attended mass “on the economy”. Father Mueller was the pastor of the church I attended. It turned out the Father Mueller use to be SS-Hauptsturmführer Mueller of the Waffen-SS and served 8 years in Spandau prison for war crimes. I have never met a more Godly man than he. He never made excuses for his sins but thanked God daily for His love and forgiveness. Everything is possible with God!
That is inspiring…

Peace
James
 
ManRay doesn’t live in the USA, and isn’t a man called Ray.

ManRay posted a link to his/her identity and out of some sort of respect not shown to us in the way his/her questions are asked I won’t pass on any personal details.

But given the CV posted online I would expect better written and researched questions, and a more intellectual (and therefore more respectful and open minded) tone than the badly written and sloppily constructed posts we are getting from the OP.
I just want to say that I love each and every one of you. This is good stuff.
And…?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top