Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[dmar198]

Again, this is a major problem with Catholic apologetics. No one ever wants to admit to historical facts, and everyone pretends that all of these very specific and clear quotes don’t mean what they obviously mean.

I urge anyone who is interested to simply read the original documents yourself and tell me if it fits into the various commands of Jesus. Are these commands of love or commands of intolerance?

Theologically, I am quite conservative, but Jesus gave people a choice! He didn’t say, “If you don’t believe what I am telling you, we are going to kill you, force you to leave our communities, mistreat you, force you into a ghetto, etc.” He commanded that we should love our neighbors. I guess that only applies to our Christian neighbors.

Like I said…if you are interested, read the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council yourself, including the canons towards the end regarding treatment of the Jews. This was held to be authoritative in the Catholic Church and I think it’s reasonable to say that these kinds of decisions make it very difficult for modern Catholics to know when we should be obedient and when we should say “No.” No one can give me a definitive answer on this, and that really does disturb me.

I think I understand your frustration, and I want to mention three things.

First, don’t assume that if you can’t find a good answer on this site, it means no good answer is out there. All the Catholic world is not on Catholic Answers Forums, and the apologetics you’ll find here typically center on biblical controversies in far greater numbers than historical controversies. As a result, you are less likely to find people here who read their history and understand the context of documents like this than you are to find people who read their Bible and argue based on that.

Second, I hope you’ll read the answer I gave, as I think it addresses several of the items you have expressed concern about in this post.

Finally, you are right that religious violence/intolerance is opposed to the teachings of Jesus, and the historical feeling of the Church on this matter is the same as yours. I hope you’ll read the timeline of Catholic statements in favor of religious liberty (and against religious violence) at this post to see that the Church and you have historically been of one mind on this matter: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11669203

God bless.

 

[jinc1019]

[cont’d from last post]

According to that document, Error 33 was: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” 1520 A.D.

First,

I greatly appreciate your very long and detailed response. You have, by far, provided the most logical, intelligent, and insightful responses to these issues. I am very thankful for your efforts.

Second,
I disagree with your view of history. I think the facts show quite clearly that secular authorities, in many, many situations, used these kinds of councils and Papal Bulls to kill, torture, or expel numerous people who didn’t deserve it.

You reasonably point out that many heretics engaged in political as well as religious rebellion, but you completely ignore the fact that one of the primary reasons why this occurred was because they were not allowed to have any religious freedom at all. In other words, in order to have differing religious views, you often HAD to be viewed as a political rebel as well.

You also seem to justify burning people at the stake, as St. Thomas did, by pointing to violence on the side of the “heretics.” But is that what Jesus taught? That doesn’t sound like “turning the other cheek” to me.

While I think it is totally fair to say that the Church OFTEN did NOT engage in violence, it’s unfair to say the violence the Church did endorse can somehow be separated from the Church itself. If the Church says “burning heretics is not an error,” it not only denies the teachings of Jesus, who never taught such things, but it also leaves the door open to the possibility of burning heretics…I think it is an error to say that there are situations when burning people alive fits into Christianity.

Third,
The primary problem I have with your argument is that at the moment these events occur, the Church IS ARGUING that their teachings are moral. And that to me is the most difficult aspect of this. You suggest that we should ignore immoral commands, but who decides what is immoral and what is moral in a church where the hierarchy has the monopoly on those decisions? The laity are required by canon law to follow all moral commands…but the Church is never going to command the laity or other members of the Church to do something it says is immoral. In other words, because the laity have no control over what is and what is not moral, does it matter if there are provisions that say we don’t have to follow immoral teachings? In the case of the Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, the Church warned that ignoring the command to “exterminate” or “expel” meant that a secular authority would lose his or her authority and be excommunicated. So how can you even argue that a choice exists?

Fourth,

I don’t want these criticisms to take away from the many valid points you made. I am very appreciative of them and they are quite persuasive, but again, I just don’t know how you can argue on the one hand that Catholics can ignore immoral commands and on the other suggest that “morality” is decided by the Church. This is precisely what the Catechism does.

I also don’t know how you can argue that the immoral and official commands of the Church are somehow separate from the Church itself. It just seems like a lot of unreasonable mental gymnastics. Why isn’t it more reasonable to say: The Catholic Church made mistakes by arguing that it was morally acceptable to “expel” or “exterminate” people just for thinking differently on religious matters. Why isn’t it more reasonable to just admit that the Church can teach things that are wrong? The Church undermines itself by trying so hard to balance demands of absolute obedience with a clear historical record of making immoral demands.

 

[jinc1019]

Good Evening JINC1019:

I think every living being has direct communication with God through the experience of being alive. The world is God’s creation, and everything in it is an expression of God, from whom every outcome derives it’s potential. The wind in your hair while riding a bike, the hissing of leaves before a storm, the smell of rain before it falls - all of these things are direct communications from God. They are not laden with meaning, but with experience, and experience is our purpose. And I think living beings are the means by which God accomplishes experience, and no proper understanding is necessary. What is necessary is being fully immersed in the offices of life. Being fully alive is our ministry. When we reply on intermediaries, seers, sages, saints, ordained officials and institutions for our communication with God, I sense that we have greatly attenuated our ability to hear, see and touch God. We fail to fulfill our potential, and perhaps even our purpose. I would offer that our lives are not about dogmas, theories, and second hand knowledge of God. Our lives seem to be about our own communications with God through direct felt experience. Any person or institution that considers the experience of another to be heresy is missing the point, because other than experience, there really isn’t an meaning. Love, hate, happiness, anger, sleep, dreams, wakefulness, as well as all that is seen, heard, felt or otherwise perceived is experience, and no experience is proven in any substantial terms to be more valid than another. In the end, we all believe what we believe because of the experience of learning, and what we are taught is largely a matter of circumstance and culture. The rest is all about hoping that it’s true, and to condemn what someone else hopes because it conflicts with what we hope is a pointless enterprise, I think.

As a disclaimer, these are of course my own observations, and they carry no ordained or official heft, and are not substantiated by anything other than what I have reasoned.

I appreciate you sharing your personal observations!

 

[frobert]

I also don’t know how you can argue that the immoral and official commands of the Church are somehow separate from the Church itself. It just seems like a lot of unreasonable mental gymnastics. Why isn’t it more reasonable to say: The Catholic Church made mistakes by arguing that it was morally acceptable to “expel” or “exterminate” people just for thinking differently on religious matters. Why isn’t it more reasonable to just admit that the Church can teach things that are wrong? The Church undermines itself by trying so hard to balance demands of absolute obedience with a clear historical record of making immoral demands.

I have struggled with the same conundrum an am delighted to see the majority of the posts as thoughtful and dignified.

Thank you for your posts.

 

[mardukm]

Dear jinc1019,

I wonder where Abu is? He’s the one that started this whole mess.

I greatly appreciate your very long and detailed response. You have, by far, provided the most logical, intelligent, and insightful responses to these issues. I am very thankful for your efforts.

I agree with you that Dmar has so far had the best response.

I disagree with your view of history. I think the facts show quite clearly that secular authorities, in many, many situations, used these kinds of councils and Papal Bulls to kill, torture, or expel numerous people who didn’t deserve it.

Yes, but then would not the culpability then primarily be with the secular authorities?

You reasonably point out that many heretics engaged in political as well as religious rebellion, but you completely ignore the fact that one of the primary reasons why this occurred was because they were not allowed to have any religious freedom at all. In other words, in order to have differing religious views, you often HAD to be viewed as a political rebel as well.

This is true, because the rule of the time was that the secular authority determined the religion of the land and the laws necessary to maintain it. Again, would this not indicate that it was the secular authority that had the primary responsibility in the matter? The Church’s rule was merely (as St. Paul exhorted) to “and them over to the secular authorities.”

You also seem to justify burning people at the stake, as St. Thomas did, by pointing to violence on the side of the “heretics.” But is that what Jesus taught? That doesn’t sound like “turning the other cheek” to me.

I disagree with you that Jesus was as extreme a pacifist as you make out. Jesus did teach that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea rather than let one of these little ones to be misled. Jesus also routed the moneychangers when they used His Father’s house sacrilegiously. I believe a better representation of Jesus’ teaching is “if evil is done to you, turn the other cheek; if you see it done to others, don’t sit on your lazy a## but proactively oppose it.”

While I think it is totally fair to say that the Church OFTEN did NOT engage in violence, it’s unfair to say the violence the Church did endorse can somehow be separated from the Church itself.

This is fair.

If the Church says “burning heretics is not an error,” it not only denies the teachings of Jesus, who never taught such things,

Jesus taught that it would be better to have a millstone tied to a person’ neck and be thrown in the sea rather than let that person mislead an innocent one. So I disagree with your statement here.

but it also leaves the door open to the possibility of burning heretics…I think it is an error to say that there are situations when burning people alive fits into Christianity.

I actually disagree, but not that I promote burning people alive today. It is simply that the religious standard of the Middle Ages was very different from our own. In those days, the preservation of the spirit was more important than the preservation of the body. There were extreme forms like the Albigensians, who though the material world was evil and approved of suicide and all manner of practices that would be repugnant to us today, The Church formally opposed these extreme views. I do believe the Church was a beacon of moderation during those days.

Third,
The primary problem I have with your argument is that at the moment these events occur, the Church IS ARGUING that their teachings are moral. And that to me is the most difficult aspect of this.

Execute heretics only if they become violent - that is, if they endanger others. That is a good moral standard. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter, I guess (I hope that’s ok). Was it abused by secular authorities simply to maintain their own political control over their lands? Sure. Was it abused even by individual bishops or priests who were more concerned with control than in rightly dividing between violent and non-violent individuals? Yes. Were there overzealous courts who actually put non-violent conscientious objectors to death? No doubt, and probably too often to our liking. However, the teaching itself, I believe, is moral, even if it has been abused.

In the case of the Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, the Church warned that ignoring the command to “exterminate” or “expel” meant that a secular authority would lose his or her authority and be excommunicated. So how can you even argue that a choice exists?

Such a directive is not wrong in and of itself if the secular authority was a professed Catholic. I think we would both agree, however, that abuse of the moral command of the Church (to only execute if necessary) was rampant during that period.

I just don’t know how you can argue on the one hand that Catholics can ignore immoral commands and on the other suggest that “morality” is decided by the Church.

This is based on your pov that to “execute only if necessary” is an immoral command. We disagree.

I also don’t know how you can argue that the immoral and official commands of the Church are somehow separate from the Church itself.

We can’t separate the Church’s commands from the Church. I agree with you there. We do disagree, however, that the command “execute only when necessary” is an immoral command.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dronald]

Dear jinc1019,

I wonder where Abu is? He’s the one that started this whole mess.

I agree with you that Dmar has so far had the best response.

Yes, but then would not the culpability then primarily be with the secular authorities?

This is true, because the rule of the time was that the secular authority determined the religion of the land and the laws necessary to maintain it. Again, would this not indicate that it was the secular authority that had the primary responsibility in the matter? The Church’s rule was merely (as St. Paul exhorted) to “and them over to the secular authorities.”

I disagree with you that Jesus was as extreme a pacifist as you make out. Jesus did teach that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea rather than let one of these little ones to be misled. Jesus also routed the moneychangers when they used His Father’s house sacrilegiously. I believe a better representation of Jesus’ teaching is “if evil is done to you, turn the other cheek; if you see it done to others, don’t sit on your lazy a## but proactively oppose it.”

This is fair.

Jesus taught that it would be better to have a millstone tied to a person’ neck and be thrown in the sea rather than let that person mislead an innocent one. So I disagree with your statement here.

I actually disagree, but not that I promote burning people alive today. It is simply that the religious standard of the Middle Ages was very different from our own. In those days, the preservation of the spirit was more important than the preservation of the body. There were extreme forms like the Albigensians, who though the material world was evil and approved of suicide and all manner of practices that would be repugnant to us today, The Church formally opposed these extreme views. I do believe the Church was a beacon of moderation during those days.

Execute heretics only if they become violent - that is, if they endanger others. That is a good moral standard. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter, I guess (I hope that’s ok). Was it abused by secular authorities simply to maintain their own political control over their lands? Sure. Was it abused even by individual bishops or priests who were more concerned with control than in rightly dividing between violent and non-violent individuals? Yes. Were there overzealous courts who actually put non-violent conscientious objectors to death? No doubt, and probably too often to our liking. However, the teaching itself, I believe, is moral, even if it has been abused.

Such a directive is not wrong in and of itself if the secular authority was a professed Catholic. I think we would both agree, however, that abuse of the moral command of the Church (to only execute if necessary) was rampant during that period.

This is based on your pov that to “execute only if necessary” is an immoral command. We disagree.

We can’t separate the Church’s commands from the Church. I agree with you there. We do disagree, however, that the command “execute only when necessary” is an immoral command.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not going to go deep into debate here on points like these, because I feel they are so poorly laid out that I’ll let the reader to choose how they would practice apologetics from a Catholic point of view based on the answers provided.

I’ll make some points though:

The Disciples wanted Jesus to reign fire down on a city for rejection, He rebuked them.

Jesus never actually preached that we should hang other human beings for causing their Faith to stumble. The judging was always left to God.

And finally, I like the point that Catholics (without pointing to other Church’s since they claim to be the One True Church) can just admit that they blew it for a few centuries by acting so un-Christ like.

That’s all there is to it, the CC was once bad and now it’s fine. Why do we have to defend when it would murder those who stood against their beliefs? Just accept that it wasn’t the Church’s best time.

 

[mardukm]

I’m not going to go deep into debate here on points like these, because I feel they are so poorly laid out that I’ll let the reader to choose how they would practice apologetics from a Catholic point of view based on the answers provided.

So do you believe that “execute only if necessary - i.e., when the offender becomes violent to others” of course, this naturally includes a fair trial, and a chance at reform) is an immoral principle?

I’ll make some points though:

The Disciples wanted Jesus to reign fire down on a city for rejection, He rebuked them.

Let’s take this in context with the OT. God would not rain down fire on a city if Abraham could find even a few righteous people there. So the point is more likely that we cannot judge indiscriminately a whole group of people just because they live in a certain town. Guilt is not by mere association, so it would have been wrong to rain fire on a whole town and kill innocent people. Agreed?

Jesus never actually preached that we should hang other human beings for causing their Faith to stumble. The judging was always left to God.

So you are saying that “hang a millstone around their neck” was a statement that God would do this to their soul - i.e., cast these people to the fires of Gehenna? So if we find someone causing others to stumble in the faith, we should do nothing about it? What is your proposal? What would someone in the Middle Ages have done given their political and social standards?

And finally, I like the point that Catholics (without pointing to other Church’s since they claim to be the One True Church) can just admit that they blew it for a few centuries by acting so un-Christ like.

It is individuals who act un-Christ like. Do you disagree? Again, I would ask you to answer the first question in this post.

That’s all there is to it, the CC was once bad and now it’s fine.

All religions were once bad according to today’s standard. Why did you choose your religion? Is it because it has historically been composed of perfect people who never sinned?

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

This is such a tired argument. “EXTERMINATION” could mean either expulsion or death…It’s a fact in the Middle Ages that when heretics were excommunicated, they were often killed…so “excommunication” was, in many cases, synonomous with executing. Further, even if “expulsion” was the meaning of “extermination,” how is that justifiable? Think about what “expulsion” would mean in 1254. You would lose your home, your job, your access to food, your community, everything…You would be left with absolutely nothing. To minimize that as if it’s meaningless is really sad. Further, as I said, “extermination” often meant killing anyway-so the secular authorities didn’t agree with your interpretation.

You took a section out of canon #3 in your post #9 and create a whole storyline around what you think a certain word means.

Here’s what canon #18 says
18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

I showed you this argument on the 14th on the other thread. Canon 18 completely contradicts your accusation and understanding of canon 3. Why are you still using your argument?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You took a section out of canon #3 and create a whole storyline around what you think a certain word means.

Here’s what canon #18 says
18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels.

I showed you this argument on the 14th on the other thread. Canon 18 completely contradicts your accusation and understanding of canon 3. Why are you still using your argument?

Because it’s so easy to say that 'even IF" it is ‘only’ expulsion, it’s still the big, bad, evil Catholic Church, who were meaner to the enemies than anyone, and started earlier than anyone, and lied about it longer, refused to apologize longer, and are still ‘spinning’ it when everybody else’s Church has become full of gilded saints who would never be so mean, so long, such liars, so stubborn, etc. etc.

Because people know that if you keep on saying lies over and over, and either refusing to address the truth, or saying that maybe the Church didn’t quite do this but what it did was ‘just as bad’, long enough, that sooner or later the lies get treated as though they were truth. And you’ll get people guilted into trying to apologize for the Church so the accusers can say, "SEE, even your OWN FELLOW CATHOLICS are saying we’re right’.

That’s why.

 

[frobert]

And finally, I like the point that Catholics (without pointing to other Church’s since they claim to be the One True Church) can just admit that they blew it for a few centuries by acting so un-Christ like.

Pope John Paul II made many apologies, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.

I think that Pope John Paul’s main problem was to strike a balance between how much culpability the Church could admit and still be able to maintain the authority of the Church. He appointed a commission on the Inquisition. Did commission strike the right balance?

From America Magazine reporting on John Paul II’s commission on the Inquisition:

“…on the whole the revolution in Catholic doctrine that took place at Vatican II when the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” was adopted prevailed in the reports. One author, for example, referred to the execution of heretics under Pope Pius V as “legal murder.” Jean-Miguel Garrigues, O.P., a member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, took both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to task in no uncertain terms for having provided the theological rationale for the Inquisition, and called their justification of religious coercion a prime example of the “ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal,” quoting John Paul’s words in Tertio Millennio Adveniente.”
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10471

I attempted to verify the above from other sources besides American Magazine. The only other place I found it cited was on Catholic Forums

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not going to go deep into debate here on points like these, because I feel they are so poorly laid out that I’ll let the reader to choose how they would practice apologetics from a Catholic point of view based on the answers provided.

I’ll make some points though:

The Disciples wanted Jesus to reign fire down on a city for rejection, He rebuked them.

Jesus never actually preached that we should hang other human beings for causing their Faith to stumble. The judging was always left to God.

And finally, I like the point that Catholics (without pointing to other Church’s since they claim to be the One True Church) can just admit that they blew it for a few centuries by acting so un-Christ like.

That’s all there is to it, the CC was once bad and now it’s fine. Why do we have to defend when it would murder those who stood against their beliefs? Just accept that it wasn’t the Church’s best time.

Honestly, I don’t really agree with your assessment of his response. I thought it was well laid out overall. He made succinct and fait observations.

I also, however, agree with you that the Church needed to simply admit that it made some pretty terrible mistakes. To some extent, they have done this, although I always feel like there is a “but” after every apology. Still, I want to be fair to them, as I am sure you do.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear jinc1019,

I wonder where Abu is? He’s the one that started this whole mess.

I agree with you that Dmar has so far had the best response.

Yes, but then would not the culpability then primarily be with the secular authorities?

This is true, because the rule of the time was that the secular authority determined the religion of the land and the laws necessary to maintain it. Again, would this not indicate that it was the secular authority that had the primary responsibility in the matter? The Church’s rule was merely (as St. Paul exhorted) to “and them over to the secular authorities.”

I disagree with you that Jesus was as extreme a pacifist as you make out. Jesus did teach that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea rather than let one of these little ones to be misled. Jesus also routed the moneychangers when they used His Father’s house sacrilegiously. I believe a better representation of Jesus’ teaching is “if evil is done to you, turn the other cheek; if you see it done to others, don’t sit on your lazy a## but proactively oppose it.”

This is fair.

Jesus taught that it would be better to have a millstone tied to a person’ neck and be thrown in the sea rather than let that person mislead an innocent one. So I disagree with your statement here.

I actually disagree, but not that I promote burning people alive today. It is simply that the religious standard of the Middle Ages was very different from our own. In those days, the preservation of the spirit was more important than the preservation of the body. There were extreme forms like the Albigensians, who though the material world was evil and approved of suicide and all manner of practices that would be repugnant to us today, The Church formally opposed these extreme views. I do believe the Church was a beacon of moderation during those days.

Execute heretics only if they become violent - that is, if they endanger others. That is a good moral standard. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter, I guess (I hope that’s ok). Was it abused by secular authorities simply to maintain their own political control over their lands? Sure. Was it abused even by individual bishops or priests who were more concerned with control than in rightly dividing between violent and non-violent individuals? Yes. Were there overzealous courts who actually put non-violent conscientious objectors to death? No doubt, and probably too often to our liking. However, the teaching itself, I believe, is moral, even if it has been abused.

Such a directive is not wrong in and of itself if the secular authority was a professed Catholic. I think we would both agree, however, that abuse of the moral command of the Church (to only execute if necessary) was rampant during that period.

This is based on your pov that to “execute only if necessary” is an immoral command. We disagree.

We can’t separate the Church’s commands from the Church. I agree with you there. We do disagree, however, that the command “execute only when necessary” is an immoral command.

Blessings,
Marduk

To give a totally fair response, I am going to have think on your responses and give them the time they deserve. I realize they were not the most detailed, but many did strike a cord with me (in a way you would be pleased with). I will think and pray about them and respond.

Justin

 

[mardukm]

Thank you, jinc1019.

Did you read Steveb’s post about that Canon that stated that priests were not to be involved with putting others to death? I can conceive of your rebuttal to his argument - namely, “that canon was only intended for the clergy, but the Church should have made such a restriction on the actions of secular authorities as well.”

Would I be correct in assuming that such would be your response?

If so, I think it would be a good platform for discussion and research. I think a good issue to consider would be, "Just how much power did the Church have over the actions of individual secular authorities? If the Church could not micromanage the abuses of the clergy (viz, the abuse of indulgences), should we expect the Church to be able to micromanage the affairs of secular authorities (I’m talking about down to the level of a local town mayor)? I’m not trying to argue that the Church had no culpability at this point - only trying to consider just how much culpability can be reasonably attributed to the Church?

Blessings

To give a totally fair response, I am going to have think on your responses and give them the time they deserve. I realize they were not the most detailed, but many did strike a cord with me (in a way you would be pleased with). I will think and pray about them and respond.

Justin

 

[oneofmany]

jinc1019 do you really believe the church is going to tell it’s members to start killing heretics now? I don’t think you need to worry about that. The real ones in danger of persecution now will be Christians. Have you not seen the atmosphere that is out there against Christians now? I think the better question is will Christians be killed, they are you know in certain parts of the world for following their faith.

 

[dronald]

Honestly, I don’t really agree with your assessment of his response. I thought it was well laid out overall. He made succinct and fait observations.

I also, however, agree with you that the Church needed to simply admit that it made some pretty terrible mistakes. To some extent, they have done this, although I always feel like there is a “but” after every apology. Still, I want to be fair to them, as I am sure you do.

This is fair in that he did make a case, but I don’t accept that such a defense can be supported in any way. It’s a sad position a Catholic must place ones self in to defend atrocities.

Muslims kill Christians for trying to convert them all the time, and then other Muslims justify it. I don’t advocate converting Catholics but I certainly would take a believer away from any Religion if the members threatened to murder the person if said person leaves. (assuming I could safely do so) Such people are not acting Christ like and need to be near those who are.

Now, we don’t burn Evangelicals alive as Catholics even if one tried to make one Evangelical. I like to pretend that all Catholics agree that it shouldn’t be done, but threads like this surprise and appall me all the time. Fact is; Jesus was ahead of His time and there’s no such thing as moral relativism.

Threads like this can really frustrate me because it makes Christianity look like it can justify murder. It can’t. Boy oh boy, it can’t.

 

[jinc1019]

This is fair in that he did make a case, but I don’t accept that such a defense can be supported in any way. It’s a sad position a Catholic must place ones self in to defend atrocities.

Muslims kill Christians for trying to convert them all the time, and then other Muslims justify it. I don’t advocate converting Catholics but I certainly would take a believer away from any Religion if the members threatened to murder the person if said person leaves. (assuming I could safely do so) Such people are not acting Christ like and need to be near those who are.

Now, we don’t burn Evangelicals alive as Catholics even if one tried to make one Evangelical. I like to pretend that all Catholics agree that it shouldn’t be done, but threads like this surprise and appall me all the time. Fact is; Jesus was ahead of His time and there’s no such thing as moral relativism.

Threads like this can really frustrate me because it makes Christianity look like it can justify murder. It can’t. Boy oh boy, it can’t.

I totally agree.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Makes my Church look pretty good now doesn’t it?

That’s one way to start with a clean slate, I suppose – just invent a new religion!

In all seriousness though, I would never join a Church that condones murder like the CC did at one point.

Yes, any church with sinners in it must be a false church, right?

Pretty high standards.
In fact, you wouldn’t want to join the Apostles since they had one high ranking member who was complicit in deicide.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am confused. I don’t think you mean “the church gets a pass because there are bloody hands all around” but that seems to be the implication.

I think a better lesson is that the world was far more brutal in that day. You could be killed for nearly anything. And to judge based on our present day conceptions is overly harsh; a little “holier-than-though” and self-righteous.

 

[dronald]

That’s one way to start with a clean slate, I suppose – just invent a new religion!

All I read here is: “Now is not the time for joking!”

Yes, any church with sinners in it must be a false church, right?

Pretty high standards.
In fact, you wouldn’t want to join the Apostles since they had one high ranking member who was complicit in deicide.

Read everything then get back to me.

 

[frobert]

I think a better lesson is that the world was far more brutal in that day. You could be killed for nearly anything. And to judge based on our present day conceptions is overly harsh; a little “holier-than-though” and self-righteous.

I don’t believe we are judging solely on present day conceptions. Didn’t the Popes and Church fathers responsible for the errors have access to natural law, the writings of St Thomas and St Augustine and others, which haven’t changed over time?