Church Confidence?

[FabiusMaximus]

No, my “error” here is that I am a traditional Christian and not a relativist. I don’t think that right and wrong should be judged by modern standards, but by eternal standards. We may perceive certain moral concerns better at some times than at others–in fact we clearly do–but that doesn’t mean that what was good in 1300 is bad now.

Certain actions may not be prudential or good for society now that were good for society then. But when I speak of a “demonic undertow” I’m obviously not talking about that. I’m talking about absolutes.

You are wrong. You have to look at context. You can’t judge by “eternal standards” because you yourself are looking at the time period through your modern point of view.

Just because there are absolute standards of morality that we as Christians abide by, doesn’t mean that peoples of different times perceived differently those standards of morality. Those societies routinely, for instance, practiced the death penalty, and they did not see any conflict with the sanctity of life and the institution of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, neither did the Old Testament Jews. Today we take a different approach. Yet you would condemn the Church because it was failing to abide by its “eternal standards.” Yet in saying that, you are judging with your personal view in mind.

The Italian Bishops’ Conference last year came out with a statement that Italians, as good Catholics, should open the doors to illegal immigrants, to “anyone who wants to come,” that it should embrace the opening of mosques as well. About sixty-seventy years ago, when the Church would never have considered such nonsense, do you think the Church was “for” or “against” its “eternal standards”?

That’s consequentialism.

That’s how society was viewed. Period.

Yes. This is the “scapegoat” approach described by Girard. It is from this (at least in part) that Jesus died to deliver us. For Christians to return to this way of thinking is to deny Jesus.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I expect an atheist to think this way, not a Christian. You are making the Church the purely passive puppet of “worldview.” The Church shaped worldview to a great extent. You are happy to say this when the shaping was good. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Don’t you talk down to me.

Yes the Church shaped our modern worldview. But it is absurd to just say that the Church always saw things by one way. History doesn’t work that way. A Catholic could have enthusiastically embraced the death penalty in the 1400s and to him it was perfectly reconciliable with the conept of sanctity of life. Today many Catholics, especially in Europe, would reject that view. Clearly the Church didn’t always think uniformly, despite having “eternal standards.”

I don’t put blame squarely on the Church. I’m not interested in putting blame at all.

Your description of the government “taking control of the Church” is overly simplistic. Throughout the Middle Ages and early modern period there was a delicate balance between civil and ecclesiastical power. Even in early modern Spain, it’s not true that the government simply controlled the Church without qualification. Certainly there was a tendency in that direction in the early modern era–a tendency greatly exacerbated and accelerated by the Reformation.

This is simply factually incorrect. The Church did play in a delicate balance of power, but the state had more than enough power in most European realms to do what it wanted. The fact of it is, after the Reconquista, Isabella and Ferdinand had more than a significant amount of sway over Church affairs. It was the Papacy that had to recede, because it effectively did not want to lose all of its influence over the Church in Spain.

The French did the same thing. While the Church may have had a lot of power in the wake of the collapse of Rome, the fact of it is that once kings began consolidating power, the Church’s influence was severely limited Sure the Church had leeway. After all, in many cases, papal approval was necessary to gain legitimacy as a king in many cases. However, the state routinely ignored papal pronouncements as well. The Hundred Years’ War took place near at the height of Church power, just before the Protestant Reformation, and French kings already seemed to have strong power over the Church

Then why do you find Bernard complaining about corruption in De Conversatione two centuries before the bubonic plague?

He says that it’s extremely hard to be a godly person and be Pope. He said this as part of advice to a new Pope who had been one of his disciples. . . .

So much for your “confidence.” The holiest people of the Middle Ages generally didn’t share this confidence, but were aware that human sinfulness deeply affected the Church.

You completely missed the point. The Church always suffered bouts of corruption and revitalization. I was referring specifically to the Church before the Protestant Reformation.

The Church throughout the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance, as well as up to the 20th century, really, firmly believed in itself. It could speak out, it would excommunicate even the highest officials when necessary - while today it gives communion to “Christians” who routinely ignore Church pronouncements and commandments. Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy being denied Communion? No? Because of the general malaise in confidence within the Church. Fifty years ago they would have been excommunicated easily. Today they are merely ignored. Technically doesn’t a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for instance, receive* automatic excommunication*?

 

[jam070406]

You are wrong. You have to look at context. You can’t judge by “eternal standards” because you yourself are looking at the time period through your modern point of view.

Just because there are absolute standards of morality that we as Christians abide by, doesn’t mean that peoples of different times perceived differently those standards of morality. Those societies routinely, for instance, practiced the death penalty, and they did not see any conflict with the sanctity of life and the institution of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, neither did the Old Testament Jews. Today we take a different approach. Yet you would condemn the Church because it was failing to abide by its “eternal standards.” Yet in saying that, you are judging with your personal view in mind.

The Italian Bishops’ Conference last year came out with a statement that Italians, as good Catholics, should open the doors to illegal immigrants, to “anyone who wants to come,” that it should embrace the opening of mosques as well. About sixty-seventy years ago, when the Church would never have considered such nonsense, do you think the Church was “for” or “against” its “eternal standards”?

That’s how society was viewed. Period.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Don’t you talk down to me.

Yes the Church shaped our modern worldview. But it is absurd to just say that the Church always saw things by one way. History doesn’t work that way. A Catholic could have enthusiastically embraced the death penalty in the 1400s and to him it was perfectly reconciliable with the conept of sanctity of life. Today many Catholics, especially in Europe, would reject that view. Clearly the Church didn’t always think uniformly, despite having “eternal standards.”

This is simply factually incorrect. The Church did play in a delicate balance of power, but the state had more than enough power in most European realms to do what it wanted. The fact of it is, after the Reconquista, Isabella and Ferdinand had more than a significant amount of sway over Church affairs. It was the Papacy that had to recede, because it effectively did not want to lose all of its influence over the Church in Spain.

The French did the same thing. While the Church may have had a lot of power in the wake of the collapse of Rome, the fact of it is that once kings began consolidating power, the Church’s influence was severely limited Sure the Church had leeway. After all, in many cases, papal approval was necessary to gain legitimacy as a king in many cases. However, the state routinely ignored papal pronouncements as well. The Hundred Years’ War took place near at the height of Church power, just before the Protestant Reformation, and French kings already seemed to have strong power over the Church

You completely missed the point. The Church always suffered bouts of corruption and revitalization. I was referring specifically to the Church before the Protestant Reformation.

The Church throughout the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance, as well as up to the 20th century, really, firmly believed in itself. It could speak out, it would excommunicate even the highest officials when necessary - while today it gives communion to “Christians” who routinely ignore Church pronouncements and commandments. Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy being denied Communion? No? Because of the general malaise in confidence within the Church. Fifty years ago they would have been excommunicated easily. Today they are merely ignored. Technically doesn’t a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for instance, receive* automatic excommunication*?

Fabius, don’t let these things deter you! When the Church goes through struggles Saints rise up. We need more Faithful Catholics to be a light to the world.

 

[rinnie]

I think you made the poster’s point. Catholics need to be fed the Truth of their own True authentic Faith and not have it watered down to appease non Catholics or as to not offend.

Are you kidding me. All they have to do is go to their Church. Look at the RCC. Why do you think it is the most hated Church in the world.

Simple, its not going to conform to Man, Man will conform to it.

The RCC will never bend, never appease, It will do as Christ promised lead us all to the true word of God.

That is why the Church is the Pilar of all truth.

I have been told for years that the Church must adapt to the times. I don’t think so, the times must adapt to the Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

You are wrong. You have to look at context. You can’t judge by “eternal standards” because you yourself are looking at the time period through your modern point of view.

Just because there are absolute standards of morality that we as Christians abide by, doesn’t mean that peoples of different times perceived differently those standards of morality. Those societies routinely, for instance, practiced the death penalty, and they did not see any conflict with the sanctity of life and the institution of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, neither did the Old Testament Jews. Today we take a different approach. Yet you would condemn the Church because it was failing to abide by its “eternal standards.” Yet in saying that, you are judging with your personal view in mind.

The Italian Bishops’ Conference last year came out with a statement that Italians, as good Catholics, should open the doors to illegal immigrants, to “anyone who wants to come,” that it should embrace the opening of mosques as well. About sixty-seventy years ago, when the Church would never have considered such nonsense, do you think the Church was “for” or “against” its “eternal standards”?

That’s how society was viewed. Period.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Don’t you talk down to me.

Yes the Church shaped our modern worldview. But it is absurd to just say that the Church always saw things by one way. History doesn’t work that way. A Catholic could have enthusiastically embraced the death penalty in the 1400s and to him it was perfectly reconciliable with the conept of sanctity of life. Today many Catholics, especially in Europe, would reject that view. Clearly the Church didn’t always think uniformly, despite having “eternal standards.”

This is simply factually incorrect. The Church did play in a delicate balance of power, but the state had more than enough power in most European realms to do what it wanted. The fact of it is, after the Reconquista, Isabella and Ferdinand had more than a significant amount of sway over Church affairs. It was the Papacy that had to recede, because it effectively did not want to lose all of its influence over the Church in Spain.

The French did the same thing. While the Church may have had a lot of power in the wake of the collapse of Rome, the fact of it is that once kings began consolidating power, the Church’s influence was severely limited Sure the Church had leeway. After all, in many cases, papal approval was necessary to gain legitimacy as a king in many cases. However, the state routinely ignored papal pronouncements as well. The Hundred Years’ War took place near at the height of Church power, just before the Protestant Reformation, and French kings already seemed to have strong power over the Church

You completely missed the point. The Church always suffered bouts of corruption and revitalization. I was referring specifically to the Church before the Protestant Reformation.

The Church throughout the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance, as well as up to the 20th century, really, firmly believed in itself. It could speak out, it would excommunicate even the highest officials when necessary - while today it gives communion to “Christians” who routinely ignore Church pronouncements and commandments. Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy being denied Communion? No? Because of the general malaise in confidence within the Church. Fifty years ago they would have been excommunicated easily. Today they are merely ignored. Technically doesn’t a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for instance, receive* automatic excommunication*?

I don’t think Edwin is saying anything like what you imagine he is saying. I’m sure he is well aware that it is unfair to condem the blinders that we all wear as part and parcel of being in a particular place and time.

He wasn’t, as he made clear several times, condeming the whole of the medieval Church, or even it’s members, for being men of their own age. You have got that idea yourself for some reason.

What he is saying is that particular type of confidence you are talking about specifically led to very particular kinds of mistakes. Not little mistakes, but large ones. And in light of that, the Church has come to the conclusion that maybe that wasn’t the best way to proceed, and a change is needed.

 

[Spencerian]

One book rather deflates the arguments about the Church, as seen in this topic, rather well. It is worth a read to understand the history of the Church and how its many members helped shape, define and stabilize Western society.

The book is Thomas Woods’s How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Using historical documents, the points are made, chapter by chapter. A free chapter is available through a link on this author’s page.

Your “lapsed” side, OP, is showing a little. Christ said specifically that He did not come to Earth to treat the well, but the sick. That means that the Church is filled with sinners. Sometimes that sin rears enough of its ugly head to affect some. However, Christ also said that the Church would withstand anything that evil could throw at it until the end of time. Fortunately, the body of Christ is not a metaphor. We self-correct problems from within and without, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We do not throw away the Church just because of a Judas, or several.

It’s been over 2,000 years. Name any institution in history that’s still active and working as it was designed for as long as the Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are wrong. You have to look at context. You can’t judge by “eternal standards” because you yourself are looking at the time period through your modern point of view.

Just because there are absolute standards of morality that we as Christians abide by, doesn’t mean that peoples of different times perceived differently those standards of morality. Those societies routinely, for instance, practiced the death penalty, and they did not see any conflict with the sanctity of life and the institution of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, neither did the Old Testament Jews. Today we take a different approach. Yet you would condemn the Church because it was failing to abide by its “eternal standards.” Yet in saying that, you are judging with your personal view in mind.

The Italian Bishops’ Conference last year came out with a statement that Italians, as good Catholics, should open the doors to illegal immigrants, to “anyone who wants to come,” that it should embrace the opening of mosques as well. About sixty-seventy years ago, when the Church would never have considered such nonsense, do you think the Church was “for” or “against” its “eternal standards”?

That’s how society was viewed. Period.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Don’t you talk down to me.

Yes the Church shaped our modern worldview. But it is absurd to just say that the Church always saw things by one way. History doesn’t work that way. A Catholic could have enthusiastically embraced the death penalty in the 1400s and to him it was perfectly reconciliable with the conept of sanctity of life. Today many Catholics, especially in Europe, would reject that view. Clearly the Church didn’t always think uniformly, despite having “eternal standards.”

This is simply factually incorrect. The Church did play in a delicate balance of power, but the state had more than enough power in most European realms to do what it wanted. The fact of it is, after the Reconquista, Isabella and Ferdinand had more than a significant amount of sway over Church affairs. It was the Papacy that had to recede, because it effectively did not want to lose all of its influence over the Church in Spain.

The French did the same thing. While the Church may have had a lot of power in the wake of the collapse of Rome, the fact of it is that once kings began consolidating power, the Church’s influence was severely limited Sure the Church had leeway. After all, in many cases, papal approval was necessary to gain legitimacy as a king in many cases. However, the state routinely ignored papal pronouncements as well. The Hundred Years’ War took place near at the height of Church power, just before the Protestant Reformation, and French kings already seemed to have strong power over the Church

You completely missed the point. The Church always suffered bouts of corruption and revitalization. I was referring specifically to the Church before the Protestant Reformation.

The Church throughout the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance, as well as up to the 20th century, really, firmly believed in itself. It could speak out, it would excommunicate even the highest officials when necessary - while today it gives communion to “Christians” who routinely ignore Church pronouncements and commandments. Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy being denied Communion? No? Because of the general malaise in confidence within the Church. Fifty years ago they would have been excommunicated easily. Today they are merely ignored. Technically doesn’t a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for instance, receive* automatic excommunication*?

So how do we look at those absolute, unchanging, tried and true, from the Church traditions when we examine Protestants and their stance on Birth Control, Abortion, Slavery and Homosexuality. Is their one voice from beginning to now that we can see as a stream of thought or does it waiver?

 

[CopticChristian]

One book rather deflates the arguments about the Church, as seen in this topic, rather well. It is worth a read to understand the history of the Church and how its many members helped shape, define and stabilize Western society.

The book is Thomas Woods’s How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Using historical documents, the points are made, chapter by chapter. A free chapter is available through a link on this author’s page.

Your “lapsed” side, OP, is showing a little. Christ said specifically that He did not come to Earth to treat the well, but the sick. That means that the Church is filled with sinners. Sometimes that sin rears enough of its ugly head to affect some. However, Christ also said that the Church would withstand anything that evil could throw at it until the end of time. Fortunately, the body of Christ is not a metaphor. We self-correct problems from within and without, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We do not throw away the Church just because of a Judas, or several.

It’s been over 2,000 years. Name any institution in history that’s still active and working as it was designed for as long as the Church.

Satananism.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

So how do we look at those absolute, unchanging, tried and true, from the Church traditions when we examine Protestants and their stance on Birth Control, Abortion, Slavery and Homosexuality. Is their one voice from beginning to now that we can see as a stream of thought or does it waiver?

I don’t understand what you mean.

Your “lapsed” side, OP, is showing a little.

Huh?

Christ said specifically that He did not come to Earth to treat the well, but the sick. That means that the Church is filled with sinners. Sometimes that sin rears enough of its ugly head to affect some. However, Christ also said that the Church would withstand anything that evil could throw at it until the end of time. Fortunately, the body of Christ is not a metaphor. We self-correct problems from within and without, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We do not throw away the Church just because of a Judas, or several.

It’s been over 2,000 years. Name any institution in history that’s still active and working as it was designed for as long as the Church.

What have I said that contradicted this?

My point is that it seems to me that the Church doesn’t have a high opinion of itself as the bastion of truth as it has had in the past. I never stated that the Church is perfection or that it should be jettisoned.

What he is saying is that particular type of confidence you are talking about specifically led to very particular kinds of mistakes. Not little mistakes, but large ones. And in light of that, the Church has come to the conclusion that maybe that wasn’t the best way to proceed, and a change is needed.

What kind of confidence was I speaking of?
What I am saying is that, unlike, for instance, the Orthodox Church, the rest of the Christian Church (meaning of course Catholicism + Protestantism) seems to have fallen into a state of moral retreat. It no longer sees itself as the center of truth (or isn’t as confident about proclaiming it). It allows every insult and abuse pass without protest, and it rolls over with regards to other faiths - namely, Islam. I’ve never once heard a high Christian official condemn the fact that in many Muslim nations, Christian churches are banned, while in the West we seem to just open mosques to placate Muslims.

It just seems to me that the Church has sunk into a state of defeatism. It doesn’t believe in itself like it did. I did not deny that the Church had scandals.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t understand what you mean.

Huh?

What have I said that contradicted this?

My point is that it seems to me that the Church doesn’t have a high opinion of itself as the bastion of truth as it has had in the past. I never stated that the Church is perfection or that it should be jettisoned.

What kind of confidence was I speaking of?
What I am saying is that, unlike, for instance, the Orthodox Church, the rest of the Christian Church (meaning of course Catholicism + Protestantism) seems to have fallen into a state of moral retreat. It no longer sees itself as the center of truth (or isn’t as confident about proclaiming it). It allows every insult and abuse pass without protest, and it rolls over with regards to other faiths - namely, Islam. I’ve never once heard a high Christian official condemn the fact that in many Muslim nations, Christian churches are banned, while in the West we seem to just open mosques to placate Muslims.

It just seems to me that the Church has sunk into a state of defeatism. It doesn’t believe in itself like it did. I did not deny that the Church had scandals.

Today, while listening to Immaculate Heart Radio, the discussion turned to Obama care. This health plan will force all hosptitals to support abortion and birth control as health care. There are two Catholic women involved in this and the names and positions escape me.

There is a provision that allows for religious hospitals to dismiss themselves from this provision if they only hire people of that faith and only treat people of that faith.

The One Holy Catholic Church will not change it’s position on Abortion or Birth control. I am not sure who speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy. Here will be your test of Moral retreat as to what the varying and sundry groups that have claim to the name Christian do. This should answer your question.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t understand what you mean.

QUOTE]Originally Posted by CopticChristian
So how do we look at those absolute, unchanging, tried and true, from the Church traditions when we examine Protestants and their stance on Birth Control, Abortion, Slavery and Homosexuality. Is their one voice from beginning to now that we can see as a stream of thought or does it waiver?

QUOTE]

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2531431/posts

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/amexperiment.html

pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=749

nrlc.org/news/1999/nrl199/sween.html

cia bella

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Today, while listening to Immaculate Heart Radio, the discussion turned to Obama care. This health plan will force all hosptitals to support abortion and birth control as health care. There are two Catholic women involved in this and the names and positions escape me.

There is a provision that allows for religious hospitals to dismiss themselves from this provision if they only hire people of that faith and only treat people of that faith.

The One Holy Catholic Church will not change it’s position on Abortion or Birth control. I am not sure who speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy. Here will be your test of Moral retreat as to what the varying and sundry groups that have claim to the name Christian do. This should answer your question.

Yeah but the test isn’t only about whether the Church will compromise its moral teaching, but will it stand up for it? Will it stand up and say ‘this battle is worth it’?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yeah but the test isn’t only about whether the Church will compromise its moral teaching, but will it stand up for it? Will it stand up and say ‘this battle is worth it’?

The teaching is there, some will listen, some will not and only time will tell.

L’insegnamento è là, alcuni ascolterà, alcuni non non e soltanto chi vivrà vedrà

Η διδασκαλία είναι εκεί, μερικοί θα ακούσουν, μερικοί και μόνο ο χρόνος θα πει

L’enseignement est là, certains écoutera, certains pas et seulement qui vivra verra

If you are not for me you are against me.

 

[Contarini]

Yeah, true. I am guilty of not reading the post more deeply. Knee jerk reaction. Mea culpa.

Insofar as the Catholic Church seems to me to have a more “demonic” aspect than other churches, it’s precisely because I see it as being in some sense (whether it’s enough to make me an orthodox Catholic is something I’ve been struggling with for years) the true Church.

As C. S. Lewis said (through the glorified George MacDonald in The Great Divorce), “it’s not out of bad mice or bad fleas that you make demons, but out of bad archangels.”

But I understand why you had the knee-jerk reaction. Protestants say some nasty stuff about Catholicism. I’ve spent most of my adult life trying to figure out how much of the anti-Catholicism of my youth was sheer prejudice and how much had a real basis. And in all honesty it seems clear to me that it does have some real basis (though of course it’s wildly distorted and exaggerated and some of it is just lies). Catholics have done some horrific things that can’t just be put down to regular old human sinfulness. But then, I look more broadly and look at Christianity as a religion, and I understand why non-Christians have the same reaction.

In fact, I think the evidence for Catholicism being the truest form of Christianity is considerably stronger than the evidence for Christianity being the true religion. But that’s getting off-topic.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Insofar as the Catholic Church seems to me to have a more “demonic” aspect than other churches, As C. S. Lewis said (through the glorified George MacDonald in The Great Divorce), “it’s not out of bad mice or bad fleas that you make demons, but out of bad archangels.”

lies). Catholics have done some horrific things that can’t just be put down to regular old human sinfulness. But then, I look more broadly and look at Christianity as a religion, and I understand why non-Christians have the same reaction.

In fact, I think the evidence for Catholicism being the truest form of Christianity is considerably stronger than the evidence for Christianity being the true religion. But that’s getting off-topic.

Edwin

Explain what you mean by demonic aspects. That appears to be an insulting statement that should be clarified.

Lies, what horrific things that cannot be put down to regular old sinfulness?

Your writing reveals an inherent prejudice and preformed conclusiion. Catholicism to be the truest form of Christianity contrasted with in the same sentence Christianity being the true religion. This is on topic and relevant. Explain this non-sequitor.

 

[Contarini]

You are wrong. You have to look at context. You can’t judge by “eternal standards” because you yourself are looking at the time period through your modern point of view.

My access to eternal standards is of course conditioned by my time and place. But the idea that this prevents me from appealing to eternal standards is a false dichotomy.

Just because there are absolute standards of morality that we as Christians abide by, doesn’t mean that peoples of different times perceived differently those standards of morality.

Of course. No dispute about that. But the fact that they saw them differently from us does not rule out the possibility that either they or we were/are wrong. In fact, it’s likely that we are both wrong to some extent. That’s why we have the Tradition–to free us from the degrading slavery of being children of our age. A contemporary Christian who adheres to the orthodox Tradition has an advantage over both contemporaries who reject the past and over Christians of the past. We have the particular perspective of our own age to draw on and what has proved to be permanent in the insights of the past, as judged by the Church throughout time and space guided by the Holy Spirit in the light of the Gospel which was revealed once for all. (Yes, that’s a mouthful, because it’s a complex and difficult process of discernment!)

Those societies routinely, for instance, practiced the death penalty, and they did not see any conflict with the sanctity of life and the institution of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, neither did the Old Testament Jews. Today we take a different approach. Yet you would condemn the Church because it was failing to abide by its “eternal standards.”

I do not think that I would be justified in saying that the death penalty is wrong always and everywhere (i.e., by eternal standards). I do believe that Pope JPII’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae represents a clearer understanding of the Tradition than was available to previous generations, yes. In other words, while the death penalty is just, it should only be applied when absolutely necessary. I would further argue–and here I’m obviously disagreeing with the Old Testament and with the medieval Tradition, though not, I think, with JPII–that the death penalty is warranted only for murder and not for, say, heresy. I believe that the Church’s recognition of this fact is a genuine example of development/progress and is not simply adaptation to a different set of thoroughly relative cultural standards. Furthermore, looking back on the practice of Christendom (I avoid just saying “the Church,” since as you and others have pointed out, the civil authorities were almost always at least as guilty, and often far more so) with regard to heresy and the use of force to support orthodox Christianity generally, I see a pervasive pattern of behavior that runs diametrically against the teaching and example of Jesus and constitutes a blasphemous attempt to do the work of Christ with the weapons of the world. (I’m using the “world” in the Johannine sense of “the fallen order of this age which is under the control of the powers of darkness,” not in the sense of the created order.) This isn’t a condemnation of medieval people–it’s simply that in retrospect we can see ways in which the Church’s efforts to carry out its mandate to make disciples of all nations were corrupted by the powers of this world. And we need to learn from that, rather than idealizing every aspect of medieval Christianity. (Bluegoat accurately summarized my intentions.)

The Italian Bishops’ Conference last year came out with a statement that Italians, as good Catholics, should open the doors to illegal immigrants, to “anyone who wants to come,” that it should embrace the opening of mosques as well. About sixty-seventy years ago, when the Church would never have considered such nonsense, do you think the Church was “for” or “against” its “eternal standards”?

First of all, you speak of this as “nonsense.” By what standard? I remain confused by the extent to which you are actually endorsing cultural relativism.

Clearly these are highly specific applications of Church teaching, and there are complex issues involved. But it seems to me that this attitude indeed reflects a much clearer understanding of the Gospel than was shown when the Church either endorsed nationalistic border policing or saw itself as having the duty of opposing the freedom of other religions to spread within “Christian” territory. These are actually two different issues. You’re certainly right that the Church in the past would not have been happy with the opening of mosques in Christian territory, and would have called on Christian governments to oppose this. I’m much less sure about the more general immigrant issue, and there’s a difference here between the Church of the “throne and altar” period and/or the nationalistic era on the one hand, and the medieval Church on the other. I would actually say that when the Church has succumbed to nationalism it has shown precisely a *lack *of the healthy confidence for which you call. When dealing with Christian and largely Catholic immigration, as in the U.S., the Church is defending its own traditions and interests as well as the eternal moral law when it champions “illegal” immigrants against the forces of paranoid nationalism. When dealing with Muslim immigration in Europe the situation is obviously a bit more complicated.

 

[Contarini]

That’s how society was viewed. Period.

No, it’s not. Medieval Christians generally didn’t think in this consequentialist way. That’s a peculiarly modern heresy, as far as I can see.I find it highly ironic that you’re using the modern notions of consequentialism and cultural relativism to defend the Middle Ages, while I’m holding the Middle Ages to absolute moral standards, which is exactly what, in principle, medieval Christians would think we should do. Which of us is actually being faithful to the basic principles of medieval Christianity?

Find me where medieval Christians defended anything on the grounds of its being necessary, without first establishing that it was just.

Insofar as you find medieval people speaking of prudential considerations with regards to religious violence, it was their tolerant behavior that was governed by such considerations. Aquinas says that in principle non-Christians shouldn’t be tolerated in a Christian country, but in practice expelling them might have greater “inconveniences.” But medieval theologians would never have responded to an argument about justice and intrinsic morality by the paltry and pathetic excuse that the action in question was “necessary.” They only invoked prudential reasons when the issues of intrinsic morality had been resolved. Which is exactly the right way to proceed. Why not follow it?

And, of course, even if medieval people had reasoned the way you claim, that would be irrelevant to the moral argument I’m making. What kind of response is it to answer the claim “they ought not to have acted that way” with “well, that’s just how it was.”

What on Earth are you talking about?

The idea that you purify society by killing or expelling those who are identified as polluting it. Yes, that’s how the Old Testament works. Jesus took all our pollution on Himself. And not only did Jesus end forever the need for a ritual “expulsion of evil,” but He gave to us, His Body, the proper example for how to fight evil. Not through violence but through union with His saving Cross.

This is one of the many places where the Reformers were potentially on to something but then missed the boat. Late medieval Eucharistic faith and practice had come to be linked to scapegoating, and in that way had constituted a partial denial of the finality of Jesus’ sacrifice. (In other words, if you think “Jesus died a horrible death for our sins, so we should kill the Jews who were responsible for that death,” you have missed the point of Jesus’ sacrifice.) Luther, early on, talks about the problem of a Passion piety that results in hatred for the Jews. But of course Luther wound up affirming the anti-Jewish tradition in a disastrously memorable way, and more broadly the Protestants, in my opinion, at best distracted attention from the real problems with late medieval Christianity, and in some ways exacerbated those problems. (Well, maybe I’m a bit harsh–I’m working on a paper about one of the Protestant Reformers and just war, and reading quite a lot about Erasmus, and increasingly coming to the view that Luther’s Reformation was a fatal distraction from the program of moral and spiritual reform that was really needed.)

Don’t you talk down to me.

Instead of taking offense, show me where I am wrong. I see a fundamental contradiction in what you are arguing. I would be happy to find that I misunderstand you.

Yes the Church shaped our modern worldview. But it is absurd to just say that the Church always saw things by one way.

Of course. Which is why I have never said or implied any such thing.

A Catholic could have enthusiastically embraced the death penalty in the 1400s and to him it was perfectly reconciliable with the conept of sanctity of life. Today many Catholics, especially in Europe, would reject that view. Clearly the Church didn’t always think uniformly, despite having “eternal standards.”

Indeed. But you seem to think that that means that we can’t criticize the actions of Christians in the past. The logic of that escapes me. By your logic, how do you criticize the views of liberals (of whom you obviously disapprove) in the present?

This is simply factually incorrect. The Church did play in a delicate balance of power, but the state had more than enough power in most European realms to do what it wanted.

At no point before the Reformation could a civil ruler discount the Church as a political player (in fact, the Church remains a fairly significant political player even today–possibly the secular government of Ireland will manage to “do what it wants” now that the Church’s position has been seriously weakened, but that’s not a foregone conclusion in my opinion). If that’s what you mean by “doing what it wanted,” then you are the one who is simply wrong historically. If you don’t mean that, I’m not sure what you do mean.

The fact of it is, after the Reconquista

In other words, at the very end of what we normally call the Middle Ages. . . .

Isabella and Ferdinand had more than a significant amount of sway over Church affairs. It was the Papacy that had to recede, because it effectively did not want to lose all of its influence over the Church in Spain.

All I’m saying is that F & I also couldn’t afford simply to ignore or flout the Papacy. Yes, that’s a case where the monarchs had a lot of power over the Church. But even there, it wasn’t simply a case of them “doing what they wanted” with no regard for the Papacy.

Also, if we want to be entirely accurate, we shouldn’t speak of “Spain” as a unified nation at this point. Castile and Aragon had their own distinctive laws and political institutions, even though their rulers happened to be married to each other

 

[Contarini]

The French did the same thing.

Huge generalization–I’m not sure what period you’re talking about. The relationship between the Church and the various monarchs varied wildly throughout the Middle Ages.

While the Church may have had a lot of power in the wake of the collapse of Rome, the fact of it is that once kings began consolidating power, the Church’s influence was severely limited

Other way round if anything. The Church reasserted its power from the 11th century on.

Sure the Church had leeway. After all, in many cases, papal approval was necessary to gain legitimacy as a king in many cases. However, the state routinely ignored papal pronouncements as well. The Hundred Years’ War took place near at the height of Church power, just before the Protestant Reformation, and French kings already seemed to have strong power over the Church

The height of Church power, in the conventional historical estimate, was earlier than that–in the pontificate of Innocent III in the early 13th century. By the 14th century the monarchs were, as you say, consolidating their power. The HYW began during the Avignon papacy, when the French monarchy did have a lot of control over the Papacy. During the schism, the French supported one Pope and the English another.

You completely missed the point.

No, I didn’t. I was responding to your argument about the bubonic plague.

The Church throughout the Middle Ages, as well as the Renaissance, as well as up to the 20th century, really, firmly believed in itself. It could speak out, it would excommunicate even the highest officials when necessary

And this is where the fundamental contradiction within your argument appears.

You’ve just been arguing–in somewhat exaggerated and over-generalizing terms–that medieval monarchs could basically do whatever they wanted and the Church had to let them because it didn’t want to lose influence.

I can’t see any way to reconcile this with your original thesis as restated in the quotation above.

My point, on the other hand, is that the Church’s “confidence” was bound up with the use of the weapons of this world. That explains why the Church often was dependent on monarchs, and even when it confronted them it often did so by playing off vassals against their overlords or one monarch against another. Also, of course, the Church maintained direct rule over part of Italy, and in the wake of the Avignon “captivity” and the schism the Popes mounted serious military efforts to consolidate their own rule–this was one of the things that created the perception of a hopelessly corrupt papacy, since many Christians of the Renaissance found the spectacle of Popes riding around in armor to be fundamentally at odds with the divine mission of the Church.

As your own statements about medieval history indicate, your perception of a golden age when the Church didn’t have to make political calculations is simply inaccurate. It’s just that today the Church in the West is dealing with democratic governments and mass media, while in the Middle Ages it was dealing with monarchies and aristocracies primarily. If anything, I think the Church has more “confidence” in a healthy sense today, insofar as the Church is more willing to take its stand on the Gospel and let the chips fall where they may rather than playing political games.

while today it gives communion to “Christians” who routinely ignore Church pronouncements and commandments. Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy being denied Communion? No?

No, but some other politicians have been.

Because of the general malaise in confidence within the Church.

As compared to the Middle Ages, when according to you the civil rulers could do whatever they wanted? I don’t get it.

Fifty years ago they would have been excommunicated easily.

I don’t think that’s true. That is, I don’t think it’s true that the Church just went around excommunicating people without calculating the political consequences. Witness the fact that Hitler was never excommunicated–nor, as far as I know, were any of the other Catholics involved with fascism, some of whom, unlike Hitler, were practicing Catholics as adults. The Church made a choice, rightly or wrongly, to denounce Nazi racial ideology in slightly veiled terms while not provoking an all-out confrontation. And the Church was far more accommodating of other fascist movements, such as the Ustashe in Croatia or Franco in Spain.

I’m not bringing this up to trash the mid-20th-century Church. I’m just pointing out that your ideal Church that simply disregards political consequences has never existed.

Today they are merely ignored.

Hardly. I hear denunciations of such politicians all the time, and some bishops have in fact declared that they won’t give communion to pro-abortion politicians. Bishop D’Arcy refused to attend Obama’s speech at Notre Dame. That was not the act of a Church that lacked confidence. I don’t think your observations are accurate at all.

Technically doesn’t a person who votes for a pro-abortion candidate, for instance, receive* automatic excommunication*?

No. Certainly not.

Some Catholics claim that such a vote is always wrong, but it certainly does not carry automatic excommunication unless it is intended to facilitate abortion. A Catholic who votes for a “pro-choice” candidate because of that candidate’s positions on other issues, and/or in the belief that a liberal social agenda will reduce abortions, may be misguided or muddled, but does not incur excommunication.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So how do we look at those absolute, unchanging, tried and true, from the Church traditions when we examine Protestants and their stance on Birth Control, Abortion, Slavery and Homosexuality. Is their one voice from beginning to now that we can see as a stream of thought or does it waiver?

It wavers

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

It wavers

Edwin

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has not waivered. Your admission that it wavers is speaking of another entity. In consideration that what you speak of in all of this history is primarily about The One Church, there is no point to any of this history, since it does not include those that were not part of it, Anglican/Episcopalian or any form of Protestant thought. The history lesson about that entity is fascinating.

I am confident that my discussing the Confidence of Judaism, Athiesm, Polythiesm, Vegeterianism, or any other ism would be as useful.

Now I am convinced that by reading all of the Church Documents, all wrting from Rome as it regards these issues would shed light on the “confidence”. These statements would be indicative of your presumed ethereal notions that have value in the context of what you know and understand but not in light of what is written. Do not go beyond what is written, lest anyman boast.

 

[Contarini]

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has not waivered. Your admission that it wavers is speaking of another entity.

Actually many entities.

I was agreeing with you.

In consideration that what you speak of in all of this history is primarily about The One Church, there is no point to any of this history, since it does not include those that were not part of it, Anglican/Episcopalian or any form of Protestant thought. The history lesson about that entity is fascinating.

And that is what Fabius and I were talking about.

Protestants, including us Anglicans, are in fact imperfectly united to the Catholic Church, as Vatican II taught. The story of the medieval Church is certainly part of our story. However, that’s not really relevant. Fabius and I were talking about the history of the Catholic Church. I was agreeing with you that Protestant churches are completely lacking in “confidence” when it comes to standing up to cultural trends, or in any grounds for such “confidence.”

Now I am convinced that by reading all of the Church Documents, all wrting from Rome as it regards these issues would shed light on the “confidence”. These statements would be indicative of your presumed ethereal notions that have value in the context of what you know and understand but not in light of what is written. Do not go beyond what is written, lest anyman boast.

I’m not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean that only official documents matter and the historical record doesn’t, then you’re promoting a kind of gnostic religion that I find completely unconvincing and uninteresting. One can make a set of documents mean nearly anything one wants to, as Protestant treatment of Scripture shows. You don’t improve much on Protestantism by widening the relevant set of documents to include papal encyclicals, conciliar texts, etc.

Edwin