Defending the Church's History

[FightingFat]

One thing I often get stumped on is defending the History of the Church insofaras someone claiming it has been involved in persecution of other groups, I’m sure you know the sort of thing I mean- ‘The Church is responsible for more bloodshed…’ etc, etc. Normally I would answer that man’s interference and thirst for power does not alter the simple message the Church teaches, the message of the Gospel.

Can anyone offer some help and advice?

 

[mlchance]

FightingFat:

One thing I often get stumped on is defending the History of the Church insofaras someone claiming it has been involved in persecution of other groups, I’m sure you know the sort of thing I mean- ‘The Church is responsible for more bloodshed…’ etc, etc. Normally I would answer that man’s interference and thirst for power does not alter the simple message the Church teaches, the message of the Gospel.

Best tactic: Own up to what is true. Yes, members of the Church have at times committed crimes against others. No argument.

But, don’t own up what isn’t true. For example, “'The Church is responsible for more bloodshed…” is not a claim that can be credibly help up when considering the carnage atheists were responsible for in Communist countries in just the 20th century.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[stellina]

Be careful about owning up, as the last poster put it. Yes, we should be following the Holy Father’s lead in admitting wrongdoings by Christians/Catholics throughout history (something I personally find very difficult to do, but that’s my problem), but we also need to make it clear that in many cases, the wrongdoers were in reality acting OUTSIDE the Christian faith. They were not following the commands of their own faith or misinterpreting and twisting it to suit their own purposes. What Christ gave us in terms of our faith and the institution is perfect: it is mortal individuals who fail it.

 

[JimG]

Read H.W. Crocker III’s Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a one volume history. Here is a review.

 

[Steve_M]

JimG:

Read H.W. Crocker III’s Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a one volume history. Here is a review.

This is the text book for a Church History class I’m currently taking. I’ll give it a second recomendation. It’s a very easy read and very informative.

 

[RobedWithLight]

FightingFat:

One thing I often get stumped on is defending the History of the Church insofaras someone claiming it has been involved in persecution of other groups, I’m sure you know the sort of thing I mean- ‘The Church is responsible for more bloodshed…’ etc, etc. Normally I would answer that man’s interference and thirst for power does not alter the simple message the Church teaches, the message of the Gospel.

Can anyone offer some help and advice?

While we do not deny that there have been excesses in the past, yet we should as a start ask** them** for incontrovertible historical evidence that the Church, THE institutional Church is indeed responsible for such bloodshed, rather than the mere actions of some misguided and overzealous elements within her. Normally they would mention the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, the top two favorite whipping boys by these critics. Too often, history is selectively distorted to fit their own interpretations, while the true historical context of the events are conveniently ignored.

Likewise, they are often curiously evasive and silent when confronted with clear evidence of Atheist[Communist], Protestant and Moslem persecutions of Catholics.

Gerry

 

[retina_md]

For those Protestants who insist that the Church as been an instrument of inhuman and immoral behavior should read a bit about their own Protestant history. Their history is not spotless.

 

[Annunciata]

JimG:

Read H.W. Crocker III’s Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, a one volume history. Here is a review.

I’m reading it now…appreciate the review. Annunciata

 

[csr]

Your Protestant friends won’t believe you, and neither will your Catholic friends, but the Church has always been right. It was right that Galileo was wrong, it was right to oppose an end to monarchy, it was right to encourage a society guided by the faith. The real challenge is to convince yourself: you probably feel embarrassed at Catholic rulers who chased away Jews and Muslims, for example: and yet what is really wrong with trying to have a territory under the true Faith? Does it really help us that people with heretical and unChristian ideas actually vote? I don’t think so. Americanism runs deep, and yet it is a heresy. The ‘separation of church and state’ is really an attempt to keep the Church marginalized. I think the sun goes around the earth, I think we were created, and I think government must affirm and uphold a Christian society. In recent centuries the Church has gradually been caving, in dribs and drabs–and more recently in torrents–to the World. She now tries to collaborate and cooperate, but she is highly ineffective. Holy Mother Church needs secular helpers: priests and religious can’t do everything by themselves. And how could it be otherwise? Just as God wishes to work through His creatures–which glorifies and challenges us in so many ways–so it is that the sacraments are not magic potions that transform society: people must act in all walks of life to protect and promote the Church.

 

[st_julie]

A truly great book that helps us understand a more recent history is Roy Shoemans’ book “Salvation is from the Jews”. Revisionist history tries to connect applied Christianity to the Holocaust when in fact it was applied Darwinism. He makes tho 20th century make sense to Christians and helps us understand certain Arab leaders better.

st julie

 

[PilgrimJWT]

csr:

Your Protestant friends won’t believe you, and neither will your Catholic friends, but the Church has always been right. It was right that Galileo was wrong, I think the sun goes around the earth…She now tries to collaborate and cooperate, but she is highly ineffective…

If the Church has always been right, like about the geocentric theory as you say the Church was, it is no wonder it is not taken seriously!
But fortunately that view of the Church is not taken seriously by most of us.

 

[hecd2]

Imagine how someone rabid in favour of a misconception of Catholocism can do vastly more harm than good. Read this:

csr:

It was right that Galileo was wrong, it was right to oppose an end to monarchy, it was right to encourage a society guided by the faith. The real challenge is to convince yourself: you probably feel embarrassed at Catholic rulers who chased away Jews and Muslims, for example: and yet what is really wrong with trying to have a territory under the true Faith? Does it really help us that people with heretical and unChristian ideas actually vote? I don’t think so.

PilgrimJWT:

If the Church has always been right, like about the geocentric theory as you say the Church was, it is no wonder it is not taken seriously!
But fortunately that view of the Church is not taken seriously by most of us.

Quite so. Not to mention CSR’s deification of monarchy, his or her disgusting apology for the ethnic cleansing of the Iberian peninsula by Ferdinand and Isabella under the policy of ‘limpieza de sangre’ (cleaning of the blood), and the idea that the suffrage in a modern state should be limited to ‘Christians’. Disgraceful. Nuff said.

Alec
www,.evolutionpages.com

 

[SteveT]

I don’t agree with CSR, however, I have found it very useful to turn the tables when it comes to debating the Inquisition in particular. Pose a question to your Protestant friends: Ask them if they support the death penalty. (I’ve yet to meet an Evangelical who doesn’t). Now ask, “which crime is greater: depriving somebody of their earthly life, or by teaching heresy and deceiving somebody, depriving them of their eternal life?” Answer to that one is obvious

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mt 10:28

Now, if promoting heresy is the greater crime, and we punish murderers with death, what is the right punishment for heretics?

You see, the logic followed by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc., for centuries and centuries is easy to follow and hard to refute. If you take eternity seriously, how do you make a case to tolerate heresy? That case can be made, in a Christian framework (that was the major accomplishment of John Locke’s works), but it isn’t easy or obvious, and not one in a hundred Protestants (or, sadly, Catholics either) that I’ve run across can make that case. IMHO, to look down our noses at folks who lived before Locke is a kind of chronological snobbery, and running through these questions helps us respect those people who behaved the way they did. I respect them for how seriously they took matters of faith - it stands in stark contrast to the relativism we’ve all become accustomed to - even if, in hindsight, their methods were wrong.

 

[dream_wanderer]

I usually ask my American friends if they are patriotic Americans. The evangelical/fundamentalists usually are. I ask them how can they support a country that tortured and enslaved blacks, destroyed the Native culture and put American citizens of Japanese descent into interment camps?

We can usually start a dialogue from there. The idea of America is greater than its sins. The concepts of equality under the law and all the freedoms granted us are higher and better than the wrong doing of some individual Americans.

The Deposit of Faith and the Promises Christ gave to His church are greater than the wrongs done by certain individuals who may have been acting in the name of the Church but upon closer examination they were not of the church at all. They were imposters out for their own agendas…much like those Americans who saw nothing wrong with slavery, attempted genocide and unlawful imprisonment and did things that went against the American ideals.

dream wanderer

 

[Cherubino]

Which side was “America” during the Civil War, and when St. John of the Cross was imprisoned by the Inquisition, who ws “the Church”? Labels are approximate and tentative. What we call “facts” are actually sentences, though these are often mistaken for the phenomena they attempt to describe.

 

[tru_dvotion]

One thing I often get stumped on is defending the History of the Church insofaras someone claiming it has been involved in persecution of other groups, I’m sure you know the sort of thing I mean- ‘The Church is responsible for more bloodshed…’ etc, etc. Normally I would answer that man’s interference and thirst for power does not alter the simple message the Church teaches, the message of the Gospel.

You may like the following articles:

The Real Inquisition Investigating the popular myth By Thomas F. Madden
****nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition By Thomas F. Madden.
www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

---

**Crusade Myths ** THOMAS F. MADDEN
****catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0057.html

---

**Those Terrible Middle Ages! Debunking the Myths - a book review HELEN M. **VALOIS
****catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0041.html

 

[ISABUS]

As a Catholic it is unbelieveable to me how many people, including Catholics, preach incorrect information about ‘the Church’. It would be wise to do some extensive research about what the Vatican has said prior to posting. It is a known fact that many websites that claim to be ‘catholic’ are filled with lies.

Also, ‘the Church’ is made up of a billion Catholics. It would be nice to be specific as to when and who in the Church did what or said what rather than including me. I’d appreciate it since some of the information presented is out-dated or not factual at all.

Thanks

 

[tru_dvotion]

As a Catholic it is unbelieveable to me how many people, including Catholics, preach incorrect information about ‘the Church’. It would be wise to do some extensive research about what the Vatican has said prior to posting. It is a known fact that many websites that claim to be ‘catholic’ are filled with lies.
Also, ‘the Church’ is made up of a billion Catholics. It would be nice to be specific as to when and who in the Church did what or said what rather than including me. I’d appreciate it since some of the information presented is out-dated or not factual at all.

Thanks

I agree with you. THAT would be nice! We can dream…

 

[hecd2]

SteveT:

I don’t agree with CSR, however, I have found it very useful to turn the tables when it comes to debating the Inquisition in particular. Pose a question to your Protestant friends: Ask them if they support the death penalty. (I’ve yet to meet an Evangelical who doesn’t). Now ask, “which crime is greater: depriving somebody of their earthly life, or by teaching heresy and deceiving somebody, depriving them of their eternal life?” Answer to that one is obvious

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mt 10:28

Now, if promoting heresy is the greater crime, and we punish murderers with death, what is the right punishment for heretics?

You see, the logic followed by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc., for centuries and centuries is easy to follow and hard to refute. If you take eternity seriously, how do you make a case to tolerate heresy? That case can be made, in a Christian framework (that was the major accomplishment of John Locke’s works), but it isn’t easy or obvious, and not one in a hundred Protestants (or, sadly, Catholics either) that I’ve run across can make that case. IMHO, to look down our noses at folks who lived before Locke is a kind of chronological snobbery, and running through these questions helps us respect those people who behaved the way they did. I respect them for how seriously they took matters of faith - it stands in stark contrast to the relativism we’ve all become accustomed to - even if, in hindsight, their methods were wrong.

Any logic that considers murder as a less serious crime than disagreeing with a favourite theology is morally bankrupt. Any logic that has the consequence of killing people for their religious, philosophical or political beliefs is fundamentally and utterly evil, is evil now and has always been evil. Any philosophy that applies bodily, or even worse, mortal sanctions, to what people can and cannot believe religiously or philosophically, is utterly reprehensible. I have no respect for people who engaged in the past, or who engage now, in this sort of nauseating and cowardly bullying and I think your apology for them is deeply ill-advised. I completely reject your limp excuse of chronological snobbery. Who would give a tinker’s cuss for a soul ‘saved’ by fear of the strappado? Is this the relationship between man and creator that we are called to celebrate? What is the value of man’s acquiescence to God, if it is bought by the terror of fire and sharp metal?

My thinking is proudly heretical when it comes to the Catholic deposit of faith. Would you then put me on the rack and burn me to death for the way I think? Look me in the eye and say that. You will understand the disgust and contempt in which I hold your ‘logic’.

By the way, your strawman that all protestants support the death penalty is an egregious case of poisoning the well. Your sort of argument and logic are simply nasty. I hope you do not really think this way and that you are merely engaging in technical debate - if you really think this way, then heaven help your soul.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[yinekka]

hecd2, in post 12 you said Quite so. [ethnic cleansing of the Iberian peninsula by Ferdinand and Isabella under the policy of ‘limpieza de sangre’ (cleaning of the blood), and the idea that the suffrage in a modern state should be limited to ‘Christians’*

Could you please give me your sources for your post.

Thank you