"Horrors" Commited By the RCC

[jay29]

First let me say to everyone I am a strong Catholic. However, I hear some people say that the RCC has a bloody past. I know about the Crusades. What other “horrible” things has the RCC done in history? I have no other idea, except the crusades, which somehow people just can’t get over espescially the muslims of course. I know the Reformation was bloody in England. The killing of RC priests was wonton. So the Protestants have no room to talk…

 

[I_Leatherman]

Around the time of the crusades the muslim empire was expanding towards and into europe, so, it was a question of, do you face them now? or do you wait and face them later when they have taken your state?
These questions concerned all of society not just the religous.

 

[steveandersen]

jay29:

First let me say to everyone I am a strong Catholic. However, I hear some people say that the RCC has a bloody past. I know about the Crusades. What other “horrible” things has the RCC done in history? I have no other idea, except the crusades, which somehow people just can’t get over espescially the muslims of course. I know the Reformation was bloody in England. The killing of RC priests was wonton. So the Protestants have no room to talk…

The Church is staffed with ordinary men and women who are products of their place and time and will act as such.

However, that being said, the wars, executions, etc often cited were, of course, for the most part carried out by civil authorities and not the Church.

While the Pope may have called for a crusade to reopen the Holy Land to pilgrims, the decisions made in the field were made by the various kings and nobles who were in command and not “the Church”.

 

[Lillith]

I am currently waiting on my brother to e-mail me some material that he read concerning the crusades and Pagans…

Apparently he has been dabbling with Pagan ideology…and is basically going to test it on me

I am ready. I have seen overinflated statistics…I have read Deuteronomy…bring it on.

 

[adnauseum]

jay29:

First let me say to everyone I am a strong Catholic. However, I hear some people say that the RCC has a bloody past. I know about the Crusades. What other “horrible” things has the RCC done in history? I have no other idea, except the crusades, which somehow people just can’t get over espescially the muslims of course. I know the Reformation was bloody in England. The killing of RC priests was wonton. So the Protestants have no room to talk…

You ought to leave it at that, the protestants have no room to talk.

They tortured and burned witches in the Salem witch trials quite recently, right here in America.

Moreover, protestants sided squarely with Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood when it was looking for help in defeating Catholic opposition to her eugenic movement in the 20th Century, and many protestants still do support Margaret Sanger’s agenda; thus they have a direct hand in the murderous rampage of abortion right here, right now.

The Crusades were launched to protecty the Holy Land, which was being literally ransacked and raped by muslims. You ought to be outraged that your protestant friends side with those who attacked the Holy Land.

 

[Thal59]

Jay29, you can be sure to hear the dreaded word… Inquisition!

But recently, a study of records both civil and from the court of the inquisition in Spain covering the entire 16th century show that about only 40-50 people were put to death for various charges by the court of the inquisition. Protestant sources will claim that the court of the inquisition in Spain tortured and murdered thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions! (It all depends on how anti-Catholic the Protestant source is.)

Of course, you will never hear a Protestant decrying the deaths of almost a quarter of a million peasents in Germany during the “Peasent Wars” (1523-1527ad) due to the inciting to violence by Martin Luther.

Thal59

 

[adnauseum]

Thal59:

But recently, a study of records both civil and from the court of the inquisition in Spain covering the entire 16th century show that about only 40-50 people were put to death for various charges by the court of the inquisition.

Right. The knee-jerk Inquisition/Crusades shibboleth is a product of modern liberalism; it’s a way to smear Catholics to draw attention away from the defects of liberalism, without having to give any specifics; protestants see it as an effective piece of propaganda so they use it too. This alone speaks volumes about the credibility and motivation of protestantism.

 

[Fidelis]

There are a few things you can say about the common charges about “Church” atrocities:

1. The usual topics are the Galileo affair, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. The most recent of these happened almost 500 years ago. If the worst things you can say about the Church was perpetrated by people dead and gone that long ago, I’d say the Church has done pretty good.
2. People who throw out these topics as conversation stoppers usually have no clue as to the real history of these things, but are merely repeating what other uninformed people (including teachers and film-makers) have told them. Without a proper context of political, cultural and societal conditions of the time, it is impossible to pass judgement on people hundreds of years and several cultures removed from us. In our more “enlightened” times we may have the luxury of hindsight, but you can’t judge those in the past on criteria they knew nothing about.
3. Take the time to educate yourself on the full story and don’t rely on one-sided biased historical accounts. Modern scholarship is finding that a lot of what has long been accepted as “facts” about these events, has actually been colored by centuries of anti-Catholic bias.

You might start by visiting the links below.

catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=inquisition&submit.x=24&submit.y=11

catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=crusade

.

 

[JimmyV]

jay29:

First let me say to everyone I am a strong Catholic. However, I hear some people say that the RCC has a bloody past. I know about the Crusades. What other “horrible” things has the RCC done in history? I have no other idea, except the crusades, which somehow people just can’t get over espescially the muslims of course. I know the Reformation was bloody in England. The killing of RC priests was wonton. So the Protestants have no room to talk…

Not only has the Church and her people been attacked over the years by the Moors and the protestants, let’s not forget the secularist governments. The French Revolution killed ??? priests, monks, nuns and other religious. Mexico has had a violent anti-cleric history. Then there has been the killing by Hitler, Stalin, the persecution in China (although in these three examples the killing has not exclusively been against the Church).

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

adnauseum:

You ought to leave it at that, the protestants have no room to talk.

They tortured and burned witches in the Salem witch trials quite recently, right here in America.

The Crusades were launched to protect the Holy Land, which was being literally ransacked and raped by muslims. You ought to be outraged that your protestant friends side with those who attacked the Holy Land.

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

1. No one accused of witchcraft at Salem was ever burned. We can’t say that about the Crusades where Jews, Muslilms, and even other Christians were burned inside their houses of worship, by Crusaders. I have found no objective source documenting torture of accused witches in Salem. If you have one, please provide it.

1a.) Most of those involved in the killing of those accused of witchcraft in this episode confessed that they were wrong and repented, themselves, in their own lifetime, they didn’t have someone else do it for them hundreds of years after the fact.

1b.) The Crusades lasted for over 200 years. The entire Salem witchcraft ‘episode’ lasted for approximately FOUR MONTHS.

1. Under most of the time of Muslim possession of the Holy Land (up until the First Crusade), pilgrims (and Jews) were left alone. In fact, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809) allowed Charlemagne to endow a hostel in Jerusalem for the use by pilgrim traffic.
   Travel to the Holy Land became perilous under a particular Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Hakim (c.996-1021), who abandoned the tolerant practices of his predecessors, and began to persecute Christians and Jews. Also, the decline of Byzantine power and Turkish civil wars made travel to Palestine dangerous as well. The notion that Muslim control of the Holy Land was nothing more than ‘ransacking and raping’ is a gross oversimplification.
2. Since when does conducting a war and killing ‘the accursed’ as Urban II termed the Muslim, merit an indulgence?
3. I find the attempt to distance the papacy from the the atrocities committed during the Crusades to be laughable. Urban II essentially instructs the faithful at Claremont to stop killing each other in Europe and go kill in the Holy Land. He knew they were ‘warring’, he knew of the damage that armies on the move caused. To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade.
4. Since when is the Kingdom of Christ advanced by the sword?

Protestants have ‘no room to talk’ because they need to repent of their own sins. The same can be said of Catholics as well. Pointing out another denominations’ failures to adhere to Christian behavior is not a defense. It’s a device to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes.

Peace,
Richard

 

[steveandersen]

Richard_Hurtz:

… To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade…

I never said that the actions of the laity were unforeseeable…I just said that they were the actions of the laity.

I still don’t see how what someone did 900 years ago is relevant to contemporary criticisms or how the actions of individuals (regardless of how high or low they were in the organization) somehow is the entire organizations fault for ever and ever.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

steveandersen:

I still don’t see how what someone did 900 years ago is relevant to contemporary criticisms or how the actions of individuals (regardless of how high or low they were in the organization) somehow is the entire organizations fault for ever and ever.

The Church’s motto is Semper Idem - “Always the Same” is it not?

One of the favorite claims of Catholics is that their church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Entrusted by Him as His Bride without ‘spot or blemish’. And you can’t understand why people can’t seem to ‘let go’ of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other events, or scandals?

My guess is that most non-Catholics, after realizing what the RCC claims, ask the question: “Does the RCC comport itself in accordance with its claims? What evidence is there to support its claims?” Isn’t that a fair question for people considering the claims of the RCC? In my mind, that’s emminently fair.

You don’t mind if someone looks into the claims of the RCC and despite some of the history decides its claims are true do you?

So is it the questioning of the history or the conclusion that some people reach that’s frustrating?

Peace,
Richard

 

[I_Leatherman]

Umm…Who did God choose to be the first of the Apostles and also Pope - the man who was interested enough to pull out a sword in the presence of the Roman occupying army and attack, in order to defend Christ.
This imperfect, courageous man was the first choice of the ‘Semper Idem’ All Perfect All Powerful God.

 

[Fidelis]

Richard_Hurtz:

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

1. No one accused of witchcraft at Salem was ever burned. We can’t say that about the Crusades where Jews, Muslilms, and even other Christians were burned inside their houses of worship, by Crusaders. I have found no objective source documenting torture of accused witches in Salem. If you have one, please provide it.

1a.) Most of those involved in the killing of those accused of witchcraft in this episode confessed that they were wrong and repented, themselves, in their own lifetime, they didn’t have someone else do it for them hundreds of years after the fact.

1b.) The Crusades lasted for over 200 years. The entire Salem witchcraft ‘episode’ lasted for approximately FOUR MONTHS.

1. Under most of the time of Muslim possession of the Holy Land (up until the First Crusade), pilgrims (and Jews) were left alone. In fact, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (763-809) allowed Charlemagne to endow a hostel in Jerusalem for the use by pilgrim traffic.
   Travel to the Holy Land became perilous under a particular Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Hakim (c.996-1021), who abandoned the tolerant practices of his predecessors, and began to persecute Christians and Jews. Also, the decline of Byzantine power and Turkish civil wars made travel to Palestine dangerous as well. The notion that Muslim control of the Holy Land was nothing more than ‘ransacking and raping’ is a gross oversimplification.
2. Since when does conducting a war and killing ‘the accursed’ as Urban II termed the Muslim, merit an indulgence?
3. I find the attempt to distance the papacy from the the atrocities committed during the Crusades to be laughable. Urban II essentially instructs the faithful at Claremont to stop killing each other in Europe and go kill in the Holy Land. He knew they were ‘warring’, he knew of the damage that armies on the move caused. To claim that the actions of the ‘laity’ were somehow unforeseeable is disingenuous in the extreme especially after the First Crusade.
4. Since when is the Kingdom of Christ advanced by the sword?

Protestants have ‘no room to talk’ because they need to repent of their own sins. The same can be said of Catholics as well. Pointing out another denominations’ failures to adhere to Christian behavior is not a defense. It’s a device to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes.

Peace,
Richard

All very good questions, Richard. I recommend you visit the links I provided above as well as the one below and, with an open mind, read what you find without giving undue weight to any preconceptions you might have. I believe you will find answers to all these questions and more.

Blessings,
fidelis

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0056.html

 

[scylla]

I believe there is really no defense for horrors commited by Catholics or Protestants, or even sins commited by ancient Catholics.

What this amounts to though is intellectual dishonesty which many people use to not look at the Church in an objective manner. If I can use this as an excuse to reject becoming Catholic somehow I can hide my true intentions not of following Christ anywhere and leave the Catholic Church.

What matters is really whether the Church is the Church Jesus Christ established and if it is the truth. You will always find big sinners in every Church, but the Church isn’t founded on man.

So just because of a sinning Catholic does that change the truth that abortion is wrong? Some Churches think it is or isn’t. Is divorce and remarriage wrong of course! But some Churches accept it without hesitation and the Catholic Church doesn’t.

So does sin’s commited by even Popes change the truth? Look into it, sure Catholics sin, we all do. That doesn’t change truth.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

I Leatherman:

Umm…Who did God choose to be the first of the Apostles and also Pope - the man who was interested enough to pull out a sword in the presence of the Roman occupying army and attack, in order to defend Christ.
This imperfect, courageous man was the first choice of the ‘Semper Idem’ All Perfect All Powerful God.

I find this a poor choice of prooftexting.

Isn’t that the same imperfect man who also tried to prevent the Christ’s sacrifice (Mt. 16:22) doesn’t Christ rebuke him also (v. 23) calling him ‘Satan’?

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Mt. 26:52)

Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (Jn 18:11)

And in John’s Gospel: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

But you seem to be implying that Peter’s actions regarding drawing the sword on the Mount of Olives is somehow laudable.
If so, why does Jesus reprove him for it?

Bringing this back on topic, if Jesus reproves Peter for drawing his sword and says that His kingdom is not of this world (i.e. like Earthly kings, with territory and Earthly riches) how does your citation bolster your case which ties back to the original issue of justifying the Crusades?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Richard_Hurtz:

One of the favorite claims of Catholics is that their church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Entrusted by Him as His Bride without ‘spot or blemish’. And you can’t understand why people can’t seem to ‘let go’ of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other events, or scandals?

My guess is that most non-Catholics, after realizing what the RCC claims, ask the question: “Does the RCC comport itself in accordance with its claims? What evidence is there to support its claims?” Isn’t that a fair question for people considering the claims of the RCC? In my mind, that’s emminently fair.

You don’t mind if someone looks into the claims of the RCC and despite some of the history decides its claims are true do you?

So is it the questioning of the history or the conclusion that some people reach that’s frustrating?

Peace,
Richard

I’ve no trouble at all accepting that people in the Church
have done atrocious things in the name of the Church. But that isn’t the Church, who is indeed, by Christ’s insistence, His spotless Bride. For example, I think it’s egregious that Pius IX took that Jewish boy child away from his parents when the maid or nurse baptized him (the law of the Papal states at the time allowed him to do so, but I think it’s a violation of a higher law, the natural law). That doesn’t, however, violate the impeccability of the Church, because that’s protected by Christ.

 

[adnauseum]

Richard_Hurtz:

You ought to get your ‘facts’ straight.

Yes, of course, the Salem Witch Trials were short lived.

But is it not a fact that protestant “christians” proactively aligned with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood?

That’s a yes or no question, and I notice you avoided answering it.

Deep down, I suspect you know how much blood is on your hands in the VERY RECENT past.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Fidelis:

All very good questions, Richard. I recommend you visit the links I provided above as well as the one below and, with an open mind, read what you find without giving undue weight to any preconceptions you might have. I believe you will find answers to all these questions and more.

Blessings,
fidelis

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0056.html

Thanks for the links.

I don’t see anything in any of them that disproves my assertion that no witches were burned during the Salem “witch hunt”. In fact the one link that had any mention of “witch burning” seemed to be completely silent regarding the Americas.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[adnauseum]

Richard_Hurtz:

Thanks for the links.

I don’t see anything in any of them that disproves my assertion that no witches were burned during the Salem “witch hunt”. In fact the one link that had any mention of “witch burning” seemed to be completely silent regarding the Americas.

Blessings,
Richard

I love the irony of a protestant hurling the old Inquisition/Crusades shibboleth, and then getting all technical about how the Salem Witch Trials, which every schoolboy learns about, were just a big misunderstanding.