How to Answer for Church's Past Crimes

[PrincepsAuguste]

What do you mean, “reconcile”? Reconcile the fact that we sin and God doesn’t?

To have something to reconcile, there would have to be a Church teaching that says “Catholics don’t sin” but the Church teaches the opposite, long and loud. Or a teaching that says “Catholics always follow Church teaching.” Same answer.

Perhaps I don’t understand the question. What would the Church look like if there was no contradictions as you call them?

Good point. But still, shouldn’t we have ready answers when people say, “Well, your church sold indulgences and seats as Cardinals?” I suppose the purpose of this thread is for people to think about these things and think about the past sins of the church so they aren’t caught off guard when these things are brought up.

By far the worst part for me is considering the past issues in the papacy. These are men we believe were appointed by the Holy Spirit as successors of Jesus’s hand picked disciple, Jesus. Yet, they bought their way into the job by wealth and family connections (Leo X’s birth family? The Medici’s, who we all remember from history class).

Valid arguments have been raised about all of the inquisitions, and it’s an interesting argument to raise by saying that the actions of the past are partially reduced in severity when considered in the light of the social standards of the time.

 

[snarflemike]

Good point. But still, shouldn’t we have ready answers when people say, “Well, your church sold indulgences and seats as Cardinals?” I suppose the purpose of this thread is for people to think about these things and think about the past sins of the church so they aren’t caught off guard when these things are brought up.

By far the worst part for me is considering the past issues in the papacy. These are men we believe were appointed by the Holy Spirit as successors of Jesus’s hand picked disciple, Jesus. Yet, they bought their way into the job by wealth and family connections (Leo X’s birth family? The Medici’s, who we all remember from history class).

Valid arguments have been raised about all of the inquisitions, and it’s an interesting argument to raise by saying that the actions of the past are partially reduced in severity when considered in the light of the social standards of the time.

I understand why you asked the question, but really, the fact that Catholics, even priests and bishops and popes, sin, and sin gravely, merely substantiates Catholic teaching. All of us (even Judas!) have the free will which can result in great evil as well as great good.

It occurs to me that this question once again boils down to the “question of evil”. If God is all good and all powerful, why do Catholics and Catholic leaders commit evil? So the real answer here is the answer to the question of evil. At least that would be the answer for atheists.

When Protestants bring up these issues, I have to wonder if they have absorbed the message of the Gospel at all. They judge the Catholic faith by Catholic sinners? Do they judge the Protestant faith by Protestant sinners? Do they judge Jesus by the apostles, and the apostles by Judas?

 

[TheDoctor]

…the Church’s history it can be hard to reconcile its modern mission with its deeds of the past millennia. With that in mind, how best can a Catholic educate himself to defend the modern church for the crimes of the past?

First, you have to correct this error. The Church has never committed crimes and therefore She does not need to be defended. Weak people within the Church have committed crimes and sinned greatly, even those in the highest of office, but the Church is Holy and pure.

Is the United States guilty of crimes for the way native Americans were treated or does that guilt fall on the individuals who organized and supported it? Is the South guilty of slavery or is it those in the South who supported it? Is the German government guilty of the Holocaust or the Nazi’s who perpetrated it?

My point is that a 2,000 year old institution of over 1 billion people all over the world with “very low” entrance requirements (e.g. baptism) is going to have individuals over the centuries who do horrible things. Name me one institution that has not. But the Church, the living Body of Christ, is guilty of no crime.

Second, you ask the people making the claims against “the Church” to back up their claims with facts. For example, if memory serves me right the Church has never burned heretics. Governments and Kings have ordered the killing of heretics. See this thread for example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186384

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Spanish Inquisition was condemed by the Holy See

Do you have a citation for this or quote from the Pope?

 

[sedonaman]

That’s unethical, if rape, murder, killing the infidels, and wars were ok at past times, that doesn’t make them ethical, of course it’s ok to judge these actions even if they were from history. There were people in past times who did ethical things, behaved good and avoided doing any harm even that it was acceptable in their societies to do the opposite, anyone can be ethical in whatever period of time and whatever the laws and the societies they’re living in were bad.
Imagine anyone saying "don’t judge the crimes against humanity in other corners of earth because their standards are different to ours. "

You are forgetting that Christians who committed those rapes, murder, etc. were acting in direct opposition to Christian principles; Muslims were acting in imitation of Mohammed, the perfect Muslim. Since Christian doctrine does not call for those crimes, how is it responsible and Islam is not? And don’t use that tired old non-argument of, “I’m not concerned with what others do. I am holding Christianity to higher standards.”

The stereotyped image is, again, the opposite of the truth.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I suggest looking up the just war doctrine and reading up the history of Islam regarding the crusades. I would say that in some cases pacifism is a moral evil.

 

[sedonaman]

I suggest looking up the just war doctrine and reading up the history of Islam regarding the crusades. I would say that in some cases pacifism is a moral evil.

I can see that, especially appeasement.

 

[JOD]

Facts.

I have just done a little searching relative to the Inquisition. There is an ex-priest named Richard Bennett who is a “Calvinist.” Frankly, I had succumbed to the popular perception of what the Inquisition was. Apparently, the Inquisitioners kept very complete records which give the lie to that perception.

I also encountered some fundamentalist propaganda about the role of the Catholic Church in creating and running this ungodly activity. A number of statements caught my interest. One of the accusers stated that “as many as 50 million people” may have been involved in this outrageous un-Christianlike behavior. It is estimated that in 1066, the population of the entire world was about 220 million. Let us estimate that it doubled at the start of the Inquisition, so that would mean that 1 in 8 persons would have experienced fun times with the Inquisitors. Just not credible.

The above-mentioned ex-priest alleges that the Catholic Church sought eliminate the believers in the Bible–like anyone who wanted to could own their own Bibles and could read. First of all, only a small percentage of people could read. That was why clerks came into existence–to read and write for the powerful. Also, all Bibles were written by hand at that time, so Bibles were very rare and much valued. Several years ago, someone commissioned the production of a Bible as it was produced by the monks prior to the invention of the printing press. The price for one book: $3.5 million dollars. So I seriously doubt that there were many people sitting around with Bible in hand and talking…

BTW, it you want a dose of vitriol, check out some of the allegations made by the nut jobs.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

One subject that is surprisingly lacking on this forum is the discussion of dark spots in the history of the Catholic Church. There are many contradictions between modern church teaching and the actual behavior of the Church in its history. I will list a few here:

1. The Church’s modern understanding of capital punishment as an undesirable solution for crime is undermined by its burnings and executions of heretics and other opposition in centuries past.

This is a post from DCDUREL on March 4, 2007 from the thread INQUISITION as I believe it is pertinent to your post:

It was not the Catholic Church that persecuted heretics, it was the governments of France and Spain. Teachings that come to us from Jesus do not mandate persecution, torture and death.
It is a long story, but in short, some heretical groups in France, including a lot of Catholic priests, began teaching that marriage was evil and suicide was good. Thus, men left their families, who then were brought to poverty and starvation. Then the men lived in fornication, since that was not marriage, and it was not evil like marriage. They also promoted suicide. These were the Illuminati, the Albigensians and others.
The Pope urged the bishops to put a clamp on these teachings since they were gravely harming society, putting the ex-families, the women and children of these men into poverty and starvation and then the men were urged to commit suicide. While the Church in Europe, as always, allowed freedom of religion, within reason, these groups went outside of reason because they were causing innocent women and children to be abandoned to poverty and starvation, and because they were promoting suicide.
The bishops refused to do anything, and instead protected the heretics, of whom were many Catholic priests. After many years and inaction by the bishops, the Pope urged the government to force the heretics out the country, to protect families and society. Finally after many years, the governments began to do this. Naturally, the heretics rebelled, and in cities where they had their strongholds, they fought against the governments. And since they looked just like other citizens, they infiltrated the government and others became traitors. The government responded by picking up the old pagan practice of torture, to find out who the traitors were. And if the traitors were found they would be put to death. Of course, the Church had always said the state had the right to use the death penalty for serious offenses, and the governments thought being a traitor was certainly a serious offense. The Church NEVER permitted torture and never authorized such horrible methods.
Nevertheless, the government officials felt they did not have to listen to the Church, they could do what they wanted. So they tortured. But of course, those tortured said anything the government wanted to hear and they implicated lots of innocent people, who would be put to death. So others thought of using Church scholars to find out who was really a heretic, or a traitor opposing the government, so that innocent people would not be put to death. That was the beginnings of the inquisition in France. The government used Church theologians to see who was really a subversive traitor, then the government would put them to death or torture them if they did not repent. Many more people were set free this way when the vast majority of the accused were found innocent. The Church could not refuse to cooperate, because then more accused innocent people were put to death. The Church opposed the torture, but she could not oppose the use of the death penalty for being a traitor, because she taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty in certain situations. All the Popes could do was urge that it be used as the last resort, as little as possible. The Popes urged the rescue of many as possible from these government thugs.
But, of course, the enemies of the Church today, who are not exactly known as being bastions of the truth, simply shorted the whole story to that “the Catholic Church, in an effort to discover heretics, tortured those who dissented and put them to death, simply because the heretics did not believe all Church teachings”.
Not exactly the truth, is it?
This is the version that many still believe today.

 

[MPat]

One subject that is surprisingly lacking on this forum is the discussion of dark spots in the history of the Catholic Church. There are many contradictions between modern church teaching and the actual behavior of the Church in its history. I will list a few here:

1. The Church’s modern understanding of capital punishment as an undesirable solution for crime is undermined by its burnings and executions of heretics and other opposition in centuries past.
2. The modern example of popes as humble shepherds of the Catholic church is undermined by the behavior of popes during the height of the Church’s power in Renaissance times, when rich families bought seats as cardinals and, once Pope, abused its power and wealth as a tool for nation building. These popes created dynasties and corrupted the purpose of the papacy by carting money to cardinals in advance of Conclave in order to insure a “desirable” transition. These were the same popes who sold indulgences for the reduction of temporal punishment. It was not until the Reformation that the higher level clergy realized that the Church was collapsing around their ears due to their decadent attitudes.

Pope Leo X said, “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it,” to his relative after being made pope. This sums up the sad state of the chair of St. Peter during that era.

1. The Crusades. Many will note that while Benedict XVI emphasizes strongly a stance of peace in all foreign affairs matters (this was his recent proclamation about Syria), the history of the Church seems to show that it has not always been so friendly to a mission of worldwide peace. While I personally believe there is a good case to justify the Crusades, I am looking to see if others have any good arguments in defense of them.
2. Finally, the most recent debacle in Church history, the sex abuse scandal, where a minority priests have been revealed as child molesters, and the Church’s reaction has been woefully slow. Keep in mind that studies have shown that as little as 4% or so of priests have been accused substantially of these crimes, a percentage which is very close to the rate among ALL American men, indicating that the priesthood is no more a haven for pedophiles, than, for example, teaching or sports coaching.

Many people may recognize the beauty and greatness of the church, but when they recall what they have learned about the Church’s history it can be hard to reconcile its modern mission with its deeds of the past millennia. With that in mind, how best can a Catholic educate himself to defend the modern church for the crimes of the past?

Well, first of all, we shouldn’t forget that we won’t get a fair comparison if we will compare the Church at its worst with the secular society (or anything else) at its best. We should compere the best with the best, the worst with the worst or the corresponding.

For example, Inquisition should be compared with other courts of that time (and Inquisition had a better reputation) or with Gestapo, CheKa/GPU/OGPO/NKVD/KGB or French Revolutionary Tribunals. Crusades can be compared with WW2 - or many other wars. Leo X can be compared with many kings, dictators and politicians.

I suspect that after such comparisons the “contradictions” won’t look that bad…

 

[JOD]

This is why I have become an avid supporter of separation of Church and State. History has shown that theocracies are bad, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, etc., Perhaps I should stop here, but I won’t.

I was an altar boy for over a decade (no, I was never molested so you can keep on reading). The first time I served at a wedding, I was surprised that the preist, in full vestments and on the altar of a church, stated “by the power invested in me by the state of ______, I now pronounce you man and wife.” In essence, the priest was acting as an agent of the government which seemed to fly in the face of keeping Church and State separated.

This has relevance to one of the great debates going on in our country today–marriage. The fact is that the institution has changed, significantly, with the passage of time. For example, my great-grandfather got married in the second half of the 19th Century. In order to get a wedding license, he had to post a bond. My guess is that in the days before Social Security a husband was required to assure the welfare of any children prior to being allowed to be married.

Marriage today has both a civil and a religious/traditional component. In marrying a couple, the priest is changing the civil status of the couple. They are taxed at a different rate, they have different Social Security benefits, they have different inheritance rights, etc.

I would like the United States to adopt the European model where there is a civil ceremony on the first day and, if the couple wishes, a religious/traditional ceremony the next. This would also be the solution to the gay marriage debate. The civil ceremony would be the same no matter what the genders of the couples were and the license would be the same. As was stated when segregation was struck down, separate is inherently not equal. The religious/traditional would remain unchanged except that the priest would no longer invoke the authority of the state as the basis of the marriage.

When the Church and the State are too integrated, one or the other tends to “use” the other, as has been demonstrated throughout history. Christ’s admonition to “Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar’s; render unto God the things that are God’s” has relevance today.

Obviously, I think all citizens should have the same rights under the civil law. The argument that gay marriage would endanger traditional marriage simply does not make sense to me.:newidea::newidea:

 

[JOD]

Good point! Had not thought of it myself, so appreciate your insight. However, from what I have read, most of what we have been brainwashed with about the Inquisition is bovine excrement promoted by those who hate the Church.

 

[sedonaman]

This is why I have become an avid supporter of separation of Church and State. …

You cannot separate church and state. Church is the conscience of the state. This idea of separation has led to some bizzaro notions like Catholics should leave their religion outside the voting place. Are Catholics two persons? I think not. We might even mention here that the idea that all are created equal is a Christian one that led to the abolition of slavery.

I was an altar boy for over a decade … The first time I served at a wedding, I was surprised that the preist, in full vestments and on the altar of a church, stated “by the power invested in me by the state of ______, I now pronounce you man and wife.” In essence, the priest was acting as an agent of the government which seemed to fly in the face of keeping Church and State separated.

This is a weird conclusion because it is true that the priest is empowered by the state to perform marriage ceremonies.

… The fact is that the institution has changed, significantly, with the passage of time. For example, my great-grandfather got married in the second half of the 19th Century. In order to get a wedding license, he had to post a bond. My guess is that in the days before Social Security a husband was required to assure the welfare of any children prior to being allowed to be married.

Marriage didn’t change, just the requirements to get married.

Marriage today has both a civil and a religious/traditional component. In marrying a couple, the priest is changing the civil status of the couple. They are taxed at a different rate, they have different Social Security benefits, they have different inheritance rights, etc.

What does this have to do with anything?

I would like the United States to adopt the European model where there is a civil ceremony on the first day and, if the couple wishes, a religious/traditional ceremony the next. This would also be the solution to the gay marriage debate. The civil ceremony would be the same no matter what the genders of the couples were and the license would be the same.

I actually wrote to my bishop and proposed this but for a different reason: to protect the Church from being forced into performing SS"M".

…Obviously, I think all citizens should have the same rights under the civil law.

This is a broad statement that isn’t true. The law can’t treat 80 year-old women the same as 18-year-old men.

The argument that gay marriage would endanger traditional marriage simply does not make sense to me.

To the modern liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. Because an act of discrimination is a reflection of personal bigotry, the only way to be moral is not to discriminate, not even between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; a successful person is not a testimony of the opportunities in America; it is an indictment of American greed; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry will lead, not to tolerance, objectivity, neutrality, or even indifference, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage.
:sad_yes:

 

[Rhuarc]

To say this thread was a God send would be an understatement.

 

[Gift_from_God]

One subject that is surprisingly lacking on this forum is the discussion of dark spots in the history of the Catholic Church. There are many contradictions between modern church teaching and the actual behavior of the Church in its history. I will list a few here:

1. The Church’s modern understanding of capital punishment as an undesirable solution for crime is undermined by its burnings and executions of heretics and other opposition in centuries past.
2. The modern example of popes as humble shepherds of the Catholic church is undermined by the behavior of popes during the height of the Church’s power in Renaissance times, when rich families bought seats as cardinals and, once Pope, abused its power and wealth as a tool for nation building. These popes created dynasties and corrupted the purpose of the papacy by carting money to cardinals in advance of Conclave in order to insure a “desirable” transition. These were the same popes who sold indulgences for the reduction of temporal punishment. It was not until the Reformation that the higher level clergy realized that the Church was collapsing around their ears due to their decadent attitudes.

Pope Leo X said, “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it,” to his relative after being made pope. This sums up the sad state of the chair of St. Peter during that era.

1. The Crusades. Many will note that while Benedict XVI emphasizes strongly a stance of peace in all foreign affairs matters (this was his recent proclamation about Syria), the history of the Church seems to show that it has not always been so friendly to a mission of worldwide peace. While I personally believe there is a good case to justify the Crusades, I am looking to see if others have any good arguments in defense of them.
2. Finally, the most recent debacle in Church history, the sex abuse scandal, where a minority priests have been revealed as child molesters, and the Church’s reaction has been woefully slow. Keep in mind that studies have shown that as little as 4% or so of priests have been accused substantially of these crimes, a percentage which is very close to the rate among ALL American men, indicating that the priesthood is no more a haven for pedophiles, than, for example, teaching or sports coaching.

Many people may recognize the beauty and greatness of the church, but when they recall what they have learned about the Church’s history it can be hard to reconcile its modern mission with its deeds of the past millennia. With that in mind, how best can a Catholic educate himself to defend the modern church for the crimes of the past?

Humans are fallible beings and can be corrupted. Something to remember about the Catholic Church is that the vices of Catholics do not reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Here’s an analogy; you’re in Tennessee, so let’s say at your local high school or University campus students start a club to support Governor Bill Haslam. Now, the Governor has his own political views and this club has been created to support and advocate for all of his views. If some of the club members do things that are wrong, that is not a reflection of Governor Haslam, that’s just a supporter doing something wrong.

I hope this helps

 

[Bill_Martin]

Those people violated the Church’s teachings.

It makes no sense more sense to blame the Church for the actions of some of its members which defy its own teaching than to say that the Constitution is a bad document because politicians don’t follow it.

 

[sedonaman]

Those people violated the Church’s teachings.

It makes no sense more sense to blame the Church for the actions of some of its members which defy its own teaching than to say that the Constitution is a bad document because politicians don’t follow it.

**AMEN! **

---

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”
G. K. Chesterton

 

[chosen_people]

Those people violated the Church’s teachings.

It makes no sense more sense to blame the Church for the actions of some of its members which defy its own teaching than to say that the Constitution is a bad document because politicians don’t follow it.

It’s hard to see where you wish to make the distinction. Take for instance Deggendorf and the Deggendorf Gnad. Even if we chalk up the original incident of mass murder and mass theft to being from avarice and greed, we cannot ignore the fact that Jews were put into this position as money lenders due to Catholic Church law, that Catholics thought that if the victims were Jewish that this was an acceptable act, that in fact they were not punished either locally or by the Church, that a Church was built on the ruins of the destroyed synagogue, that the subsequent libel is based around Catholic beliefs concerning the Eucharist, that the annual festival celebrating this massacre and the libel was held year after year in that Church. In fact, the first time anyone sought to speak out against the Gnad was by the Righteous Gentile, Pope John XXIII. Nonetheless,the Gnad went on officially until the early 1990’s.

 

[Jehannette]

It’s hard to see where you wish to make the distinction. Take for instance Deggendorf and the Deggendorf Gnad. Even if we chalk up the original incident of mass murder and mass theft to being from avarice and greed, we cannot ignore the fact that Jews were put into this position as money lenders due to Catholic Church law, that Catholics thought that if the victims were Jewish that this was an acceptable act, that in fact they were not punished either locally or by the Church, that a Church was built on the ruins of the destroyed synagogue, that the subsequent libel is based around Catholic beliefs concerning the Eucharist, that the annual festival celebrating this massacre and the libel was held year after year in that Church. In fact, the first time anyone sought to speak out against the Gnad was by the Righteous Gentile, Pope John XXIII. Nonetheless,the Gnad went on officially until the early 1990’s.

Who are you to judge? They, like you, me, and everyone else has a Judge in Heaven, Christ Jesus, and it is to Him alone that the ultimate and final judgment will be made.

 

[sedonaman]

Every one of these discussion about the crimes of the Church fail to do one thing at the outset: establish the standards of judgement. This failure inevitably ends up with Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, being held rigidly to a much higher standard, and the rest get a pass. So I would suggest to anyone who tries to Answer for Church’s Past Crimes, that he insists on a common set of standards for judgement before engaging in any debate.