I Have a Question...

[Singinbeauty]

This is a serious question to everyone. So please take it in the spirit it is intended…

It seems to me that anything that is brought up that the Catholic Church has done ‘wrong’ (crusades, burning protestants at the stake, etc) it is due to the individuals not the whole but when you speak of good things it is the Catholic Church as a whole.

It seems a bit hypocritical to take credit for the good but blame individuals for the bad.

Now I am not saying that protestants or all christians are free from this hypocracy. It seems to me that we should be taking responsibility for the things done in the name of our Lord instead of shunning them as the act of individuals and trying to sweep it under the carpet. In both protestant and catholic circles we have each had leaders in our communities abuse children yet these people are still in leadership positions but were moved to another location and the ‘victims’ are paid off.

Shouldn’t we be making more of an example of these abusers instead of acting like it does not tarnish our Faith in the eyes of the lost?

PLEASE, both protestant and catholic alike, BE NICE…

 

[Hastrman]

Well the Crusades, other than the fourth, were wars of self-defense against what were, basically, Genghis Khan’s rear-guard troops with a thin veneer of Islam, led by the Seljuk clan.

But obviously, what did wrong in any given Church cannot have been the Church itself, since that is from Christ–it had to be the errant human nature of the individual.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Well the Crusades, other than the fourth, were wars of self-defense against what were, basically, Genghis Khan’s rear-guard troops with a thin veneer of Islam, led by the Seljuk clan.

But obviously, what did wrong in any given Church cannot have been the Church itself, since that is from Christ–it had to be the errant human nature of the individual.

But the world doesn’t see it this way. What was done in the name of the Church WAS the Church in their eyes.

We need to take more of an interest to what they do to our reputation and make more of big deal about rectifying it…

 

[Reuben_J]

This is a serious question to everyone. So please take it in the spirit it is intended…

It seems to me that anything that is brought up that the Catholic Church has done ‘wrong’ (crusades, burning protestants at the stake, etc) it is due to the individuals not the whole but when you speak of good things it is the Catholic Church as a whole.

It seems a bit hypocritical to take credit for the good but blame individuals for the bad.

Now I am not saying that protestants or all christians are free from this hypocracy. It seems to me that we should be taking responsibility for the things done in the name of our Lord instead of shunning them as the act of individuals and trying to sweep it under the carpet. In both protestant and catholic circles we have each had leaders in our communities abuse children yet these people are still in leadership positions but were moved to another location and the ‘victims’ are paid off.

Shouldn’t we be making more of an example of these abusers instead of acting like it does not tarnish our Faith in the eyes of the lost?

PLEASE, both protestant and catholic alike, BE NICE…

The late JP2 apologized for the atrocities and misdeeds that Catholics had done in the past. And man, he got courage!

If only other leaders of different denominations and religions could do the same.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is a serious question to everyone. So please take it in the spirit it is intended…

It seems to me that anything that is brought up that the Catholic Church has done ‘wrong’ (crusades, burning protestants at the stake, etc) it is due to the individuals not the whole but when you speak of good things it is the Catholic Church as a whole.

Catholic apologists tend to point out that individual sins do not take away from the trueness of the Catholic faith. Often, when historical “Catholic sins” or whatever are brought up, it is done in an effort to invalidate the Catholic faith, which is free from error.

But when Catholics act in good charity, they are following Catholic teaching. When they sin, they are not. One is bearing the fruits and morals the Church has called us to bear, and the other is not.

 

[catherineajt]

Catholic apologists tend to point out that individual sins do not take away from the trueness of the Catholic faith. Often, when historical “Catholic sins” or whatever are brought up, it is done in an effort to invalidate the Catholic faith, which is free from error.

But when Catholics act in good charity, they are following Catholic teaching. When they sin, they are not. One is bearing the fruits and morals the Church has called us to bear, and the other is not.

I really, really like this explanation (for lack of a better word). Very well put!

 

[Fidelis]

Catholic apologists tend to point out that individual sins do not take away from the trueness of the Catholic faith. Often, when historical “Catholic sins” or whatever are brought up, it is done in an effort to invalidate the Catholic faith, which is free from error.

But when Catholics act in good charity, they are following Catholic teaching. When they sin, they are not. One is bearing the fruits and morals the Church has called us to bear, and the other is not.

Exactly right.

For example, the profession of firefighting (or teaching, or medicine, etc.) is a noble profession with high standards and values.

But if you have one (or even several) members of this profession involved in crimes or serious indiscretions, is it not fair to blame this on the individual despite his membership rather than the high ideals and generally selfless behavior of the group as a whole?

An organization should be judged by it’s best examples, not it’s worst.

 

[distracted]

I never learned until i was “old” that Protestants throughout history have been far more cruel than the Catholics… King Henry VIII broke w/ the Church because he couldn’t make the pope agree w/ his… lechery (as it were), then persecuted the Catholics like crazy. In England, the Mass was abolished, priests had to go into hiding and many were murdered. There is the case of the Gorkum martyrs… time does not permit me to include all the cases where the Protestants have outdone the Catholics in injustice and cruelty…

In Maryland, a state that was at first Catholic, the Catholics allowed religious freedom for all, unlike the other New England colonies (states), where the Mass was sometimes outlawed… People in New York had to go to Pennsylvania to hear Mass… What did the people of Maryland get for allowing the Protestants to practice their faith? The Protestants took over and began to persecute the Catholics…
I could give more examples, but you get my point.

History is an interesting teacher…

 

[mchale]

Well the Crusades, other than the fourth, were wars of self-defense against what were, basically, Genghis Khan’s rear-guard troops with a thin veneer of Islam, led by the Seljuk clan.

Umm, I hate to nit-pick, but I think in the interest of our mistakes not coming back to bite us, I need to point out that the 1st Crusade occurred before Genghis Khan was even born. The first 4 Crusades all occurred before Genghis had united the Mongols under his power; years before the Mongols would project their power that far west.

Ultimately the Crusades developed both as a desire to reclaim that which had once been Christian (and conquored by Muslim peoples), an attempt to aid the Byzantine Empire and as a way of allowing Western European Nobility a relatively safe (for the rest of Europe that is) outlet for their desire for conquest.

–
Bill

 

[MarcoPolo]

I really, really like this explanation (for lack of a better word). Very well put!

Thank you. Shucks.

 

[Hastrman]

Umm, I hate to nit-pick, but I think in the interest of our mistakes not coming back to bite us, I need to point out that the 1st Crusade occurred before Genghis Khan was even born. The first 4 Crusades all occurred before Genghis had united the Mongols under his power; years before the Mongols would project their power that far west.

Ultimately the Crusades developed both as a desire to reclaim that which had once been Christian (and conquored by Muslim peoples), an attempt to aid the Byzantine Empire and as a way of allowing Western European Nobility a relatively safe (for the rest of Europe that is) outlet for their desire for conquest.

Good point; rhetoric got the better of me. But the fact remains that Turks are Mongols–you do know what language Genghis Khan spoke, right?

Turkic.

The Seljuks and their vassals had been hired as mercenary bodyguards by the Muslim rulers, and decided to stay. I think they gave up the practices of eating women’s livers and dead fetuses in order to gain supernatural strength (those not generally being considered hallal), but they kept most of the practices for which Mongols were known…and hated.

Incidentally, in the interest of “mistakes not coming back to haunt us”, that “allowing Western European nobles…conquest” argument is utterly unhistorical–the “younger sons” hypothesis (of which that’s a variant) is deader than the Doge.

 

[Lee]

This is a serious question to everyone. So please take it in the spirit it is intended…

It seems to me that anything that is brought up that the Catholic Church has done ‘wrong’ (crusades, burning protestants at the stake, etc) it is due to the individuals not the whole but when you speak of good things it is the Catholic Church as a whole.

It seems a bit hypocritical to take credit for the good but blame individuals for the bad.

Now I am not saying that protestants or all christians are free from this hypocracy. It seems to me that we should be taking responsibility for the things done in the name of our Lord instead of shunning them as the act of individuals and trying to sweep it under the carpet. In both protestant and catholic circles we have each had leaders in our communities abuse children yet these people are still in leadership positions but were moved to another location and the ‘victims’ are paid off.

Shouldn’t we be making more of an example of these abusers instead of acting like it does not tarnish our Faith in the eyes of the lost?

PLEASE, both protestant and catholic alike, BE NICE…

I would agree with you, but from a different slant that I noticed, particularly in movies. When the crusades are painted in a good light, it´s always described as the ¨Christian¨ Crusaders out to save the Holy Land. But when its described in the movies in a bad light, it´s those Catholics out to pilage the Muslims. Just a pet peeve of mine. Dont forget it was Catholic Christians who saved Europe from an Muslim invasion or your Protestant ancestors and my Catholic ones might all have been using prayers rugs and passed it onto us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

When I read the Question the first thing that came to mind was what happened to Jesus and his apostles. The same applies today.

The apostles were scattered.
Peter denied Jesus 3 times.
Judas hung himself.
John stood by him in his death.
Mary witnessed all his torture and death, yet remained silent.

In the book of Acts, the apostles took to council, when disagreement arose between Jews and Gentiles.

So when one part of the body is ill, or hurt all the body is affected. God is just. The ministry of Reconciliation as James states, is placed in the body of christ on earth so that repentance and forgiveness along with the mercy of God, can be witnessesed. God does not want to lose not one of these his children.

In this ministry of reconciliation is where God meets man. In adoration is where we can take all our complaints,frustration, anger, and calls for justice at the foot of the Throne, and allow God to take his revenge and serve his justice. I tell you though, history records Jonah calling for destruction, repentance occurred and mercy given, without repentance comes the wrath of God.

I ask, what did Jesus do to the apostles after they left him?
The body of Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. In its humanity comes sin, in its divinity comes salvation. Paul makes perfect sense when he teaches not to live by the flesh that leads to destruction, but live according to the Spirit that produces life.

What is history? the present in the past? Let us not repeat in the present what we have learned from our past. For how are we to know when man sins, only from the result of sin. How do we know man is repented. When he does not repeat the sin.

We have all fallen short of the Glory of God. To shift blame, to label one sinners, to pass judgement, to hide from your guilt like our first parents, does not correct the problem, it adds wood to the flame. Realize God is always present just as God was present in the Garden with our first parents who tried to hide from the guilt of sin.

The sin witnessed today comes from the concupiscence of man.

 

[mark_a]

But the world doesn’t see it this way. What was done in the name of the Church WAS the Church in their eyes.

Saying that a “Church” was responsible for despicable actions of its members is the first step to letting said members off the hook.

Were the bombings of Black churches in the south by the KKK the responsibility of the SBC or of the folks who did the bombing?

 

[Singinbeauty]

Saying that a “Church” was responsible for despicable actions of its members is the first step to letting said members off the hook.

Were the bombings of Black churches in the south by the KKK the responsibility of the SBC or of the folks who did the bombing?

The problem is, while christians see it as acts of individuals, the world of non-believers or undecided see it as acts of the church as a whole.

Some don’t even know the difference between catholic and protestant. They just know the term christian so to try to say it was one or the other falls on deaf ears sometimes.

And I am not saying that we let the members off the hook but rather we make sure that, at least for the more noticable acts, the person is more publically dealt with. Not hanging or anything like that but those priests and pastors or leaders of certain churches that were caught doing unbelievable and heinous things to children should have been publically dealt with rather than quietly moving them to another location and keeping them in leadership positions, then paying the victims off (even if that is all the victims want).

Even when Peter was acting hypocritically Paul publically admonished him in front of the whole group rather than pulling him aside. We have to know that our leaders will be dealt with and not treated with kid gloves, letting them get away with anything. If we can’t look at our leadership for examples of right and wrong it makes it a LOT harder.

Until a few years ago I didn’t even know that the KKK were a ‘religous’ group and I don’t think that many consider them so. So I don’t think they attribute their acts as part of the Church.

The church’s responsibility is not saying ‘We did it’ but more making sure that we are taking the steps to show we don’t just sweep things under the rug and ignore them…

 

[ricko]

And I am not saying that we let the members off the hook but rather we make sure that, at least for the more noticable acts, the person is more publically dealt with. Not hanging or anything like that but those priests and pastors or leaders of certain churches that were caught doing unbelievable and heinous things to children should have been publically dealt with rather than quietly moving them to another location and keeping them in leadership positions, then paying the victims off (even if that is all the victims want).

But the problem HAS been dealt with and publically. It has been shown on the news many times, a priest with handcuffs being lead into the courtroom on national media. The victims have all been paid off, each one a millionare. The bishops were ordered by the Pope, no more moving around and they must report them to the police. Short of hanging them in public, what more do you want?

 

[mark_a]

And I am not saying that we let the members off the hook but rather we make sure that, at least for the more noticable acts, the person is more publically dealt with. Not hanging or anything like that but those priests and pastors or leaders of certain churches that were caught doing unbelievable and heinous things to children should have been publically dealt with rather than quietly moving them to another location and keeping them in leadership positions, then paying the victims off (even if that is all the victims want).

Can you say exactly how these folks should be dealt with?
Should they be publically punished in a way that brings more shame and humiliation to the victims who weren’t after money and only wanted justice?

We have to know that our leaders will be dealt with and not treated with kid gloves, letting them get away with anything. If we can’t look at our leadership for examples of right and wrong it makes it a LOT harder.

This would be just wonderful, but in the end we must realize that our leaders are mere mortals. They have or will eventually fail in some way.

Until a few years ago I didn’t even know that the KKK were a ‘religous’ group and I don’t think that many consider them so. So I don’t think they attribute their acts as part of the Church.

If you grew up in the south as I did, you knew it.

The church’s responsibility is not saying ‘We did it’ but more making sure that we are taking the steps to show we don’t just sweep things under the rug and ignore them…

No disagreement on this point. The Catholic Church has learned a tough lesson here.

 

[st_michael]

The problem is, while christians see it as acts of individuals, the world of non-believers or undecided see it as acts of the church as a whole.

I continue to tell people I am not Catholic because of the people in the Church… I am a Catholic because I believe Jesus entrusted his authority in “people” (Sinners) and they have been instructed to “tradition” (hand on) this faith to the world. The faith is not validated by the acts of the person handing them on. The faith stands on its own. I can either accept the faith and live it out or pretend to accept it and my fruit will be known.

The Church is a Spiritual Hospital… it does not have temporal authority…

When a person confesses a sin the priest cannot tell the temporal authorities of this sin. If he does he has step outside of his authority.

The Church is concerned with the spiritual needs of the world and in particular the members of its faith.

A non-believer may not understand the difference of Spiritual and Temporal and will see a Christians sin and “wrongly” think the Church is bad…

This is the same as yourself when you sin are you bad?

The Church understands each person will have their time of suffering and purification… when a person falls down (sins) the church prays for that person to get up and continue…

We do not teach the “kick them while their down” approach I read you are advancing.

Even when Peter was acting hypocritically Paul publically admonished him in front of the whole group rather than pulling him aside.

Are you sure Peter was “acting hypocritically” and Paul was correct for “publically” edifying him?

We have to know that our leaders will be dealt with and not treated with kid gloves, letting them get away with anything.

Jesus is our leader. The Bishops and priest are our servants in Christ… They are our teacher and some become great role models in Christ… others do not… People must not place a Bishop or Priest in a position they never where designed to be in…

If we can’t look at our leadership for examples of right and wrong it makes it a LOT harder.

A Bishop and Priest are part of the Body, just as any Christian is. They are not our leaders. Jesus is our Leader… We do well to listen to them and do as they say… but not always what they do…

The church’s responsibility is not saying ‘We did it’ but more making sure that we are taking the steps to show we don’t just sweep things under the rug and ignore them…

The job of the Church is first and foremost to pray and teach the faith…

Temporal authorities are responsible for punishment in this world…

Do not confuse the Church as some form of earthly political organization that has temporal authority… That is why we had many problems in the past… People looked to the Church as a temporal organization to provide earthly needs… Even Bishops and Priest fell into this error that eventually caused the Reformation.

The origin of the Faith is Jesus… Jesus entrusted “peeople” to teach this faith to others… The people he entrusted did not always act properly… this does not in-validate the Faith…

People need to live out the faith in full view of the public… They need to see when somebody sins, the church does not give them the boot or excommunicate (place them outside of the Church) them but teaches the forgiveness and mercy of Christ.

 

[1234]

This is a serious question to everyone. So please take it in the spirit it is intended…

It seems to me that anything that is brought up that the Catholic Church has done ‘wrong’ (crusades, burning protestants at the stake, etc) it is due to the individuals not the whole but when you speak of good things it is the Catholic Church as a whole.

It seems a bit hypocritical to take credit for the good but blame individuals for the bad.

Now I am not saying that protestants or all Christians are free from this hypocrisy. It seems to me that we should be taking responsibility for the things done in the name of our Lord instead of shunning them as the act of individuals and trying to sweep it under the carpet. In both protestant and catholic circles we have each had leaders in our communities abuse children yet these people are still in leadership positions but were moved to another location and the ‘victims’ are paid off.

Shouldn’t we be making more of an example of these abusers instead of acting like it does not tarnish our Faith in the eyes of the lost?

PLEASE, both protestant and catholic alike, BE NICE…

I think that it’s the RCC’s emphasis on *inerrancy *that lies at the root of its problem.

The RCC emphasizes that its errors, whether it’s burning heretics or abusing children, is unrelated to its inerrancy in matters of faith and morals (pope speaking *ex cathedra, *etc.) This attitude, which is dangerous in its own right—no institution, however ‘divine’, is error-proof—also is dangerous in that it bleeds into behavior in secular society, especially if the society isn’t secular, as most societies weren’t in the 14-16th centuries in Europe.

Because the RCC believes that its faith is the True Faith incapable of error, it follows that members of that Faith cannot sin in carrying out their divine mission. so they burn heretics so the heretics won’t burn in hell (one explanation I’ve read) and cover up pedophilia because exposing it is a greater evil because it will weaken the Church.

The assumption of inerrancy is at the root of the RCC’s denial of its (many) sins.

 

[Rocky]

No one here is denying that abusing children, or adults for that mattter is a sin. The magisterium of the Church has addressed this and has worked very hard to put safeguards in place so that it will never happen again.

Now if our public schools would only work as hard to make sure that our children would be as safe when they attend school!