Need some historical help?

[PraiseChrist]

Hi,

I was wondering if a Catholic can shed some light on this topic:

In history, it is obvious that the Church is displayed as an institution that dares to call itself right and other religions wrong, and that the evil actions committed by Catholics are the only actions they’ve committed…

1. But I would like help in knowing why in Church history, there were many people who committed terrible things, like enslaving people or unjustly destroying their villages, but in the process build a Catholic Church on top of the rubbles? I know that this might be an ad hominem attack, that these people don’t represent the religion itself, but these evils are major reasons why the Church is in certain places in the world today.
2. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued Sublimus Deus, an encyclical that condemned the maltreatment of natives of distant lands who weren’t Christians:
   A section:

said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ

Does this condemn the destruction of a temple to some god?

1. How can I answer this objection?:
   “it had become abundantly clear that the Christian God could not protect [Name of people being hurt] …] from epidemics, drought, and raiders …] sought protection from the new epidemics by learning the spiritual magic of the newcomers–who suffered so much less from the diseases”

***NOTE: Please don’t mention any specific country of colonizers, location of events, or name of groups of Natives

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It seems, from your post, that you have misconceptions about some things.

For example…what an ad hominem attack is; also, how to frame an argument/question so that a reply can be made.

 

[PraiseChrist]

Hi,

Sorry for the way the questions are worded. I understand that an ad hominem attack “tries to refute an argument by attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself”, and by that, I mean that it seems that historians try to make members of the Church look worse than they were, as a whole group of people, so as to imply that the Faith cannot be the true faith.

I probably need to work the way I ask a question, you are right, to sum it up, I have three different questions:

1. Why did the Church benefit so much in history through immoral actions done by others?
2. Pope Paul III forbade Catholics from maltreating foreigners, including non-Christians: does said maltreatment include attacking a pagan religious item/building?

Thank you*

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Hi,

Sorry for the way the questions are worded. I understand that an ad hominem attack “tries to refute an argument by attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself”, and by that, I mean that it seems that historians try to make members of the Church look worse than they were, as a whole group of people, so as to imply that the Faith cannot be the true faith.

I probably need to work the way I ask a question, you are right, to sum it up, I have three different questions:

1. Why did the Church benefit so much in history through immoral actions done by others?
2. Pope Paul III forbade Catholics from maltreating foreigners, including non-Christians: does said maltreatment include attacking a pagan religious item/building?

Thank you*

There has to be a back and forth between two people for an ad hominem attack to take place. General arguments from people, such as, ‘the Church plundered villages in the middle ages’ is not an ad hominem attack, it’s just ignorance or misleading.

You must cite a specific situation in order to get an answer for that specific situation. Arguing in general terms, such as I quoted above, is a fallacious way of making a point.

Question #2 is more in line with the point I’m making. It depends on what you mean by attacking. A situation may involve ‘just war tactics’ or defense, but gets painted by some historians as an attack. But if you have a specific example in mind, you should mention it so it can be answered.

Where does the quote from question # 3 come from, and in what context.

 

[PraiseChrist]

The quote is from a book on Colonial America, and on Natives converting to Christianity.
Because of diseases, the book argues that Natives turned to the “magic” of the Catholic Faith in order to save themselves from disease.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The quote is from a book on Colonial America, and on Natives converting to Christianity.
Because of diseases, the book argues that Natives turned to the “magic” of the Catholic Faith in order to save themselves from disease.

“it had become abundantly clear that the Christian God could not protect [Name of people being hurt] …] from epidemics, drought, and raiders …] sought protection from the new epidemics by learning the spiritual magic of the newcomers–who suffered so much less from the diseases”

When I see statements like ‘abundantly clear’ I would look for a citation by the author as to how whatever they are referring to was made abundantly clear to them.

The term, “spiritual magic” here, would be a red flag for me. To me, it indicates a bias of the author against religion.

Anyway, in answer to the objection, it is no secret that people who are in a state of desperation, and don’t have a belief that will usher them through it, will convert to whatever ideology they think will help them the most.

 

[Viki63]

to sum it up, I have three different questions:

1. Why did the Church benefit so much in history through immoral actions done by others?
2. Pope Paul III forbade Catholics from maltreating foreigners, including non-Christians: does said maltreatment include attacking a pagan religious item/building?

I’ll take a stab at answering you.

1. Throughout history, people acted as individuals. For example, explorers colonized lands inhabited by native peoples, sometimes enslaving or maltreating them. Missionaries then came along with or after them and attempted to convert the people to Christianity, often trying to protect them in the process.
   It wasn’t a seamless process. There are good people and selfish people in every group, and history is much more complicated than history books can convey.
2. Generally speaking, Catholics try to treat others with respect, as St Paul did in his sermon to the Athenians. If people convert to Christianity, they can destroy their own artifacts if they wish. Or maybe change their pagan temples to churches. Catholics shouldn’t attack others’ buildings.
3. The quote is clearly from a person who doesn’t know how disease is spread. His notions are superstitious.

God bless.

.