Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[EnchantedEve]

Portarica, what are you talking about? Have you read any scholarly works on the Medieval times? I am sure Emperor Frederick Barbarossa would love to have heard the Pope was his proxy, because he was certainly under another impression! Need I also name King Phillip the Fair of France? The Investiture controversy? I do not even know where the slavery, trafficking, infanticide and all that came from. Not a Medieval era I know, and certainly it was exceptional, unlike the modern post-Reformation West.

Fascist? This does not reflect at all the political system of the Middle Ages. Even the most powerful Holy Roman Emperor had to request his nobles go to war, and they could choose whether or not to send troops! In no war did the all the Holy Roman Empire’s nobles send their troops. Can you imagine a governor refusing to send the National Guard now? Oops, sorry, already happened. Kathleen Blanco, governor of Louisiana, attempted to do this under Bush and Hurricane Katrina and lost. Freedom huh?

This imagined nightmare version of the world in the Medieval era is no more true than the tale of Cinderella. To state that the Church was not a beacon to the oppressed shows no knowledge of either the world of the Middle Ages nor our own world, where apparently nuclear and biological warfare, perpetual war (we have been in a war of some kind non-stop since 1941), the corporate-run state, authoritarian police measures, and wanton, naked power is more humane than the confessional state of the Middle Ages. Wow.

Perhaps you should look into how the majority of people lived in Medieval times.
You will realize that infanticide, slavery , trafficking, child labor, was the norm.What of the natural law rights did the peasantry have?

What did the church do to try to eliminate those practices? It didn’t need to because the whole point of the thing then was just to get into heaven. It wasn’t about feeding your neighbor it was hoping just to survive childbirth, then infancy, then the first five years…

As to the problems of modern times that you mention, the Church does constantly speak out against the ones you mention. Hence my comment about the Church now being more closely aligned to what Jesus taught.

As for wars, boundaries were constantly being crossed by hostile parties, and the nobles you mentioned were not always loyal to a country, but frequently loyal first to their own best interests.

And did the church ever protest the monarch’s treatment of their subjects and the church’s sheep?

In an ironic happenstance, the church began to acquire more moral credibility as it becomes more divorced and separated from the state. When the church has less temporal power it has more moral power.

Peace

I suppose you have evidence for any of this? I have not seen a shred of evidence in historical research that any of these claims are true. The Church provided hospitals, libraries, universities, orphanages, food banks, hostels, etc. in its monasteries and convents. Any historian of any capability acknowledges all of this is true. Time/Life’s The Age of Faith is an excellent basic intro to this. The Church was the foundation of all modern charitable institutions.

Almost all historians acknowledge the Church was the institution that helped abolish slavery in the Roman Empire, raised the dignity of the lower classes, and did widespread charitable work. This is the main reason upper classes of Romans avoided Christianity initially, since it was viewed as a slave/peon cult. Read After Jesus by Reader’s Digest for another basic intro.

What of the dignity of women? It was the Church that first permitted females to practice medicine in many places, in the form of nuns and midwives, that it is, until the protestants banned the practice. What of all the great queens, such as Isabella la Cattolica, Eleanor of Acquitaine, St. Elizabeth of Hungary?

Have you read any of the papal writings of the Middle Ages, dealing with the suffering of the poor and the need for charity and sacrifice? The Church condemned injustice constantly, thus did St. Ambrose (a little early, but still), impose the canonical penalty on the emperor for unjustly slaughtering innocent people. Also, the Church expressed concern when the works of fray Bartolome de Las Casas, in his somewhat exaggerated work, spoke of Spanish cruelty to the Indians in the New World.

Child labor was not cruel, but was and is a real part of life. We judge from afar societies that have child labor, given poor technology and limited economic growth. It is not necessarily evil, just a fact of life prior to technological advancement.

Peasants had many rights of property, fair trial, all the rights of citizens in common Roman and local law. Of course, this often varied from region to region, and we certainly have more “rights” than anyone did then, but it is ridiculous to impose the expectations of the present to the values of that society.

All in all, the analysis of the Church and life in the Middle Ages lands way off the mark. Unless actual evidence is proferred, this all remains conjecture. The testimony of the many saints of that time is indicative of the spirit of that age.

Some articles if interest:

traditioninaction.org/History/A_017_Feudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/OrganicSociety/A_011_OriginFeudalism.html

traditioninaction.org/History/A_005_Myths1500s.html

 

[janet_baker76]

Sigrid Undset, anthropologist and historical writer,wrote extensively of tribal infanticide practiced in Norway prior to its conversion to Catholicism. Apparently fighting that practice was one of the accomplishments of the Church. Your poster lacks accurate data.

 

[Lycorth]

Lycoth:“The Medieval world had it right. We had a harmonious existence between Church and state - and when temporal rulers lost their way, the Church could shepherd them back into line. It wasn’t a perfect system, but as near to perfect as we fallible humans will ever see. That is the model for the future, when the senile secular state finally succumbs to its moribund nature and passes away.”

They had it right with infanticide, slavery, trafficking, political vetoes of Popes, etc etc ??

None of these things happened during the Medieval age. I suggest you research the Middle Ages more; the Church saw to the banishment of all these institutions.

Not only was it less fallible than now, it was much more barbaric and anti-teachings of Christ than now. It was much more fascist than spiritual.

It was almost perfect and utterly spiritual; even secular scholars tend to refer to the Medieval age as the “Age of Faith” (Morris Bishop for one) - that is no accident. As for Fascism, do you know that aside from Nazi Germany and the Lapua Movement in Finland, all other Fascist movements of the 20th century were Catholic? I suggest you do a little research into Engelbert Dolfuss of Austria, Francisco Franco of Spain, and Antonio de Oliveria Salazar of Portugal; Mussolini’s Catholicism can be considered nominal at best but the bulk of the Italian state’s government and policy were pro-Catholic. I am willing to bet that you didn’t know that the Fascist Italian government helped form the modern papal states in a successful effort to end the strife between the Vatican and the Italian crown (and nearly obliterated the Mafia in Sicily), that Dolfuss and Salazar were meticulous in their attempts to implement the teachings of *Rerum Novarum *and Quadragesimo Anno into public life, and were it not for Franco’s defense of the clergy, the Marxists would have destroyed the Church in Spain. Truth is stranger than fiction; name a single secular government that has done a fraction as much in defense and support of the Church and its teachings.

“Fascism” is not a pejorative to me.

The church itself is now much better aligned with what Jesus taught, in Medieval times the church was not a beacon for the oppressed but a proxy for the monarchs.

You have got to be kidding me. Do you know anything about the Middle Ages?

This is the period in which the Church grew and spread the Faith! This was not some “dark age” where no one knew how to write or how to bathe themselves. All this nonsense about the Medieval era being backwards and oppressed is just polemic based on lies.

I suggest you read Dr. Warren H. Carroll’s The Building of Christendom and *The Glory of Christendom, *Regine Pernoud’s Those Terrible Middle Ages!, and Hilarie Belloc’s The Crusades: the World’s Debate for an authentic historical report on the Medieval era; relying on cultural Marxist teachings that liberal monkeys parrot in secular colleges and public schools is not going to fill in the blanks for you. All together they will cost a few dollars, but what’s money compared to knowing the truth?

You have been lied to regarding the truth of Western civilization, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of the Medieval era.

Or if you think that a benighted Church that cannot even fill its pews nor scrape together enough seminarians to make a dent in the declining numbers of priests is somehow a good thing, I pray for you.

 

[sedonaman]

… This was not some “dark age” where no one knew how to write or how to bathe themselves. …

And the so-called Dark Ages were not “dark” because society was “wallowing” in ignorance [note the allusion to a pigsty]. They were “dark” because we knew little about them at the time they were dubbed “dark”, and the label just stuck.

 

[Lycorth]

And the so-called Dark Ages were not “dark” because society was “wallowing” in ignorance [note the allusion to a pigsty]. They were “dark” because we knew little about them at the time they were dubbed “dark”, and the label just stuck.

Exactly! It’s just another example of polemic, of how a hastily-applied and inaccurate label that appeals to our sadistic nature has stuck, and modern man with his addiction to salacious entertainment refuses to let go of it.

After all, it’s entirely more fun to think of the Medieval age as this ignorant and violent time, where war was constant, witches were burned in heaps, and tyrant kings ruled with iron fists, crushing poor peasants beneath their heels each day. It appeals to our base nature; we love horror stories.

The truth may be stranger than fiction, but it is also less titillating; the truth of the Medieval era as a time of faith, a time when foul customs were done away with, as a time when Western culture was preserved after the Empire’s fall and beautified under the Faith as has never been done before or since - that requires people to put aside their sick fantasies and, what’s more, admit they were wrong. Heaven forbid modern man admits he is wrong about anything or admits that his way of life is somehow less desirable than that which has come before.

Heaven forbid modern Catholics admit that the ways of a Catholic epoch are preferable to those of our current secularist malaise - the true “dark ages”

 

[janet_baker76]

Lycorth wrote, “the truth of the Medieval era as a time of faith, a time when foul customs were done away with, as a time when Western culture was preserved after the Empire’s fall and beautified under the Faith as has never been done before or since”

and how true it is! Here is how Undset writes of it, from her background in Norwegian anthropology:

…at the time when the ‘Reformation’ broke out, the Church had succeeded in instilling into the consciousness of Christendom a kind of latent demand that the doctrines of Christinaity should be taken as the pattern of life, and that the temporal power should in some way or other help and support people who wished to live as Christians–should make an end of conditions and institutions which were a downright temptation to breaches of Christianity, and legislate in such a way that in abiding by the laws of their country the people would also be practising Christianity. This in reality is the triumph of the Catholic Church.

Thus Undset wrote, in Stages on the Road, “Letter to a Parish Priest.” But the Church gave it away (at Vatican II and the new teachings on the secular state) in favor of the emasculated new “religious freedom” teaching, in favor of a self-perfecting humanity that didn’t need such “help and support” anymore. That’s how we lost a very good deal. Less if you were rich–the poor lost far more. In fact, the fall of the religious state made the world ready for capitalism, which would throw the poor off their land, end their independence as owners of their small capital, and reduce them to wage slavery.

And here the Catholics on this thread would perhaps split yet again. A new thread could well begin, Capitalism: Good or Bad? But, do you know, it’s the same question, and the Catholics for a secular state would be likely to support capitalism and the Republican party (I’m betting the religious state side has no party!) . The Religious State takes far better care of its flock than the secular state and its economics of capitalism does, using a diffferent economics–broad distribution of ownership, little concentration of capital, state/Church intervention allowed. Any history text will tell you the poor weren’t thrown under the bus in medieval times–the texts will argue, if anything, that this was the situation that had to change, and did change with the Reformation, for the world to “progress.” But none of the experts deny that with about the same life-span as today, with a little gold and a little land, many complicated laws that protected their property, reasonably-priced access to medical care, education if desired, and over a hundred ‘feast days’ a year (all festivities paid for by the wealthy and the guilds), it could sensibly be argued that life was as sweet as it gets in these precincts for the ordinary joe. (Source: Stripping the Altars, your library will have it.) We should be so lucky. But you know, I think we could truly go back to the future in space, when things might operate like a frontier, if we don’t let land speculate.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Lycorth wrote, “the truth of the Medieval era as a time of faith, a time when foul customs were done away with, as a time when Western culture was preserved after the Empire’s fall and beautified under the Faith as has never been done before or since”

and how true it is! Here is how Undset writes of it, from her background in Norwegian anthropology:

…at the time when the ‘Reformation’ broke out, the Church had succeeded in instilling into the consciousness of Christendom a kind of latent demand that the doctrines of Christinaity should be taken as the pattern of life, and that the temporal power should in some way or other help and support people who wished to live as Christians–should make an end of conditions and institutions which were a downright temptation to breaches of Christianity, and legislate in such a way that in abiding by the laws of their country the people would also be practising Christianity. This in reality is the triumph of the Catholic Church.

Thus Undset wrote, in Stages on the Road, “Letter to a Parish Priest.” But the Church gave it away (at Vatican II and the new teachings on the secular state) in favor of the emasculated new “religious freedom” teaching, in favor of a self-perfecting humanity that didn’t need such “help and support” anymore. That’s how we lost a very good deal. Less if you were rich–the poor lost far more. In fact, the fall of the religious state made the world ready for capitalism, which would throw the poor off their land, end their independence as owners of their small capital, and reduce them to wage slavery.

And here the Catholics on this thread would perhaps split yet again. A new thread could well begin, Capitalism: Good or Bad? But, do you know, it’s the same question, and the Catholics for a secular state would be likely to support capitalism and the Republican party (I’m betting the religious state side has no party!) . The Religious State takes far better care of its flock than the secular state and its economics of capitalism does, using a diffferent economics–broad distribution of ownership, little concentration of capital, state/Church intervention allowed. Any history text will tell you the poor weren’t thrown under the bus in medieval times–the texts will argue, if anything, that this was the situation that had to change, and did change with the Reformation, for the world to “progress.” But none of the experts deny that with about the same life-span as today, with a little gold and a little land, many complicated laws that protected their property, reasonably-priced access to medical care, education if desired, and over a hundred ‘feast days’ a year (all festivities paid for by the wealthy and the guilds), it could sensibly be argued that life was as sweet as it gets in these precincts for the ordinary joe. (Source: Stripping the Altars, your library will have it.) We should be so lucky. But you know, I think we could truly go back to the future in space, when things might operate like a frontier, if we don’t let land speculate.

It must be admitted, though, that the state paid little role in the economy of the time. Even Proudhon said the medieval city was the closest thing to anarchy we have ever had. The market was still free, if heavily SELF-regulated (i.e. the guilds, actual ethics, Church etc.) Of, course, life and towns were smaller than, so the market economy grew more naturally and evenly, as opposed to the preternatural leaps and bounds, where it quickly rises and than collpases again. It must be noted that this would not happen had the state not made it so. See Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action, or the works of Murray Rothbard. The market economy, and notably large corporations and specifically banks, could not grow to be “too big to fail” without tax shelters, government incentives, subsidies, bank incentives, FDIC, Federal Reserve and paper money, and all the other things the state does to help large companies, but would never do for small business. Had the government allowed more large companies to fail, arguably smaller, more nimble companies would have come to fill their place. How do you think Bank of America got started?

The state and the large corporations are in a fatal embrace with one another, and woe to those that believe that either can save us.

 

[portarica]

Who were the most influential popes to the US and the world in recent history?

I would think that it would be either J23 or JP2.

How did they exercise their influence? Was it by direct participation in Government or by the strength of their convictions?

When the church and state are closely aligned, the church becomes less courageous. Look at how we view Pius in WW2. People are splitting hairs about whether he did enough to save the Jews from the holocaust and the discussion isn’t about whether he did all he could, but , whether what he did somehow manages to cross the line of doing a respectable amount.Perhaps the influence of a strong pope could have prevented much of what happened, but why place the residence of the pope in jeopardy, the church couldn’t survive that.

Sure the church established orphanages, etc. but they didn’t go courageously after the practice of infanticide, and they were OK with castrati , household servitude and the orphanages were not the epitome of Christlike guidance. (which continued up to this era).

If you want more info on infanticide just Google it. It was there and didn’t go away even though the church “in the time of faith” supposedly had great influence. It is like the evils mentioned in the councils of Trent that were still evident in very recent times.

The church when it was most closely aligned with Governments didn’t exert its influence in a manner that was focussed on what Jesus taught about the value of every person.

It is only recently that the church has boldly asked for all the teachings of Jesus to be applied to the secular world.

Look at the abortion issue, I think that the vigor with which the modern Church applies itself to protecting the most vulnerable among us is a shining example of the Church boldly and confidently advocating for the least.

I postulate that there is no other issue that the Church has ever acted so courageously about. Unfortunately it had passed on many other matters.

So what? There are two churches the deposit of faith and the one with the lack of impeccability. Admitting that the church was not an example of Jesus’ teachings in the middle ages doesn’t condemn one to spiritual death , in fact I would suggest that wanting a better, more courageous church leads to spiritual growth.

Peace

 

[EnchantedEve]

Who were the most influential popes to the US and the world in recent history?

I would think that it would be either J23 or JP2.

How did they exercise their influence? Was it by direct participation in Government or by the strength of their convictions?

When the church and state are closely aligned, the church becomes less courageous. Look at how we view Pius in WW2. People are splitting hairs about whether he did enough to save the Jews from the holocaust and the discussion isn’t about whether he did all he could, but , whether what he did somehow manages to cross the line of doing a respectable amount.Perhaps the influence of a strong pope could have prevented much of what happened, but why place the residence of the pope in jeopardy, the church couldn’t survive that.

Sure the church established orphanages, etc. but they didn’t go courageously after the practice of infanticide, and they were OK with castrati , household servitude and the orphanages were not the epitome of Christlike guidance. (which continued up to this era).

If you want more info on infanticide just Google it. It was there and didn’t go away even though the church “in the time of faith” supposedly had great influence. It is like the evils mentioned in the councils of Trent that were still evident in very recent times.

The church when it was most closely aligned with Governments didn’t exert its influence in a manner that was focussed on what Jesus taught about the value of every person.

It is only recently that the church has boldly asked for all the teachings of Jesus to be applied to the secular world.

Look at the abortion issue, I think that the vigor with which the modern Church applies itself to protecting the most vulnerable among us is a shining example of the Church boldly and confidently advocating for the least.

I postulate that there is no other issue that the Church has ever acted so courageously about. Unfortunately it had passed on many other matters.

So what? There are two churches the deposit of faith and the one with the lack of impeccability. Admitting that the church was not an example of Jesus’ teachings in the middle ages doesn’t condemn one to spiritual death , in fact I would suggest that wanting a better, more courageous church leads to spiritual growth.

Peace

I am sorry, I have seen nothing posted here which changes anything, not even anything factual. I am sorry you could not do that for us.

It seems pretty clear to me, and we have shone multiple examples, that the Church in the last 2,000 years has stood pretty strong for humanity, whether you believe that or not. The Church was not born in 1960. The Church shone through in charity and justice in those days, unto this century, and you cannot blame Her if there is a misunderstaning in the modern world of how a civil society works. I am ashamed that anyone calling themselves Catholic would perniciously believe such lies and calumnies against the Church, even spreading them, which any good scholarly work of the time will prove entirely false. I pray that the Seat of Wisdom enlighten us against this darkness. I pray that everyone become informed, and see these views for what they are.

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly! It’s just another example of polemic, of how a hastily-applied and inaccurate label that appeals to our sadistic nature has stuck, and modern man with his addiction to salacious entertainment refuses to let go of it.

After all, it’s entirely more fun to think of the Medieval age as this ignorant and violent time, where war was constant, witches were burned in heaps, and tyrant kings ruled with iron fists, crushing poor peasants beneath their heels each day. It appeals to our base nature; we love horror stories.

The truth may be stranger than fiction, but it is also less titillating; the truth of the Medieval era as a time of faith, a time when foul customs were done away with, as a time when Western culture was preserved after the Empire’s fall and beautified under the Faith as has never been done before or since - that requires people to put aside their sick fantasies and, what’s more, admit they were wrong. Heaven forbid modern man admits he is wrong about anything or admits that his way of life is somehow less desirable than that which has come before.

Heaven forbid modern Catholics admit that the ways of a Catholic epoch are preferable to those of our current secularist malaise - the true “dark ages”

Don’t get the Middle Ages and the “Dark” Ages confused. The so-called Dark Ages span the time between the fall of Rome [approx. 500 AD to the Middle Ages [approx. 1000 AD].

There is a decent book out called Europe in the High Middle Ages by William Jordan, that explains this plus essentially what you posted above. The Middle Ages lasted until the Renaissance [approx. 1500 AD]. It’s amazing to think that the age of discovery was launched by essentially a Medieval man!

 

[janet_baker76]

Enchanted Eve wrote, speaking of markets in medievalism,

“The market was still free, if heavily SELF-regulated (i.e. the guilds, actual ethics, Church etc.)”

It’s the ‘self-regulation’ I’m talking about, although I would simply call it regulation, as the norms had the force of law in many instances. And I don’t know if one would call the things regulated “the market” in the sense we use the term now. But hey–it was illegal to lend money at interest. If that isn’t ‘the market,’ it’s financial anyway! Profits were regulated in various ways. Competition was not thought a good thing, but rather a temptation against the Faith, and one business was expected to pass clients on to another when it had earned ‘enough,’ a figure they apparently agreed upon. Advertising was strictly forbidden because it was considered to be stealing business from one’s neighbor. The guilds were expected to have all classes enrolled in membership (workers, managers, and owners of a given enterprise), and it was considered a sin and/or illegal to stir up class conflict or envy. The mission statement, if we were to put it like that, was not to help make people rich but to help get them to heaven. But at the end of the period, capital had little by little concentrated, and both state and Church were defied in some parts of Europe, and technology accounted for other concentration. Capitalism eventually overturned that medieval economy, and the religion that protected it. My source is Amintore Fanfani’s Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism; he is very well reputed in the traditional circles I am familiar with, anyway–maybe not so many! Also I can’t quote directly as it seems I’ve loaned my copy out. It’s a great book–Amazon has it for $12.00 used.

I’d not scorn a ban on advertising right this very minute! Let it all go in one kiosk on the corner, one’s own personal car, and the internet, and be done with it!

I sure agree with the last sentence of your previous post–there’s an unholy alliance now between business and state. As an economic system, that’s called fascism ; the definition of fascism Lenin taught (a reliable source in this case) is when the state bears the risk and private owners reap the profits; notice in the bailout we taxpayers didn’t get any actual ownership–“we” may get paid back the front money; but the owners will reap their profits, never having to have gone through the failure they would have suffered without the bailout. It’s so unfair.

If we had a Catholic political party, we could have distributist principles in the platform. Those are policies that (slowly, no drama, no revolutions) work toward broadening ownership. Like, tax the fifth pizza place in a chain way higher than the other four, encourage a sell-off. Etc. etc.

 

[Lycorth]

Who were the most influential popes to the US and the world in recent history?

I would think that it would be either J23 or JP2.

How did they exercise their influence? Was it by direct participation in Government or by the strength of their convictions?

Um, no pope ever directly participated in government, except as moral shepherd and chastiser. Again, I wish you would actually study the Middle Ages before attempting to comment on them.

When the church and state are closely aligned, the church becomes less courageous.

That’s insane, and displays your glittering ignorance about this issue. The Church was more courageous in ancient times, when Crusades were preached and launched against dangerous Muslim enemies in the Levant and the Iberian. The Church was more courageous when she went to war against dangerous heretics, such as the Cathars who encouraged homosexuality, bestiality, and threatened social order. The Church was more courageous when it stood fast to defend Europe and the Faith against its foes, both in the philosophical arena and the literal battlefield. The Church today doesn’t even dare offend anyone! That is not courage.

Look at how we view Pius in WW2. People are splitting hairs about whether he did enough to save the Jews from the holocaust and the discussion isn’t about whether he did all he could, but , whether what he did somehow manages to cross the line of doing a respectable amount.Perhaps the influence of a strong pope could have prevented much of what happened, but why place the residence of the pope in jeopardy, the church couldn’t survive that.

Popes have always placed themselves in jeopardy and popes know that the Church is not mere papal residences, but the Faith and those who defend it.

Sure the church established orphanages, etc. but they didn’t go courageously after the practice of infanticide, and they were OK with castrati , household servitude and the orphanages were not the epitome of Christlike guidance. (which continued up to this era).

Whereas a Medieval pope would have done much more. History did not begin in 1939.

If you want more info on infanticide just Google it. It was there and didn’t go away even though the church “in the time of faith” supposedly had great influence. It is like the evils mentioned in the councils of Trent that were still evident in very recent times.

Because Google is an infallible historical source?

Again, read Carroll, Belloc, Pernoud. Unlike Google, they cost a few bucks to procure, but that’s a small sacrifice.

The church when it was most closely aligned with Governments didn’t exert its influence in a manner that was focussed on what Jesus taught about the value of every person.

Nonsense. Jesus taught that every person needs to come to Him in order to be justified before the Father. The humanism that is rampant in the modern Church lacks historical basis, Biblical foundation, and common sense.

It is only recently that the church has boldly asked for all the teachings of Jesus to be applied to the secular world.

Wow. I can’t believe you actually typed that.

Facts are that only the ancient Church actually brought the teachings of Christ to the secular world. The modern Church talks a big talk about the Gospel but almost apologetically offers it up, a mother-may-I approach. This has done absolutely nothing to convert the world, as opposed to the Medieval world, where the Faith was taught in every corner of the world wherein it was preached.

That alone vindicates the Medieval approach and condemns the modern. I implore you to study real history and not what Google tells you.

Look at the abortion issue, I think that the vigor with which the modern Church applies itself to protecting the most vulnerable among us is a shining example of the Church boldly and confidently advocating for the least.

Picketing abortion clinics is what the Church is reduced to in the post-Conciliar world. The Medieval Church would not have suffered their presence amongst the population. The astronomical number of abortions that happen now, contrasted with the reletive lack of abortion in the Medieval world, is testimony to a Church-guided society being superior to a secular society.

I postulate that there is no other issue that the Church has ever acted so courageously about. Unfortunately it had passed on many other matters.

The Church has acted with much more courage and efficacy in ancient times. Today it barely whines at the fringes of Western society. We can thank, in large part, secularism for this sickening marginalization of God’s holy instrument on earth.

So what? There are two churches the deposit of faith and the one with the lack of impeccability. Admitting that the church was not an example of Jesus’ teachings in the middle ages doesn’t condemn one to spiritual death , in fact I would suggest that wanting a better, more courageous church leads to spiritual growth.

The Medieval Church was a near-perfect exemplar of Jesus’ teachings. The research of actual Catholic historians and theologians proves this beyond all doubt. Again, I beg you to avail yourself of the rich resources I’ve mentioned and stop parroting modernist lies.

 

[Lycorth]

If we had a Catholic political party, we could have distributist principles in the platform. Those are policies that (slowly, no drama, no revolutions) work toward broadening ownership. Like, tax the fifth pizza place in a chain way higher than the other four, encourage a sell-off. Etc. etc.

Indeed. That is what we need, but capitalist addicts can’t envision a world where markets have free and unlimited power to what they will in service of profit, and welfare state socialists can’t envision a world where religious principles guide and restrain regulation and state control.

But I wouldn’t cite Lenin’s definition of Fascism. It would be like asking Martin Luther for an accurate definition of Catholicism.

 

[janet_baker76]

Lycorth, you are a charitable person, to take so much time to tease apart the errors of "portorica.’ Can’t even spell Puerto.

 

[portarica]

The Medieval Church was a near-perfect exemplar of Jesus’ teachings. The research of actual Catholic historians and theologians proves this beyond all doubt. Again, I beg you to avail yourself of the rich resources I’ve mentioned and stop parroting modernist lies.

If you feel that medieval times were near perfect examples of Jesus teachings, then that explains quite a bit.

The rich resources you mention are generally examples of the political relationships and do little to explain the actual situations experienced by most of the inhabitants of Europe.

To put it into a modern analogy, the writings you mention are akin to writings saying that the US economy is in recovery . When in med times it is pointed out the relationships between the 'civilized and titled, it ignores the plight of the common man. Similarly today the profitability of Wall Street is in stark contrast to the real unemployment rate that is in the high teens.

To give examples of only what is happening to the “best and the brightest” ignores what happened in the past and is happening to the most.

To equate the actions of the church in the middle ages or up to the most recent past with what Jesus taught ignores both the actions of the church and what Jesus taught. Why do you think the term “lack of impeccability” came into usage?

What you appear to have an inability to do is to separate the human actions of the members of the clergy with the word of God. That is why the church expressly reserves infallibility to matters of morals and doctrine.

That is why some popes could live like kings and still be shepherds.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Lycorth, you are a charitable person, to take so much time to tease apart the errors of "portorica.’ Can’t even spell Puerto.

Actually show me one post that has a factual error. Also the screen name has nothing to do with Puerto Rico.

Peace

 

[Holly3278]

Separation of Church and State is a good thing. It keeps the government from influencing the Church. However, the Church is free to influence the government. That is not a violation of the separation of Church and State idea that is present in our law and governmental systems.

 

[portarica]

Separation of Church and State is a good thing. It keeps the government from influencing the Church. However, the Church is free to influence the government. That is not a violation of the separation of Church and State idea that is present in our law and governmental systems.

You have it right. The church can do more when it has moral authority then with temporal authority.

Peace

 

[janet_baker76]

Sorry, Portarica. What does the spelling come from? (I have known it to be a spelling by people making fun of Puertoricanos.) And why do you state so firmly that the Church does better with moral than with temporal authority? Better for what? Lets keep the measure the Church’s measure: getting people to heaven, nothing else. If the Church can close down a brothel instead of just preaching against it, which one do you think is better at getting people to heaven? Actually I don’t know if the Church closed down brothels when it had temporal authority. But She closed down usurers.

 

[portarica]

Sorry, Portarica. What does the spelling come from? (I have known it to be a spelling by people making fun of Puertoricanos.) And why do you state so firmly that the Church does better with moral than with temporal authority? Better for what? Lets keep the measure the Church’s measure: getting people to heaven, nothing else. If the Church can close down a brothel instead of just preaching against it, which one do you think is better at getting people to heaven? Actually I don’t know if the Church closed down brothels when it had temporal authority. But She closed down usurers.

The meaning behind the nickname has nothing to do with the island.

If you look at how the church has exercised its temporal authority you will see that it rules as earthly monarchs did and it even hangs on to the trappings of the courtiers of the middle ages.

While it is incongruent with what Jesus taught, it is not critical. Who cares if the pope wears Prada opera slippers and the cardinals dress up like what ever they are dressed up like. They don’t dress or comport themselves like Jesus taught, but they are human, so no biggy.

Does that interfere with getting Jesus’ message out. Yes it does, but despite the apparent incongruity of the actions of the church with Jesus’ teachings, it has done a world of good. Much less than it could have, but more than most.

And it has stuck around for 2000 years. So it has tradition, many of which come from those illustrious middle ages. At the time they were the best of a bad lot.

Look at the councils of Trent in detail, it dealt with many of the issues that the church struggles with today. It was unable to police itself then, despite knowing what was wrong and what was right. That complacency with making do with what it equated with temporal survivability led to a lessening of its standards of behavior, at least in reference to what Jesus taught.

But we know that is the case with any human institution, how can any institution meet the standards that Jesus laid out. His standards regarding exaltation, humility and equality of all fly in the face of any temporal institution.

The pandering the church did toward its benefactors is a prime example, but no worse than what present day politicians do now.

I would think that if you asked J23rd why he was the first modern pope to forsake the sedan chair he would agree that the church went a little too far when it came to indulging the temporal needs of the “princes” of the church.

But I don’t really care about that type of stuff unless it serves as a distraction to the work of Jesus. It nice to have a big flamboyant show every now and then to prove to God that we are concerned with His wellbeing and to cheer Him up. There is no harm in that.

But when a pope isn’t thinking of his alliances with Austria vs. the former Papal states, but just has to worry about the Vatican, He can devote more time to doing God’s wishes and not worry about his bully pulpit being shutdown or watered down by any undue outside political influence.

Peace