The sins of Catholics do not affect the truth of teaching?

[Ignatius]

No. A good tree will bear good fruit.

The fruit analogy would apply to a single individual. A more apt analogy would be not a single individual, but a field of wheat.
Matthew 13:24-30 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

 

[Tomdstone]

The fruit analogy would apply to a single individual.

It is possible, but other interpretations are possible. For the example that I had given above, I had in mind the idea of representing a group of people with a given creed as a tree, and each apple on that tree representing a person in that group.

 

[Sarcelle]

Hi there, I was hoping you might be able to help me with a question I have

Whenever some awful scandal comes out about church abuses, or people talk about something bad the Catholic church did a few decades or centuries ago one of the lines I’ve often heard is “Bad behavior of members does not change the truth of its teachings”.

How can this be? If the Catholic Church is as claimed the one and only instrument of God to bring about the salvation of souls he seems to have picked a very inefficient way of doing it. Any book on Papal history can show many pontiffs who were less than ideal examples of Catholic faith. Now maybe the office is separate from the corrupt individual…But to repeatedly thrust power into the hands of individuals (Let’s take the German Bishops who have the “pay to take sacraments” policy; essentially pay me or I’m condemning you to hell) who like the so called “Bishops of Bling” use it to further their own ends…Either somethings not quite right with how this salvation plan is supposed to work (i.e: God didn’t realize humans would be as corrupt as they are), or saving souls apparently wasn’t the creators number one priority. The whole apostolic system seems very open to abuse, and doesn’t seem to fit with the idea of a deity who wants to see souls saved.It fits perfectly with the idea of an absolute law, but not with any concept of benevolence.

One bad egg doesn’t mean the whole basket is off, but when the very core system itself is very inefficient and in practice does not and has never worked (i.e: There has never been a period without corrupt clerics) why is that not indicative of some very deep problems with the theory.

On a far more basic crude level; in the same way North Korea isn’t fit to lecture anyone on human rights, how is the Catholic Church qualified to lecture anyone about the welfare of children or vulnerable individuals? Doesn’t “Do as I say, not as I do” sound hypocritical?

It’s just something that crossed my mind, and I wondered what the Catholic opinion on it was.

Thanks if you can help.

I guess any sort of system that is made of humans have an inner core of corruption. I mean any system, from churches to secular corporations.

Now if the Catholic Church is not fit to lecture anyone on morals, because some of Her members have abused, which institution is fit to do so? Are there any perfect organizations?

 

[Duane1966]

It is possible, but other interpretations are possible. For the example that I had given above, I had in mind the idea of representing a group of people with a given creed as a tree, and each apple on that tree representing a person in that group.

I know many Christians who have committed all kinds of sins. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings are false, since I see the bad fruit that has been produced?

 

[Tomdstone]

I know many Christians who have committed all kinds of sins. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings are false, since I see the bad fruit that has been produced?

It may not be a question of true or false, but a question as to which group is more effective in convincing people to live a life of high moral character.

 

[Duane1966]

It may not be a question of true or false, but a question as to which group is more effective in convincing people to live a life of high moral character.

Do you know there are many Jews that point at the sins of Christians and say this is the fruit of Christianity, Jesus’ teachings must be false?

Judging who has high moral character and who doesn’t is dangerous to one’s own soul. Consider:

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’d
13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’e
14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Vitalis of Gaza*(died c. 625 AD) is venerated as ahermit-saintby theCatholic Church. AmonkofGaza, he travelled to the city ofAlexandriaat the age of sixty. His legend states that after obtaining the name and address of everyprostitutein the city, he hired himself out as aday laborer, and took his wage to one of these women at the end of the day. He then would teach her about her dignity and value as a woman and that she did not deserve to be used by men as an object of their lust.This practice was condoned by theChurch, and many prostitutes in the city abandoned their profession and became good wives and mothers. Vitalis was killed when a man, misunderstanding the nature of Vitalis’ visit to a brothel, struck him on the head. The monk managed to return to hishutwhere he died. Apparently during his burial, former prostitutes came out to explain the saint’s works before processing with candles and lanterns as his body was carried to the grave.*

 

[Athus]

Still waiting for answer.

Do the sins of multiple Christians affect the truth of Jesus’ teaching?

I’m not quite sure why you ask, because it does not relate to what I asked.

My question suggests that the Catholic notion of Jesus’s teaching regarding the organization of a church is incorrect, not that Jesus himself was incorrect.

If he is God, I struggle to see why he would call to implement a system that clearly at no point in history has ever functioned efficiently, and for most of its history (thankfully in more recent years it has improved) has ended up as the personal sledgehammer for corrupt clerics rather than its intended purpose.

A perfect God intentionally creating a salvation system designed to fail with a system of organization that actually serves to incubate corruption (see well known examples of the covering up of the sex scandals and members of the curia blackmailing one another with it) does not seem logical to me, that is what I am trying to understand.

Yes, all organizations with humans are corrupt but some are more corrupt than others; A Democracy for instance has less risk of corruption than an Autocracy because in the former no one individual is beyond reproach and can be removed if proven “bad”, while in the latter if you get a bad egg you’re all in trouble.

I don’t think this has anything to do with Jesus’ teachings, I think establishing a canon of scripture three hundred years after his death from accounts written at least 80 years later (so NT scholars seem to think) makes that very difficult to acertain.

TL;DR: If God is perfect then his plans are perfect, or at very very least he would pick the most efficient option. The Papal Autocratic Apostolic system has been proven beyond any doubt after 2,000 years to not be the most efficient option. Being the lest efficient option and the furthest from perfection, it cannot have been chosen by Jesus.

I would welcome any further thoughts on this, and I am grateful to all who have posted. They have all been very insightful.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is possible, but other interpretations are possible. For the example that I had given above, I had in mind the idea of representing a group of people with a given creed as a tree, and each apple on that tree representing a person in that group.

Are the people “rotten” because of the creed or in spite of it? If it is the creed that is creating the rotten fruit, then the fruit can indicate the rottenness of the tree. However, if the fruit are rotten because of external factors not because of anything about the tree, then the condition of the fruit doesn’t say anything about the rottenness of the tree.

Fire blight is transmitted to apple trees by bees carrying the fungus, which gets into the blossoms and moves into the branches. It may eventually infect the entire tree, but healthy trees can withstand it for a long time. An alternative is to cut the infected branches off (excommunicate them, so to speak.)

The point being that noticing rotten fruit doesn’t necessarily say anything about the health of the entire tree, merely that it was likely infected from outside and is in the process of fighting off the disease or succumbing to it.

Admittedly, the Church has had episodes of “blight” infecting it, but, “How has the tree withstood those?” is the question to ask. Even if there are current issues, the answer lies in asking what is the source of those problems (localized or systemic) and is the tree dealing with them in a way that shows it is healthy?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If he is God, I struggle to see why he would call to implement a system that clearly at no point in history has ever functioned efficiently, and for most of its history (thankfully in more recent years it has improved) has ended up as the personal sledgehammer for corrupt clerics rather than its intended purpose.

These are debatable points in spite of the fact you claim they are “clearly” established. Besides that, the word “efficiently” may not be how the Church Is supposed to function. Are you Jesus? What makes you think you have a proper handle on what the mission of the Church as envisioned by Jesus is supposed to be?

Furthermore, claims about “most of its history” imply you have done a detailed survey of the facts and have arrived at an appropriate determination based on those facts. Care to present the evidence? If you look at, for example, Popes who have been canonized, it appears that the Church does a pretty good job of self-assessing and evaluating the work of each pope. That is a sign of health because its view of itself is “clearly” sober and uncompromised.

 

[Athus]

These are debatable points in spite of the fact you claim they are “clearly” established. Besides that, the word “efficiently” may not be how the Church Is supposed to function. Are you Jesus? What makes you think you have a proper handle on what the mission of the Church as envisioned by Jesus is supposed to be?

Jesus is supposed to be concerned with the salvation of souls isn’t eh? Why did he die on the cross after all?

I’ll return to my previous analogy for a moment. If a house is on fire and you are concerned for the children within what course of action do you take? Do you drag them out or estinquish the fire (attacking the problem head on as Jesus’ sacrifice indicates he took) or dither about fretting over how neat the drapes are if if one is authorized to do it?

If salvation is the top priority, a strong course of action would have been taken.A chain of succession where any corrupt nobleman could buy his way in and then lord over the masses with claims to divine authority does not seem to be in line with the priority of saving souls; it seems more in line with facilitating and strengthening claims to temporal power (a notion which proved forgeries like the “donation of constantine”) attests to.

I’m trying to understand the Catholic point of view, but with the above in mind it is proving difficult.

Furthermore, claims about “most of its history” imply you have done a detailed survey of the facts and have arrived at an appropriate determination based on those facts. Care to present the evidence? If you look at, for example, Popes who have been canonized, it appears that the Church does a pretty good job of self-assessing and evaluating the work of each pope. That is a sign of health because its view of itself is “clearly” sober and uncompromised.

Considering the likes of St.Thomas Aquinas; a man who called for the extermination of all non Catholics was also canonized suggests to me that morality, even by the standards of the time is irrelevant to qualifying for sainthood. Pius IX and several other Popes were guilty of countless crimes against Jews from abduction to inspiring racial hatred and yet the church has canonized or is on the way of doing so for several of them.

Obedience to the Papacy/Curia appears to be the main per-requisite for sainthood, morality while appreciated is a secondary quality. I do not trust individuals often promoted into high office by the man they are now judging to be impartial judges of his character.

 

[Duane1966]

I’m not quite sure why you ask, because it does not relate to what I asked.

My question suggests that the Catholic notion of Jesus’s teaching regarding the organization of a church is incorrect, not that Jesus himself was incorrect.y

If he is God, I struggle to see why he would call to implement a system that clearly at no point in history has ever functioned efficiently, and for most of its history (thankfully in more recent years it has improved) has ended up as the personal sledgehammer for corrupt clerics rather than its intended purpose.

A perfect God intentionally creating a salvation system designed to fail with a system of organization that actually serves to incubate corruption (see well known examples of the covering up of the sex scandals and members of the curia blackmailing one another with it) does not seem logical to me, that is what I am trying to understand.

Yes, all organizations with humans are corrupt but some are more corrupt than others; A Democracy for instance has less risk of corruption than an Autocracy because in the former no one individual is beyond reproach and can be removed if proven “bad”, while in the latter if you get a bad egg you’re all in trouble.

I don’t think this has anything to do with Jesus’ teachings, I think establishing a canon of scripture three hundred years after his death from accounts written at least 80 years later (so NT scholars seem to think) makes that very difficult to acertain.

TL;DR: If God is perfect then his plans are perfect, or at very very least he would pick the most efficient option. The Papal Autocratic Apostolic system has been proven beyond any doubt after 2,000 years to not be the most efficient option. Being the lest efficient option and the furthest from perfection, it cannot have been chosen by Jesus.

I would welcome any further thoughts on this, and I am grateful to all who have posted. They have all been very insightful.

Do you know this is the argument that many atheists use? That if there was a God, there is no way that He would have allowed humanity to be so twisted?

Same argument that many Jews use when it comes to Christ, look at His followers?

I find the Church amazingly efficient, as do many of the converts stories that I listen to. Since I have been following Her teachings wholeheartedly in the past year, I have found my spiritual life grow exponentially.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Considering the likes of St.Thomas Aquinas; a man who called for the extermination of all non Catholics was also canonized suggests to me that morality, even by the standards of the time is irrelevant to qualifying for sainthood. Pius IX and several other Popes were guilty of countless crimes against Jews from abduction to inspiring racial hatred and yet the church has canonized or is on the way of doing so for several of them.

Obedience to the Papacy/Curia appears to be the main per-requisite for sainthood, morality while appreciated is a secondary quality. I do not trust individuals often promoted into high office by the man they are now judging to be impartial judges of his character.

Do you want to provide credible evidence for these claims, or should we just take your word for it?

Where, exactly, did Thomas Aquinas call for the extermination of all non-Catholics, in a clear, unambiguous way?

I have read a great deal of Aquinas and about Aquinas and have never, ever, come across any words or acts of his that could be construed in the way you claim.

I’ll wait for it…

 

[Athus]

Do you know this is the argument that many atheists use? That if there was a God, there is no way that He would have allowed humanity to be so twisted?

I honestly don’t know, I did have to look into Atheism briefly in my studies but since I am not one nor did I ever seek to pursue Athiest apologetic it never interested me.

I suppose it does sound like a logical conclusion, although one I feel myself they went a step too far with.

Same argument that many Jews use when it comes to Christ, look at His followers?

Oh his followers are far from perfect in any denomination I agree. That said most of them acknowledge their falliability. Very few sects have ever claimed innerency on matters of doctrine or practice.

I find the Church amazingly efficient, as do many of the converts stories that I listen to. Since I have been following Her teachings wholeheartedly in the past year, I have found my spiritual life grow exponentially.

I’m happy it has brought you some peace and contentment. Truely I’m not going out of my way to try and attack your faith. I’m trying to understand it, even if I don’t always agree with it.

 

[Athus]

Do you want to provide credible evidence for these claims, or should we just take your word for it?

Of course, forgive me I just assumed you knew of them.

For the Jews you can have your pick of any of these romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.html
Peter Plato;12479005:

Where, exactly, did Thomas Aquinas call for the extermination of all non-Catholics, in a clear, unambiguous way?

I have read a great deal of Aquinas and about Aquinas and have never, ever, come across any words or acts of his that could be construed in the way you claim.

I’ll wait for it…

You need not wait long, I too am a keen reader of Aquinas

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2).

In this section he spoke of the sin of heresy, and to be a non Catholic and disagree with Catholic teachings is of course to be in heresy.

I don’t think much more needs to be said, we have a saint calling for the death of the non-belivers so morality doesn’t really come into it.

 

[meltzerboy]

Peter Plato;12479005:

Do you want to provide credible evidence for these claims, or should we just take your word for it?

Of course, forgive me I just assumed you knew of them.

For the Jews you can have your pick of any of these romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.html

You need not wait long, I too am a keen reader of Aquinas

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2).

In this section he spoke of the sin of heresy, and to be a non Catholic and disagree with Catholic teachings is of course to be in heresy.

I don’t think much more needs to be said, we have a saint calling for the death of the non-belivers so morality doesn’t really come into it.

If entirely true, the (unidentified) website regarding the papal decrees of yesteryear against the Jews contains a shameful testimony indeed. I was aware of some of these statements but not all of them listed on the site. Fortunately, many popes of the modern era have been more generous toward the Jews. Still, even if these indictments were not decreed ex cathedra as matters of faith and morals, you have made your point concerning morality.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you know there are many Jews that point at the sins of Christians and say this is the fruit of Christianity, Jesus’ teachings must be false?

Judging who has high moral character and who doesn’t is dangerous to one’s own soul. Consider:

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’d
13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’e
14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Vitalis of Gaza*(died c. 625 AD) is venerated as ahermit-saintby theCatholic Church. AmonkofGaza, he travelled to the city ofAlexandriaat the age of sixty. His legend states that after obtaining the name and address of everyprostitutein the city, he hired himself out as aday laborer, and took his wage to one of these women at the end of the day. He then would teach her about her dignity and value as a woman and that she did not deserve to be used by men as an object of their lust.This practice was condoned by theChurch, and many prostitutes in the city abandoned their profession and became good wives and mothers. Vitalis was killed when a man, misunderstanding the nature of Vitalis’ visit to a brothel, struck him on the head. The monk managed to return to hishutwhere he died. Apparently during his burial, former prostitutes came out to explain the saint’s works before processing with candles and lanterns as his body was carried to the grave.*

Why do the polls show that a majority of Roman Catholics believe that it is OK for a married couple to use artificial birth control? I thought it was a mortal sin to use ABC, and that you could be sent to hell for an unrepented mortal sin?

 

[Tomdstone]

Pius IX and several other Popes were guilty of countless crimes against Jews from abduction to inspiring racial hatred and yet the church has canonized or is on the way of doing so for several of them.

Catholics say that when Edgardo Mortara was kidnapped by order of Pope Pius IX, he was a Catholic boy, not a Jewish one, because he had been secretly baptised by a maid. But I don’t know how they would know whether or not the baptism was valid since there were no witnesses.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In this section he spoke of the sin of heresy, and to be a non Catholic and disagree with Catholic teachings is of course to be in heresy.

I don’t think much more needs to be said, we have a saint calling for the death of the non-belivers so morality doesn’t really come into it.

First, of all, your premises are untrue.

Heresy is not possible for a non-Catholic. Only Catholics CAN be heretics. There is also a question of intent.

Aquinas was speaking ceteris parabis or “all things being equal.” If permissible for the state to execute someone for intentionally killing others in a temporal sense, then Aquinas was pointing out that it would be at least as permissible to execute someone responsible for the intentional eternal death of another person. You may not see his point and I am certain he didn’t prescribe this as the thing to do, merely that it would be justified if state sponsored executions are likewise justified.

Think about it… Which is worse to kill someone’s earthly life or to bring about their eternal death?

 

[Tomdstone]

First, of all, your premises are untrue.

Heresy is not possible for a non-Catholic. Only Catholics CAN be heretics. There is also a question of intent.

Aquinas was speaking ceteris parabis or “all things being equal.” If permissible for the state to execute someone for intentionally killing others in a temporal sense, then Aquinas was pointing out that it would be at least as permissible to execute someone responsible for the intentional eternal death of another person. You may not see his point and I am certain he didn’t prescribe this as the thing to do, merely that it would be justified if state sponsored executions are likewise justified.

Think about it… Which is worse to kill someone’s earthly life or to bring about their eternal death?

Did the Catholic Church approve of the torture of heretics and burning them alive at the stake?

 

[Athus]

First, of all, your premises are untrue.

Heresy is not possible for a non-Catholic. Only Catholics CAN be heretics. There is also a question of intent.

That’s not right. This may be the case now but during the Albigensian Crusade and in Isabella I’s Castille (Another one on the way to sainthood funnily enough!) both Cathars and Jews were both punished as heretics and deniers of Jesus.

Now I personally would have considered Catharism to be a denomination of Christianity, but according to Innocent III they were not. The Catholic definition not mine.

Aquinas was speaking ceteris parabis or “all things being equal.” If permissible for the state to execute someone for intentionally killing others in a temporal sense, then Aquinas was pointing out that it would be at least as permissible to execute someone responsible for the intentional eternal death of another person. You may not see his point and I am certain he didn’t prescribe this as the thing to do, merely that it would be justified if state sponsored executions are likewise justified.

Think about it… Which is worse to kill someone’s earthly life or to bring about their eternal death?

I hope you realize this is the kind of crazy thinking that fuels anti-Catholicism and anti-theism in general right? If you ever wanted to know why anti-Catholics exist, you’ve got your evidence right there.

It was only about half an hour ago you were writing about moral law in that other thread, but now you advocate slaughter in the name of promoting your brand of Christianity.

Yes, I see the intent, as misguided and mistaken as it was and still is. I find the urge to send sinners to their eternal fate early rather unnerving though, not least because this makes arguments against assisted suicide now look farcical.

“Oh you’re going to hell anyway, lets just send you a bit sooner! Forget mercy, forget a chance to repent. To hell with everyone!”