Uncommon Problem with RCC

[DavidFilmer]

What amazes me is that the Church has had so few problems, considering its hierarchy.

Let me try to put the absurdly ridiculous Church hierarchy in US government terms, which may serve to highlight exactly how absurd it really is (because NOBODY could imagine this in US government).

There is a Senate comprised of a few selected politicians (this would be the College of Cardinals). There is a House (this would be the Bishops who are not part of the College of Cardinals and exercise far less authority). The members of either the House or Senate are not elected by the public, but appointed by the president (the Pope). They serve for life at the pleasure of the president, and cannot be forcably removed from office by any means other than the president.

The president, in turn, is elected by the Senate (the House has no say in the matter). Once elected, he serves for life, and no power on earth can depose him. His election is held in secret, and the Senators are forbidden to discuss it.

The president wields unlimited authority. He can create laws (doctrine and rules), and no rules apply to him (the president is completely immune from all rules - this would be the equivalent of Canon Law, which does not govern any Pope).

There is a judicial system. The judges are appointed by members of the House or Senate and serve at their pleasure. The ruling of these courts can be overturned by whomever appointed the judges. Congressmen are not subject to any Court except except a Court appointed by the president.

Both houses of Congress may occasionally meet (with the president’s permission) to draft laws that are binding upon the population (this would be an Ecumenical Council). Such a Council does not become effective until it receives the president’s approval. The president has line-item veto power over any law, or may nullify the entire Council before or after it has concluded.

There are no “sunshine laws” that require that any meetings affecting public policy be held in public view. There is no “transparency” of Church finances. Disciplinary actions against political leaders are usually secret. There is no Freedom of Information Act.

Congressmen (and certain other political leaders) have nearly absolute control over minor political leaders (priests) under their dominion (this is particularly true of indentured political leaders - Religious).

There are indentured citizens (nuns and monks, who are laypeople) who are under the control of political superiors. In many cases, these people work long hours for little or no compensation beyond room and board.

The ordinary citizens (laypeople) have no say in their government, and are expected to accept everything the government imposes on them.

The Church has had this hierarchy (more or less) for almost 2000 years. As a form of government, it is far older than any other government on earth.

If someone wanted to set up this government in a secular state, I wouldn’t give it a century before it utterly collapsed. No scandal or offense is acceptable, but I am astonished that the Church has so few. We cannot ever eliminate the human element, but I think history shows a divine element as well. The very fact that the Church continues to exist is difficult to explain apart from Divine Grace.

 

[savone]

If I may, I suggest several considerations. Pray for the faith that you know and commit for God’s will in your life. Continue to ask questions, as you evidently have been. Because “on my own” is evidently not being helpful for you. Has anyone suggested a spiritual advisor? Finally, you asked not to be treated “harshly”. Okay, I hope you haven’t heard my response as being so. And, be as kind with the Church as you wish others to be with you.

Trusting and praying that you will seek the intercession of Our Blessed Mother and remember her words to servants long ago, “Do whatever he tells you.”

 

[Dorothy]

The problems caused by members of the Catholic Church do not eclipse the Truths that our Lord Jesus Christ gives us.

 

[jinc1019]

Thank you to everyone who has posted in so far. I promise to read over each comment carefully and respond when possible. Thank you again for all of your help.
Justin

 

[Bagheera]

It was an excellent summary.

If someone wanted to set up this government in a secular state, I wouldn’t give it a century before it utterly collapsed.

Hmmm, that is not certain. See below.
David Filmer:

No scandal or offense is acceptable, but I am astonished that the Church has so few. We cannot ever eliminate the human element, but I think history shows a divine element as well. The very fact that the Church continues to exist is difficult to explain apart from Divine Grace.

But here you are mistaken. “Grace” needs to have nothing to do with it. It is perfectly simple to explain why such a structure could have survived 2000 years. It is precisely the lack of any freedom, the totality of the control which makes such a system impossible to overthrow from within.

Yet, George Orwell described a secular society, which would be exactly as stable as the church, or maybe even more so. Of course I refer to the hypothetical society of 1984. The pope is the Big Brother, the cardinals are the Inner Party, the rest of the clergy is the Outer Party, while the everyday believers are the proles. The resemblance of the structure is scary. There is the equivalent of the “thought police”; the voluntary acceptance of the power structure (the believers police themselves), under the threat of excommunication. And there is Room one-oh-one, which is obviously the equivalent of “hell”.

There is one difference however. In 1984 there was no “outside”. In our reality there is. There are the other religions, there are the people who are not religious, and there is a true separation between the church and the state. Before the Enlightment there was a nominal separation between the church and the state. The church ruled the monarchs, who, in turn ruled the people. The church did not need to light the fire under the “heretics”, it could order the temporal powers to do it.

Not any more. People tasted freedom, and freedom is a heady drink . Yes, the church is still very strong, but there are signs of “decay”. The number of “real” orthodox members is in decline, the number of the “catholics in name only” (or cafeteria catholics) is increasing. The leaders of the church are aware of this, and complain about it. In Europe the overall membership is diminishing… etc.

So the “grace” you speak of seems pretty powerless.

As for the number of “scandals” is being “few”, you seem to forget that the church asserts that the holy spirit will “protect” the church from making mistakes in the case of faith and morals. Sure, those few members of the clergy who were abusing the children (and they were “only” a few) were fallible, but the church is supposed to have “special protection” against “fallibility”. But it looks like that the holy spirit makes an inadequate “job”, as well. It did not protect the church against making serious errors when it did not deal swiftly and immediately with those few “bad apples”, but was moving them from “barrel” to “barrel”. Seems to be a pretty important instance of “morals”.

 

[jinc1019]

What amazes me is that the Church has had so few problems, considering its hierarchy.

Let me try to put the absurdly ridiculous Church hierarchy in US government terms, which may serve to highlight exactly how absurd it really is (because NOBODY could imagine this in US government).

There is a Senate comprised of a few selected politicians (this would be the College of Cardinals). There is a House (this would be the Bishops who are not part of the College of Cardinals and exercise far less authority). The members of either the House or Senate are not elected by the public, but appointed by the president (the Pope). They serve for life at the pleasure of the president, and cannot be forcably removed from office by any means other than the president.

The president, in turn, is elected by the Senate (the House has no say in the matter). Once elected, he serves for life, and no power on earth can depose him. His election is held in secret, and the Senators are forbidden to discuss it.

The president wields unlimited authority. He can create laws (doctrine and rules), and no rules apply to him (the president is completely immune from all rules - this would be the equivalent of Canon Law, which does not govern any Pope).

There is a judicial system. The judges are appointed by members of the House or Senate and serve at their pleasure. The ruling of these courts can be overturned by whomever appointed the judges. Congressmen are not subject to any Court except except a Court appointed by the president.

Both houses of Congress may occasionally meet (with the president’s permission) to draft laws that are binding upon the population (this would be an Ecumenical Council). Such a Council does not become effective until it receives the president’s approval. The president has line-item veto power over any law, or may nullify the entire Council before or after it has concluded.

There are no “sunshine laws” that require that any meetings affecting public policy be held in public view. There is no “transparency” of Church finances. Disciplinary actions against political leaders are usually secret. There is no Freedom of Information Act.

Congressmen (and certain other political leaders) have nearly absolute control over minor political leaders (priests) under their dominion (this is particularly true of indentured political leaders - Religious).

There are indentured citizens (nuns and monks, who are laypeople) who are under the control of political superiors. In many cases, these people work long hours for little or no compensation beyond room and board.

The ordinary citizens (laypeople) have no say in their government, and are expected to accept everything the government imposes on them.

The Church has had this hierarchy (more or less) for almost 2000 years. As a form of government, it is far older than any other government on earth.

If someone wanted to set up this government in a secular state, I wouldn’t give it a century before it utterly collapsed. No scandal or offense is acceptable, but I am astonished that the Church has so few. We cannot ever eliminate the human element, but I think history shows a divine element as well. The very fact that the Church continues to exist is difficult to explain apart from Divine Grace.

This is an absolutely brilliant point.

 

[jinc1019]

Hello everyone,
I have read all of your comments and greatly appreciate and admire you all for taking the time to post concerns, questions, advice, etc. I greatly appreciate it.

While it would be impossible for me to give each comment the time it deserves, I would like to respond in general by saying that many of you have made very good points. I agree that the Catholic Church has done a great deal of good, that the structure of the church has in some way contributed to this over time in certain situations, and that the bad is often the focus of criticism. I also agree that many Protestant churches have done a great deal of horrific acts as well.

However, I disagree quite strenuously on other points. While I agree that the Church has done a lot of good, the Church SHOULD do a lot of good if it is truly Christ’s church. It should not, however, do some of the horrific things it has done if it is. Additionally, MANY Christian churches have done a lot of good, so that as an argument is pretty weak. I do admit though that too often people put the poor decisions of Catholics outside of context where the good is forgotten.

There are many, many other comments I would like to make, but I think it would be more productive in general (instead of me arguing) to listen to what others have to say on the issue. Thank you all again and I hope to hear more from others.

 

[zz912]

As a convert, I can assure you that any problem you find in the Catholic Church, you will find the same in other churches. Every church and denomination has at times made sinful choices, made bad choices, involved themselves too much in politics, supported bad politicians, and had ugly periods of history. (and if they haven’t, that just means the church or denomination is very young and hasn’t done it YET.)

Of course there are going to be some ugly things in the Catholic Church’s history, and some ugly things in the present and future. But Jesus promised that the Church would prevail, and that the Church would never teach error. Hold on to that, come into the Church, and receive the sacraments frequently.

 

[weller2]

Let me try to put the absurdly ridiculous Church hierarchy in US government terms, which may serve to highlight exactly how absurd it really is (because NOBODY could imagine this in US government).

Your argument is built on a serious anachronism. US political system (as most political systems today) is based on the idea of separation of powers. Montesquieus’ On the Spirit of Laws which advanced the idea was not published until 1748. Funnily enough, the book was quickly placed by the Church on the Index of Forbidden Books (included in 1751 edition). So it’s not that the Church has a ridiculous political system when compared to the US, it’s that the US political system is based on ideas which have been condemned by the Church. Go figure.

The Church’s fear of these ideas was so strong, that the end of 18th century saw a rather unique alliance between the Church and Russia to overthrow Poland’s 1791 constitution – which has resulted in a fall of Polish state 4 years later, a popular revolution hanging the bishops for treason, and later Russian troops executing revolutionaries.

If someone wanted to set up this government in a secular state, I wouldn’t give it a century before it utterly collapsed.

Nonsense. The Church structure is the same one used by feudal states (e.g. dioceses and parishes are tied to land). Feudalism in Europe survived over a thousand years. It ended due to spread of the same ideas that the US was built on.

 

[weller2]

Now, you were speaking of the Church’s hierarchy. I know many will reach way back to the Middle Ages and talk about abuses from that time period, when not only the Church, but mankind, was quite primitive.

In other words, since the medieval atrocities have been committed by civilian king and not a Church, the Church cannot be blamed for them.

This ignores that the Church held to a political theory that king’s mandate for a political power comes from heaven – recall that European kings would receive their crown from a bishop, in a ceremony which was a sacrament in all but a name. Also, the Church could effectively void a king’s mandate by declaring him excommunicated. Look up investiture controversy for the most famous example.

In 425, the bishop of Amida said this about 7 thousand pagan POWs held by Roman authorities: Our God, my brethren, needs neither dishes nor cups; for He neither eats nor drinks, nor is in want of anything. Since then, by the liberality of its faithful members the Church possesses many vessels both of gold and silver, it behooves us to sell them, that by the money thus raised, we may be able to redeem the prisoners and also supply them with food.

In 1207, the papal legate, asked whether the French army should take prisoners after storming Beziers (the last stronghold of the Cathar heresy), replied Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.

 

[Tomdstone]

As a convert, I can assure you that any problem you find in the Catholic Church, you will find the same in other churches.

Concerning the question of burning people alive at the stake, as for example, Joan of Arc was burned alive at the stake, can you tell me when the Bahai Church was ever involved in such a problem?

 

[Tomdstone]

As a convert, I can assure you that any problem you find in the Catholic Church, you will find the same in other churches.

Concerning the problem of torturing people in the inquisition, can you tell me when the Greek Orthodox Church ever did such?

 

[jinc1019]

Those are all fair points about the RCC.

I do want to point out though that David Filmer’s analogy does hold true, even if his final point about a government not being able to last with that kind of governing structure is wrong. If you look at other nations that have employed similar systems in the last 2000 years, none of them are still left standing, but the Catholic Church is. It’s a valid point by him.

 

[andrewstx]

My story is long and very complicated (and has been discussed at length on these forums many times in the past)…so I won’t go into it.

As a brief summary, you should know that I grew up in the Catholic Church, but was never really a true Christian. My parents were “spiritual” but they went to Catholic church out of habit, not out of faith.

When I was in college (at an Evangelical school), I became a Christian for the first time (with a lot of help from my Catholic father-in-law to be) and I have been looking for a Christian home ever since.

I have spent years examining MANY different Christian denominations and I have given everyone a fair chance (at least I have tried to! I am a fallen human after all).

After making the rounds and studying all of the issues carefully, I am considering entering the Catholic Church once again (this time getting confirmed) and really becoming apart of the community there permanently.

One of the major roadblocks I am running into though is about the Catholic Church’s governing structure and the problems that come from it. Regardless of what you think about papal infallibility, papal authority, or the episcopal form of government, fair Catholics have to admit that a lot of really awful things have come from it. A lot of corruption, a lot of strife, murder, the restriction of liberty, etc. It’s a historical fact that the Catholic Church supported the kings of Europe against the democratization of the West and that the RCC was intricately tied to the opposition of the principle of separating church governance and government in general.

How do you all deal with these problems? Wouldn’t the church be better off with less authority concentrated in one church governing office?

I look at all of the corruption and problems the Catholic Church has endured over the years and I feel saddened by it. I just don’t know if I want to be apart of that. I believe Christian unity is important (one of the main reasons I am attracted to the Catholic Church), but I just can’t shake the feeling that if the Church has abused its power in the past, it could do it again.

Please don’t treat my comments harshly. I am coming here truly trying to find a way to approach these problems differently because, on my own, I haven’t been able to figure out a way to deal with them.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Justin

Justin you ‘became a Christian’ years ago when you were baptized. It seems you are operating under the Evangelical idea of what it takes to become a Christian. The standard ‘getting saved’ accepting Jesus as you own ‘personal saviour’, saying the sinner’s prayer.

That’s ok I geuss but it’s not Catholic, it’s %1OO percent Protestant from the evangelical part of Protestantism.

 

[zz912]

Concerning the problem of torturing people in the inquisition, can you tell me when the Greek Orthodox Church ever did such?

Oh I’ve read about many a bloody event in the Church in the east. Are you contending that they never did such a thing?

As to the Baha’i question, I don’t know enough about their faith or history to answer. But I’m confident, knowing the sinfulness of man, that they have had their share of violence and sin in their history.

 

[Pax]

My story is long and very complicated (and has been discussed at length on these forums many times in the past)…so I won’t go into it.

As a brief summary, you should know that I grew up in the Catholic Church, but was never really a true Christian. My parents were “spiritual” but they went to Catholic church out of habit, not out of faith.

When I was in college (at an Evangelical school), I became a Christian for the first time (with a lot of help from my Catholic father-in-law to be) and I have been looking for a Christian home ever since.

I have spent years examining MANY different Christian denominations and I have given everyone a fair chance (at least I have tried to! I am a fallen human after all).

After making the rounds and studying all of the issues carefully, I am considering entering the Catholic Church once again (this time getting confirmed) and really becoming apart of the community there permanently.

One of the major roadblocks I am running into though is about the Catholic Church’s governing structure and the problems that come from it. Regardless of what you think about papal infallibility, papal authority, or the episcopal form of government, fair Catholics have to admit that a lot of really awful things have come from it. A lot of corruption, a lot of strife, murder, the restriction of liberty, etc. It’s a historical fact that the Catholic Church supported the kings of Europe against the democratization of the West and that the RCC was intricately tied to the opposition of the principle of separating church governance and government in general.

How do you all deal with these problems? Wouldn’t the church be better off with less authority concentrated in one church governing office?

I look at all of the corruption and problems the Catholic Church has endured over the years and I feel saddened by it. I just don’t know if I want to be apart of that. I believe Christian unity is important (one of the main reasons I am attracted to the Catholic Church), but I just can’t shake the feeling that if the Church has abused its power in the past, it could do it again.

Please don’t treat my comments harshly. I am coming here truly trying to find a way to approach these problems differently because, on my own, I haven’t been able to figure out a way to deal with them.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Justin

Justin in Christ,

You are in my prayers as you continue on your journey.

God bless.

 

[Tomdstone]

Oh I’ve read about many a bloody event in the Church in the east. Are you contending that they never did such a thing?

As to the Baha’i question, I don’t know enough about their faith or history to answer. But I’m confident, knowing the sinfulness of man, that they have had their share of violence and sin in their history.

So you are unable to cite even one instance of a case of where the Bahai’s supported burning at the stake of someone who disagreed with their teachings.

 

[DaveBj]

Oh I’ve read about many a bloody event in the Church in the east. Are you contending that they never did such a thing?

As to the Baha’i question, I don’t know enough about their faith or history to answer. But I’m confident, knowing the sinfulness of man, that they have had their share of violence and sin in their history.

So you are unable to cite even one instance of a case of where the Bahai’s supported burning at the stake of someone who disagreed with their teachings.

Speaking as a former Baha’i, I would advise zz to learn about someone’s “faith or history” before being “confident” about totally baseless assumptions. The Baha’i faith is pacifist, to the point of forbidding the taking up of arms. (I don’t have time to find the citation now, but I can add it this evening.) The Baha’i faith originated in the 19th century, which means its entire existence is during an era of good record-keeping. If anyone knows of an incident of Baha’i violence, feel free to post documentation.

 

[Dorothy]

Speaking as a former Baha’i, I would advise zz to learn about someone’s “faith or history” before being “confident” about totally baseless assumptions. The Baha’i faith is pacifist, to the point of forbidding the taking up of arms. (I don’t have time to find the citation now, but I can add it this evening.) The Baha’i faith originated in the 19th century, which means its entire existence is during an era of good record-keeping. If anyone knows of an incident of Baha’i violence, feel free to post documentation.

Thank you for that (name removed by moderator)ut.

I believe that self-defense can be right and good.

I see that Ghandi’s pacificism worked mightily.

And yet I don’t understand everything about such things!

 

[Tomdstone]

Speaking as a former Baha’i, I would advise zz to learn about someone’s “faith or history” before being “confident” about totally baseless assumptions. The Baha’i faith is pacifist, to the point of forbidding the taking up of arms. (I don’t have time to find the citation now, but I can add it this evening.) The Baha’i faith originated in the 19th century, which means its entire existence is during an era of good record-keeping. If anyone knows of an incident of Baha’i violence, feel free to post documentation.

I agree. I don’t understand why people here are confident that there have been incidents of Bahai violence, but are unable to support their assertion with even one single example.