Catholics - Please Explain

[JLFuller]

Most folks tip toe around this subject with Catholics because they don't want to offend their friends. I among of them. However I have to ask. How do you defend the centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, these were not just some renegade priests that did all this. It was RCC practice and policy for hundreds of years and it was done at the behest of hundreds of priests, cardinals and dozens of popes. There is zero chance that Christ had anything to do with governing the RCC. How does your church address these topics?

[talisyn]

Most folks tip toe around this subject with Catholics because they don't want to offend their friends. I among of them. However I have to ask. How do you defend the centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, these were not just some renegade priests that did all this. It was RCC practice and policy for hundreds of years and it was done at the behest of hundreds of priests, cardinals and dozens of popes. There is zero chance that Christ had anything to do with governing the RCC. I am not attacking the RCC, I am just asking how your church addresses these topics.

For advice on how to answer questions on early LDS Church practices?

lol

The Roman Catholic Church acted as a political entity as well for those centuries. It might be better to compare the RCC with various governments at the time?

[mfbukowski]

If I remember correctly, the theological notion is one that we (LDS) perhaps don't think about enough. We believe that when we sin, "Amen to the priesthood of that man"-- in other words that lack of worthiness means that one's authority to act for God is gone. Catholics however believe (and I apologize to any Catholics because my ex-catholic status hardly makes me a good spokesman for them) that the priesthood is effective regardless of worthiness.

Any of us who have ever given a priesthood blessing have probably thought from time to time "Am I worthy at this instant to do this?" but have trusted in the Lord. This is perhaps a trivial example, but are you confident that every 18 year old priest who blesses the sacrament is worthy to do so any given Sunday? Yet does God honor that blessing?

Frankly, I think this is perhaps more of a difficulty for our theological position than it is for the Catholics. Does God honor unworthy priesthood actions? That I think is the central theological question here.

[JLFuller]

If I remember correctly, the theological notion is one that we (LDS) perhaps don't think about enough. We believe that when we sin, "Amen to the priesthood of that man"-- in other words that lack of worthiness means that one's authority to act for God is gone. Catholics however believe (and I apologize to any Catholics because my ex-catholic status hardly makes me a good spokesman for them) that the priesthood is effective regardless of worthiness.

Any of us who have ever given a priesthood blessing have probably thought from time to time "Am I worthy at this instant to do this?" but have trusted in the Lord. This is perhaps a trivial example, but are you confident that every 18 year old priest who blesses the sacrament is worthy to do so any given Sunday? Yet does God honor that blessing?

Frankly, I think this is perhaps more of a difficulty for our theological position than it is for the Catholics. Does God honor unworthy priesthood actions? That I think is the central theological question here.

I don't think so. The question is whether Christ was in charge and directing the affairs of the RCC during the 1000 years or so when they were the most active in spreading Catholicism around the world and purging their ranks of heretics by torture and other evil practices. Reducing it to the worthiness of individuals is off point. BTW, are you now Dr. Bukowski?

[daz2]

I do not think God was directing the wrong things that those religious/political leaders did any more than he directs the wrong things that our religious/political leaders do. But, as my father used to tell me, the Church is true notwithstanding that its members and leaders cannot or do not follow all of its principles.

We may disagree with our brothers and sisters of other faiths about how far that principle goes--how egregious the conduct of a leader may be before the institutional structure and teachings completely lose their authority. But that is the principle, as I understand it.

In addition, the Christian Church was established was established ny Jesus and Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). We Mormons say that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church because it was restored; I think our other Christian brothers and sisters would interpret it to mean that the Church continued, notwithstanding the later hellish conduct of some or many of its leaders. Moreover, I think they would interpret the apostasy scriptures as referring to individual apostasy or of certain groups, but those apostasies would not destroy the Church established by Jesus.

I am not Catholic, but I think that would likely be the response.

[3DOP]

Most folks tip toe around this subject with Catholics because they don't want to offend their friends. I among of them. However I have to ask. How do you defend the centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, these were not just some renegade priests that did all this. It was RCC practice and policy for hundreds of years and it was done at the behest of hundreds of priests, cardinals and dozens of popes. There is zero chance that Christ had anything to do with governing the RCC. How does your church address these topics?

To begin with Fuller, I study secular works of the times which are disinterested in the religious implications as pointing to apostasy vs. one true church. In my opinion, there is no need to defend "centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church." I don't accept your premise that wherever these situations occured, the Church either supported them by its teaching or its policy. I think you will be hard pressed to show that the behaviors you correctly condemn are not exaggerated as to extent and duration, but if you should succeed, it will remain to be proven that the Catholic Church is culpable.

I do not speak for the Church. I do not know that the church addresses these topics as you call them, in any official capacity. If I thought the Church, at any time in Her history supported the heinous acts you mention, I would never go to Mass again in a Catholic Church.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think so. The question is whether Christ was in charge and directing the affairs of the RCC during the 1000 years or so when they were the most active in spreading Catholicism around the world and purging their ranks of heretics by torture and other evil practices. Reducing it to the worthiness of individuals is off point. BTW, are you now Dr. Bukowski?

Wow- what is this about? Do you want my academic qualifications? How is that relevant?

It is most definitely "on point". Retaining the priesthood through sin and evil is the only issue here.

[JLFuller]

Wow- what is this about? Do you want my academic qualifications? How is that relevant?

It is most definitely "on point". Retaining the priesthood through sin and evil is the only issue here.

Take it easy. I was just inquiring. The last I heard is you were working on it. I was just asking. It has nothing to do with the question.

On the other subject, now - notice the break - how can you say Christ was in charge of an organization that commits such horrific crimes? Even allowing for the occasional human misdeeds, would Christ allow it to go on for centuries? It was institutionalized.

[JLFuller]

To begin with Fuller, I study secular works of the times which are disinterested in the religious implications as pointing to apostasy vs. one true church. In my opinion, there is no need to defend "centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church." I don't accept your premise that wherever these situations occured, the Church either supported them by its teaching or its policy. I think you will be hard pressed to show that the behaviors you correctly condemn are not exaggerated as to extent and duration, but if you should succeed, it will remain to be proven that the Catholic Church is culpable.

I do not speak for the Church. I do not know that the church addresses these topics as you call them, in any official capacity. If I thought the Church, at any time in Her history supported the heinous acts you mention, I would never go to Mass again in a Catholic Church.

Don't let my question attack your faith. However, I think there is ample evidence to prove the RCC did in fact sanction these things. I am not prepared to do the work to make that point though. That isn't point of my asking.

[mfbukowski]

Take it easy. I was just inquiring. The last I heard is you were working on it. I was just asking. It has nothing to do with the question.

On the other subject, now - notice the break - how can you say Christ was in charge of an organization that commits such horrific crimes? Even allowing for the occasional human misdeeds, would Christ allow it to go on for centuries? It was institutionalized.

Sorry- I'm kinda edgy today. Lots happening! Yes, I'm always working on it! Thanks for asking.

I agree with you-- there are reasons after all that I am not Catholic anymore-- and this is definitely one. But in my experience, this is the way the argument usually goes with them, and actually I think they would argue that it becomes just a question of degree and not one of quality. A Catholic apologist might argue that the pure question is whether or not any serious sin ends one's authority to act for God. And further then attack us on that ground, that we are inconsistent or not realistic in our beliefs regarding the worthy exercise of the priesthood.

But I agree that questions of degree are immensely important and that thousand(s) of years of institutionalized criminal behavior is not the same as individual sinful episodes. But I think this is where the argument would lie. I am just acting as a proxy for a real Catholic!

[3DOP]

Don't let my question attack your faith. However, I think there is ample evidence to prove the RCC did in fact sanction these things. I am not prepared to do the work to make that point though. That isn't point of my asking.

I do not know the point of your asking, only that you asked why I love a bloody killer. Your question is based on a presupposition that I reject, and for which you are "not prepared to do the work." It would not seem that there is anything further to discuss. I reject your version of history as hyperbolous. The culpability you attribute to localized heinous events to my faith is in my opinion, unwarranted. Obviously if I agreed with you, as I said, I would leave the Catholic Church and never return.

[Dr. Fizzy Soda]

Most folks tip toe around this subject with Catholics because they don't want to offend their friends. I among of them. However I have to ask. How do you defend the centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, these were not just some renegade priests that did all this. It was RCC practice and policy for hundreds of years and it was done at the behest of hundreds of priests, cardinals and dozens of popes. There is zero chance that Christ had anything to do with governing the RCC. How does your church address these topics?

___________

We don't defend it. Human beings are imperfect, and they commit evil. And those who did such things are fully responsible and will be held to account. In the days when Jesus was here in the flesh we still had people who knew Him and met Him....doing terrible things. Judas, His own disciple, sold Him. So I am personally not surprised by the atrocities. Catholic, Mormon, atheist, or whatever - - humans can and often do become corrupted by power and then terrible things happen. In our belief, the Catholic Church is still the Anchor, it always will be the Anchor until God in His providence decides otherwise, and no amount of human evil within or outside the Church will destroy it, change the immaculate birth, the life of Jesus, or His death and ressurection. It will not undo the miracle of Fatima, or the incredible lives of the Saints who have been examples for the entire human race. Humans within the Church may do evil, but the Church still stands and it's truth is eternal. The Church still holds the keys. It always has, even in the darkest times.

Dr. Fizz

[JLFuller]

In any organization chart there is one person at the top who is ultimately in charge. In Catholicism the earthly head is the pope. However no Catholic I know would say Christ is not in charge ultimately. The same with our church and I suppose every other Christian denomination. We can argue about the holiness of the office and the sinfulness of the occupant but in the end, if Christ is in charge, we can only believe He would not allow His sacred name to be used for the things we know happened at the hands of the RCC for those hundreds of years. Priests do not go off on a theological tangent as frequently or for as extended periods of time as we these atrocities being played out in Europe, Africa, the Americas and around the world. The odd priest maybe, but he wouldn't be a priest for long. So to my Catholic friends, I have to ask the question that only they can answer. Do you believe these things happened under the pope's aegis and if so why do you continue to be a Catholic?

Thanks Dr. Fizz. Your response above is noted.

[JLFuller]

Sorry- I'm kinda edgy today. Lots happening! Yes, I'm always working on it! Thanks for asking.

I agree with you-- there are reasons after all that I am not Catholic anymore-- and this is definitely one. But in my experience, this is the way the argument usually goes with them, and actually I think they would argue that it becomes just a question of degree and not one of quality. A Catholic apologist might argue that the pure question is whether or not any serious sin ends one's authority to act for God. And further then attack us on that ground, that we are inconsistent or not realistic in our beliefs regarding the worthy exercise of the priesthood.

But I agree that questions of degree are immensely important and that thousand(s) of years of institutionalized criminal behavior is not the same as individual sinful episodes. But I think this is where the argument would lie. I am just acting as a proxy for a real Catholic!

I understand. One of my sons-in-law wants to get started on his but four kids and the responsibilities of a middle school principle really put a damper on it. Maybe when his kids get out of college.

He was just voted the Middle School Principal of the Year for the State of Maine. But we are not proud of him and we certainly would never boast of his accomplishments. "The Maine Principals' Association (MPA) has named Charles Lomonte, Principal of Biddeford Middle School, as Maineâ??s 2009 Middle Level Principal of the Year."

[Kyle]

JL Fuller, if you think that the catholics are the only ones that sanctioned things, you better check out my thread of an all loving God. If you are going to point out the catholic atrocities, you might as well point out your own God too.

[saemo]

I think we know very well that God allows sin.

I agree with 3DOP. You have some sort of anti-Catholic sentiment going and say you would like to keep it that way. Which, is fine, but I don't think you should expect that Catholics are going to agree with your assumptions and biases.

[Kyle]

Now that I think about it, your God did some horrible things. The God you worship killed hundreds of thousands of people, sanctioned slavery, Sanctioned human sacrifices... well just go read my thread.

[JLFuller]

JL Fuller, if you think that the catholics are the only ones that sanctioned things, you better check out my thread of an all loving God. If you are going to point out the catholic atrocities, you might as well point out your own God too.

Of course I am aware of some things Mormons did however no one has ever successfully proved they were they were sanctioned by the Church.

Now that I think about it, your God did some horrible things. The God you worship killed hundreds of thousands of people, sanctioned slavery, Sanctioned human sacrifices... well just go read my thread.

I don't think so. Man did those in God's name but I don't think He sanctioned them.

Anyway, the question is what you have been taught about these things by the RCC, if you believe them and if so why you are still a Catholic.

[soren]

Most folks tip toe around this subject with Catholics because they don't want to offend their friends. I among of them. However I have to ask. How do you defend the centuries of mass murder, genocide, torture and wars spawned by the Roman Catholic Church. After all, these were not just some renegade priests that did all this. It was RCC practice and policy for hundreds of years and it was done at the behest of hundreds of priests, cardinals and dozens of popes. There is zero chance that Christ had anything to do with governing the RCC. How does your church address these topics?

What if I started a thread asking Mormons to justify staying in the Church in spite of all the lies told by Joseph Smith, and just left it at that giving no specifics to back it up, just assuming Smithâ??s dishonesty at the get-go? Would you not agree it would be a ridiculous and inappropriate thread?

Your question here is off-base for all the same reasons. It may be that you have been so indoctrinated against Catholicism at an historical level that you think it uncontroversial to accuse the Church of genocide. Alas, this judgment upon the Church is not self-evident, cannot be taken for granted, and you must back it up before calling on us to answer for it. Otherwise, we have no reason to respond.

So what do you have in mind? Inquisitions? Crusades? Cadaver Synod? St. Bartholomewâ??s Day Massacre? It would be good to ask us about some particular and provide a warrant for why you think the Church as an institution is responsible for the evils you claim. A good conversation could ensue from that, and you would not have to fear offending anyone. By assuming your own tendentious opinion as self-evident and then holding us accountable to it, you are in fact offensive and absolve us from any obligation to respond.

But to respond in part, as to how the Church deals with past sins committed in its name, the answer is that we apologize. In fact, popes apologize, even though sometimes belatedly, as when John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the sack of Constantinople way back in 1204.

[JLFuller]

What if I started a thread asking Mormons to justify staying in the Church in spite of all the lies told by Joseph Smith, and just left it at that giving no specifics to back it up, just assuming Smithâ??s dishonesty at the get-go? Would you not agree it would be a ridiculous and inappropriate thread?

Your question here is off-base for all the same reasons. It may be that you have been so indoctrinated against Catholicism at an historical level that you think it uncontroversial to accuse the Church of genocide. Alas, this judgment upon the Church is not self-evident, cannot be taken for granted, and you must back it up before calling on us to answer for it. Otherwise, we have no reason to respond.

So what do you have in mind? Inquisitions? Crusades? Cadaver Synod? St. Bartholomewâ??s Day Massacre? It would be good to ask us about some particular and provide a warrant for why you think the Church as an institution is responsible for the evils you claim. A good conversation could ensue from that, and you would not have to fear offending anyone. By assuming your own tendentious opinion as self-evident and then holding us accountable to it, you are in fact offensive and absolve us from any obligation to respond.

But to respond in part, as to how the Church deals with past sins committed in its name, the answer is that we apologize. In fact, popes apologize, even though sometimes belatedly, as when John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the sack of Constantinople way back in 1204.

Soren.

Look around. Do you not think your hypothetical isn't asked every day, every hour by dozens if not hundreds of people on this site and elsewhere? We are bombarded with with anti-Mormon, anti-B o M, anti-Joseph claims, statements, questions and accusations. We can't walk across the street without gettng run over by someone asking your question and challenging our mental fitness.

[JLFuller]

What if I started a thread asking Mormons to justify staying in the Church in spite of all the lies told by Joseph Smith, and just left it at that giving no specifics to back it up, just assuming Smith’s dishonesty at the get-go? Would you not agree it would be a ridiculous and inappropriate thread?

Your question here is off-base for all the same reasons. It may be that you have been so indoctrinated against Catholicism at an historical level that you think it uncontroversial to accuse the Church of genocide. Alas, this judgment upon the Church is not self-evident, cannot be taken for granted, and you must back it up before calling on us to answer for it. Otherwise, we have no reason to respond.

So what do you have in mind? Inquisitions? Crusades? Cadaver Synod? St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre? It would be good to ask us about some particular and provide a warrant for why you think the Church as an institution is responsible for the evils you claim. A good conversation could ensue from that, and you would not have to fear offending anyone. By assuming your own tendentious opinion as self-evident and then holding us accountable to it, you are in fact offensive and absolve us from any obligation to respond.

But to respond in part, as to how the Church deals with past sins committed in its name, the answer is that we apologize. In fact, popes apologize, even though sometimes belatedly, as when John Paul II apologized to the Eastern Orthodox for the sack of Constantinople way back in 1204.

I limited my question to the times when the RCC was in its full throated burn-the-heretics mode usually accepted to be the early-middle of the 19th century. I am not aware of any genocides deliberately committed in the Church's name after the mid 19th century although some may want to challenge my assumption. If you recall, the question has to do with whether Christ was in charge during these times. Apologies for barbaric behavior would not be necessary if Christ said to do it, right? Regarding a perceived RCC campaign on my part, how do I ask the question with out it seeming to be an assault?

[soren]

Soren.

Look around. Do you not think your hypothetical isn't asked every day, every hour by dozens if not hundreds of people on this site and elsewhere? We are bombarded with with anti-Mormon, anti-B o M, anti-Joseph claims, statements, questions and accusations. We can't walk across the street without gettng run over by someone asking your question and challenging our mental fitness.

Of course you get treated in just that way. That is my point. You are doing exactly the same thing as those people right now, and you are unjustified in your behavior for the same reasons. If you attack Catholicism in the same way that the people who "run over" Mormons attack you, then you have no moral high ground high ground in criticizing them, and have descended to their level in the style of anti-Catholic criticism you have embraced.

Regarding a perceived RCC campaign on my part, how do I ask the question with out it seeming to be an assault?

By presenting evidence to support your claims so that you can be held accountable, as I am willing to be held accountable when I criticize Mormonism.

[JLFuller]

Of course you get treated in just that way. That is my point. You are doing exactly the same thing as those people right now, and you are unjustified in your behavior for the same reasons. If you attack Catholicism in the same way that the people who "run over" Mormons attack you, then you have no moral high ground high ground in criticizing them, and have descended to their level in the style of anti-Catholic criticism you have embraced.

By presenting evidence to support your claims so that you can be held accountable, as I am willing to be held accountable when I criticize Mormonism.

You didn't answer my question about whether Christ was in charge during those times.

[Dr. Fizzy Soda]

Soren.

Look around. Do you not think your hypothetical isn't asked every day, every hour by dozens if not hundreds of people on this site and elsewhere? We are bombarded with with anti-Mormon, anti-B o M, anti-Joseph claims, statements, questions and accusations. We can't walk across the street without gettng run over by someone asking your question and challenging our mental fitness.

_________________

As a Catholic I don't make excuses for people of my faith who do evil, just as I know you make no excuses for your Church's history regarding black people. We all know what that history is, but we also know that the Mormons realized they were wrong and changed. I also don't expect Mormons to say they are sorry or to explain the actions of other human beings who are members of their Church, or who lived before.

Dr. Fizzy

[saemo]

To put it this way, I believe that Jesus leads me. I follow no other.

Yet, I sin.

Does Jesus cause this sin? Does He lead me to it?

We view the Church in the same way. Jesus is our Prophet, High Priest and King. As the Body of Christ, we seek to follow no other. Yet, we all sin. Including Popes. We do not believe Jesus is the cause of this sin. We do not believe Jesus leads His Church to sin.

Why do you?