Catholics - Please Explain

[soren]

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

That is because I deny that those times existed. The Church has not committed genocide, etc. Since to answer your question in the affirmative would amount to saying, "Yes, Jesus was in charge when the Church committed genocide," I cannot answer in the affirmative. Nor can I answer in the negative since it would seem to entail admitting that Christ was not in charge of the Church. Your question is too loaded to answer, because any response would entail acceptance of your historical assertion about the Church's crimes. You must back up that assertion before you have the right to ask a question that assumes it.

I note that you have changed the subject away from the question of your own consistency in behaving towards other religions in the same way that those you criticize behave towards your Church.

[3DOP]

Judge Fuller

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.

3DOP

Soren's hypothetical was as follows:

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?

You did not get his point. His point was that you are assuredly doing the same thing. Or do you feel justified in doing it to us because someone else does it to you?

Fuller

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.

3DOP

You did not make any such limitation except perhaps in your own mind, which we cannot read. As for "full-throated burn-the-heretics mode", you couldn't have a chosen a much easier era of the Church's history for a Catholic to defend. At the beginning of the century it was the Catholics who were being beheaded and tortured in France, the pope being the prisoner of Napoleon. By the middle of the century, the political stability of the papacy in Rome under the revolution shaking Italy was so shaken that the Vatican Council had to be cut short in 1870. I think of the 19th Century and I see the miracles of St Bernadette of Lourdes and St. John Bosco, the visions of the stigmatist, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, a string of some of the finest and holiest popes in history including Bl. Pius IX, the conversions of hundreds of English speaking Christians in a century where restrictions against Catholicism were finally lifted in Britain. There isn't a moral taint in the lives of any of the high ranking prelates of the Church in that century that I can think of. What in the world are you talking about? Do you have a place, event, or a papal bull or something at all to present as evidence for your theory that we were locked into "full-throated burn the heretics mode" when we were just trying to avoid losing our heads ourselves?

Judge Fuller

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.

3DOP

Great. The problem would be if you were aware of any genocides for which the Church was culpable anywhere any time. By the way, if I go kill someone in the name of Judge Fuller, does that mean I can charge you for the crime? My defense is twofold, first, inasmuch as you present them, I deny the facts that you allege. Secondly, I am aware of historical facts which I do not defend. I am having my doubts if you know of them. But I do. I don't believe you have succeeded in demonstrating that the Catholic Church's teaching and policies are/were to blame for any facts that you might know of.

Judge Fuller

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?

3DOP

I do not attribute any motives to you. From what you have said, I am sure you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is a horribly bloody, degraded, and beastly institution. I believe you are mistaken in this. I believe the historical Church is lovely, holy, innocent, and beautiful. I merely deny your version of history. And since you were uninclined to defend your view except with vague allegations similar to Soren's hypothetical, I had no idea where to go with it. Now you mention some kind of blood-curdling policies in recent years and I am really at a loss to know of what you are speaking.

3DOP

[JLFuller]

3DOP

I limited my question to the times when the RCC was in its full-throated burn-the-heretics mode usually accepted to be until the early middle of the 19th century. There was a typo in the original question. I left out he word until. There were Inquisitions through out RCC History. The Inquisitions were as follows: Medieval Inquisition, 1184 -1230, Episcopal Inquisition, 12th century, Spanish Inquisition 1478-1834, Portuguese Inquisition 1536-1821, the Roman Inquisition 1542- 1860. The question is about how your church addresses the issues. My source is David Burr, PhD Duke University, 1966. Professor Emeritus of History, Virginia Tech University. Here is his CV. Challenge it is if you like but his credentials are world class and impeccable.

The inquisitions, as described by Dr. Burr were judicial techniques. They were "...inquisitors of heretical depravity," individuals assigned by the pope to inquire into heresy in specific areas. He says "By the end of the thirteenth century most areas of continental Europe had been assigned inquisitors. The overwhelming majority were Franciscans or Dominicans" "...around ten percent or less of the cases resulted in execution, a punishment normally reserved for obstinate heretics (those who refused to repent and be reconciled) and lapsed heretics (those who repented and were reconciled at one time but then fell back into error)." In dealing with a group of heretics Barr says "In 1312 Pope Clement V tried to mediate a compromise, (battling the heretic Spirituals) but the battle soon heated up again, "By 1318 recalcitrant Spirituals were being sent to the stake." That means the Pope burned them alive. I don't need to go on. Every one gets the picture. I am not making this stuff up. You should know your church's history if you are going to defend it. I am not trying to be mean but you challenged my intent.

You said "I am sure you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is a horribly bloody, degraded, and beastly institution."

I didn't say those things. I just asked the question. You did the editorializing.

[3DOP]

Judge Fuller

I limited my question to the times when the RCC was in its full-throated burn-the-heretics mode usually accepted to be until the early middle of the 19th century.

3DOP

What constitutes "full-throated burn the heretics" mode if in the example you give, the pope tried to effect a compromise? Your gruesome expression is mere rhetoric. A propaganda technique. It never represented the sentiments, teaching, or policy of the Church as a whole or the papacy in particular. The Church was always so reluctant to be involved with the prosecution of capital crimes that those who were found guilty were "relaxed" to the secular courts. Ecclesiastical courts, while knowing the probable outcome of this procedure, distanced themselves from the death sentences proclaimed by the secular powers. You make it sound like the Church was a bunch of crazed, blood-thirsty monsters and I don't think the evidence supports any period of time during which the Church was in "full-throated burn the heretics mode". It is my understanding that to preserve the flock, the Church held that heretical ideas had to be repressed. My understanding is that this stemmed from the experience in Southern France, the Albigensian heresy during the 1200's had resulted in upheaval that threatened the social and political order. Often, such as with the infamous Spanish Inquisition, it was the secular authorities that keenly sought to have Rome approve of Inquisitions. I am not suggesting that the authorities in Rome always made the right decisions. But I vehemently deny the implications that the papal seat was inhabited by blood-thirsty killers. Rome had to take many problems into consideration before denying a request for inquisitors.

But you should also know that in no case did an Inquisition ever exercise authority over the non-Christian populace. Jews, Moslems, and pagans were exempt. Today, there seems to be a question about whether it is alright for parents to spank their own children. Fifty years ago such questions had never even been asked. It was laughable to suggest that parents can't use corporal punishment. Perhaps the Church was overzealous in disciplining Her chiildren. But centuries ago, no one questioned that the Church had authority to discipline Her own members in the hope of repentance. No one questioned the right of the state to employ capital punishment against those who repeatedly posed a threat. That is how heresy was perceived. Even in the sad, but happily rare cases of burnings at autos de fe, we are told that the priests would follow the condemned, preparing them, praying with them, in the hope that they would at the last, turn back to God. There is nothing in the events to justify characterizing the ecclesiastical acts toward condemned heretics as "full-throated burn the heretics mode". The Inquisitions were an attempt to recall prodigal children. Your own source, which is a one page web-site doesn't even fail to note the compassion of the inquisitors. You somehow failed to mention Dr. Burr's account of the goal of the inquisitor:

The inqusitor's goal was not primarily to punish the guilty but to identify them, get them to confess their sins and repent, and restore them to the fold.

Does not this seem significant, and worthy of note? Are these not motives compatible with and prompted by the Gospel of Christ? Following is an eye-witness account of the last moments of a Catholic condemned for heresy in Spain in 1719:

Around the judaizer are numbers of religious who pressed the accused with greater anxiety and zeal to convert himself. With perfect serenity he said: 'I will convert myself to the faith of Jesus Christ', words which he had not been heard to utter until then. This overjoyed all the religious who began to embrace him with tenderness and gave infinite thanks to God for having opened to them a door for his conversion..."

---The Spanish Inquisition, a Historical Revision, Henry Kamen, Yale University Press, p. 211

I am not suggesting that there were no tragedies and individuals who used the Inquisition for their own evil purposes. They have been documented to my satisfaction. But I must protest against any "full-throated burn the heretics" mode into which you say the Church was mired. Your own source intimates that this was not the case, and mine goes further, and shows what the ideal outcome would be hoped for in far away Rome. The ideal behind the Inquisitions were rooted in the Gospel of Christ.

3DOP

[jwhitlock]

The question of dealing with history - and how it affects the credibility of an organization as it currently stands - is always a matter of subjective difficulty. Any organization (read: church or religion) of any size and significant age accumulates skeletons in the closet.

It's always going to be a matter of debate as to how culpable the current church is because of past historical events. It's why anti-Mormons try soooo very hard to pin institutional responsibility for the MMM, for instance, on Brigham Young. It's also why anti-Catholics go to great lengths to document and emphasize the negative portions of Catholic history in order to attack the authority of the Catholic church today.

I view both the LDS Church and the Catholic church - from an institutional standpoint - as currently willing to try to work together, rather than attack each other's past history. While we may disagree on certain key doctrines such as historical apostasy and priesthood authority, we can and should agree to disagree, and instead see what good may be accomplished in the world by cooperating. Certainly there are many Catholics and Mormons who want to do so. Some of those types of people of both faiths post here on this board.

In many regards, there is much to admire in what the Catholic church does today, and in many of the people who are Catholic.

[3DOP]

JLFuller

There were Inquisitions through out RCC History. The Inquisitions were as follows: Medieval Inquisition, 1184 -1230, Episcopal Inquisition, 12th century, Spanish Inquisition 1478-1834, Portuguese Inquisition 1536-1821, the Roman Inquisition 1542- 1860. The question is about how your church addresses the issues. My source is David Burr, PhD Duke University, 1966. Professor Emeritus of History, Virginia Tech University. Here is his CV. Challenge it is if you like but his credentials are world class and impeccable.

3DOP

I don't see any need to challenge his credentials. I challenge your ability to appreciate what he is saying and place it in its historical context. I looked at his curriculum vitae. What have you read in it?

There have not been Inquisitions throughout Catholic Church History. The first one you mention begins in 1184 over a thousand years after the death of the Apostles. This means that for most of Church history there has not been an Inquisition anywhere. After 1230, according to your dates, there is another gap of 258 years, when it was limited to the Italy, the Iberian Peninsula and perhaps Spanish and Portuguese colonies for a period less than 400 years. The Inquisition was never ubiquitous. Henry Kamen documents how that even in Spain, there were many rural areas into which the Inquisition never ventured.

[3DOP]

The question of dealing with history - and how it affects the credibility of an organization as it currently stands - is always a matter of subjective difficulty. Any organization (read: church or religion) of any size and significant age accumulates skeletons in the closet.

It's always going to be a matter of debate as to how culpable the current church is because of past historical events. It's why anti-Mormons try soooo very hard to pin institutional responsibility for the MMM, for instance, on Brigham Young. It's also why anti-Catholics go to great lengths to document and emphasize the negative portions of Catholic history in order to attack the authority of the Catholic church today.

I view both the LDS Church and the Catholic church - from an institutional standpoint - as currently willing to try to work together, rather than attack each other's past history. While we may disagree on certain key doctrines such as historical apostasy and priesthood authority, we can and should agree to disagree, and instead see what good may be accomplished in the world by cooperating. Certainly there are many Catholics and Mormons who want to do so. Some of those types of people of both faiths post here on this board.

In many regards, there is much to admire in what the Catholic church does today, and in many of the people who are Catholic.

I appreciate that jwhitlock. Do you think it is unnecessary for me to continue my response?

[jwhitlock]

I appreciate that jwhitlock. Do you think it is unnecessary for me to continue my response?

I've seen too many of these discussions, both concerning Catholic and Mormon historical events, deteriorate quickly into ***-for-tat kinds of accusations. Kudos to you specifically for avoiding that.

The OP of this thread seems to be far too general to be productive. Perhaps it could be productive or instructive if it were limited to a specific event or situation, and credible documentation were provided. As LDS, we've had to address the MMM - to use that example again - and it's been of great benefit to the Church to do so.

I'm not really sure where this discussion can really go because of how it's been approached from the beginning. The responses have been more instructive of individual attitudes, rather than addressing any real institutional issues.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

And you gotta love the board software for the *** censoring.

[3DOP]

Judge Fuller

The inquisitions, as described by Dr. Burr were judicial techniques.

3DOP

Yes.

Judge Fuller

They were "...inquisitors of heretical depravity,"

3DOP

I hope you understand that this is not an accusation against the inquisitors. It means that the heretic would be in the eyes of the Church depraved.

Judge Fuller

individuals assigned by the pope to inquire into heresy in specific areas.

3DOP

I'll take Dr. Burr's word for it as regard the Medieval Inquisition. The later versions, the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, were under an organized hierarchy which had local political support difficult to regulate by the Pope. I can document this.

Judge Fuller

He says "By the end of the thirteenth century most areas of continental Europe had been assigned inquisitors. The overwhelming majority were Franciscans or Dominicans"

"...around ten percent or less of the cases resulted in execution, a punishment normally reserved for obstinate heretics (those who refused to repent and be reconciled) and lapsed heretics (those who repented and were reconciled at one time but then fell back into error)."

3DOP

Ten percent or less? Let's go with less than 10%, shall we? After all, we do want to exonerate the Inquisition, right? After all we are not wanting to condemn the innocent ourselves are we?

It was my understanding that a lot of the Inquisitors came from the relatively new mendicant orders. If most areas of continental Europe had been assigned inquisitors, I am not currently in a position to dispute, but I can accept this claim for the sake of argument.

Judge Fuller

In dealing with a group of heretics Barr says "In 1312 Pope Clement V tried to mediate a compromise, (battling the heretic Spirituals) but the battle soon heated up again, "By 1318 recalcitrant Spirituals were being sent to the stake." That means the Pope burned them alive. I don't need to go on. Every one gets the picture. I am not making this stuff up. You should know your church's history if you are going to defend it. I am not trying to be mean but you challenged my intent.

3DOP

It does not mean that the pope burned anyone alive. It means what it says. The pope tried to intercede for this group of charismatic illuminists who denying the authority of the pope threatened the property of the Franciscans claiming to be the pure and rigorous followers of St. Francis. The pope has authority over the religious orders, and it was up to him to decide who had the right to Franciscan monasteries, priories, and churches. It became apparent that these Spirituals, Fraticelli, or illuminists, as they have been variously called, doubted that anyone could authorize any modifications to their rule of St. Francis requiring the strictest poverty. This had not been problematic when they were small, but increasingly, the Franciscan influence in the Church had grown to the point where they began to have influence throughout the academic and ecclesiastical landscape. Some modifications were called for:

Attendance at the universities and life in towns required certain modifications in the life of the friars, perhaps somewhat different from what it may have been in St. Francis's time. The doubts that arose amongst the friars about the observance of the rule were generally settled by the sovereign pontiffs with a view of meeting new conditions, and at the same time safeguarding the letter of the rule. Whilst the greater part of the order followed without reluctance this natural and logical evolution, some more zealous friars, to whom every development seemed a departure from the first ideal of St. Francis, were strongly opposed to it.

---Catholic Encyclopedia, entry "Spirituals"

Nevertheless, as Dr. Burr notes, the pope tried to intercede on their behalf. You say that you do not need to go on. I disagree. The full picture is not of Pope Clement lighting the faggots. It is of the pope trying to reconcile wayward stubborn children that would not yield to his authority. I was not aware that any of them had been condemned by the Inquisition, but clearly, this was an internal matter of the Catholic Church, for which the pope had the authority to decide. When they wouldn't accept and resorted to violence, steps were apparently taken:

Clement V exhorted the French Spirituals, who during the process had withdrawn from the community, to return to their convents, and even went so far as to depose some superiors, who had treated them unfairly (Archiv, II, 140; IV, 34). The Spirituals went to the convents of Beziers, Narbonne, and Carcassonne. But when Clement and the minister general, Alexander of Alexandria, had died (1314), the former harsh superiors were restored (1315). The Spirituals now took a desperate step, in possessing themselves by force of the convents of Beziers and Narbonne, from which they ejected the Relaxati.

---ibid.

Can you not see why a Catholic might think a different picture emerges upon closer examination and that it is far from accurate to allege as you did "That means the Pope burned them alive." You say everyone gets the picture. Not me. That is not the picture I get. You charge me that I should know my church's history if I am going to defend it. I agree. I should probably study more. But allow me to say that you should know my church's history even more if you are going to attack it! From what I can observe, you didn't even manage to present a one page internet site without omitting important mitigating evidence.

Judge Fuller

You said "I am sure you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is a horribly bloody, degraded, and beastly institution."

I didn't say those things. I just asked the question. You did the editorializing.

3DOP

Was my "editorial" inaccurate? All you have to do is deny it if you find the description to be inaccurate. The main point to which I would draw your attention is that of my assumption of your sincerity. I would not begin to doubt that unless you persisted in stubborn refusals to thoroughly examine the context of events, and the individuals concerned with them. I have no reason to reevaluate my assumption of your sincerity at this point.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

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 Maine’s 2009 Middle Level Principal of the Year."

Good for him! Middle school has got to be tough, and being principal? Yikes! So that is no trivial honor! But of course I admire your modesty in not bragging.

[mfbukowski]

In many regards, there is much to admire in what the Catholic church does today, and in many of the people who are Catholic.

No question.

[3DOP]

I've seen too many of these discussions, both concerning Catholic and Mormon historical events, deteriorate quickly into ***-for-tat kinds of accusations. Kudos to you specifically for avoiding that.

The OP of this thread seems to be far too general to be productive. Perhaps it could be productive or instructive if it were limited to a specific event or situation, and credible documentation were provided. As LDS, we've had to address the MMM - to use that example again - and it's been of great benefit to the Church to do so.

I'm not really sure where this discussion can really go because of how it's been approached from the beginning. The responses have been more instructive of individual attitudes, rather than addressing any real institutional issues.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

And you gotta love the board software for the *** censoring.

Hi again jwhitlock. I'd go *** for tat if I knew any...oh man...the censor. Good night that is maddening. I didn't even notice the asterisks the first time I read your post. I have sometimes got into the censor's dog house here by referencing the author of David Copperfield. To me, it seems like no one would ever even think of associating his name with anything vulgar until the censor won't let us use it.

Anyhow. I don't know any tat or the other word to come back with against the Latter day Saints so you are pretty safe with me. I hang around for this kind of thing really. I know there are a lot of misperceptions of my faith out there, and even if I don't make any progress with the person with whom I disagree, it seems like an appraisal of the picture from a Catholic perspective can be helpful to lurkers. I am usually laboring for benefit of them...and myself. I read that secular book on the Spanish Inquisition motivated by all the mentions of it I heard around here. I figured I'd better find out what they were talking about. My hunch is that they haven't usually read any books either. It was for the most part, from a Catholic point of view, not an inspirational book at all, nor a discouraging book. Somewhere in the middle. I think sometimes there are words like crusade, indulgence, or inquisition, that are intended to be "show stoppers", to end discussion and further thought. Mere mention of these words is not going to cow me into an apology, much less to doubt the veracity of my faith. If they aren't always occasions to be spiritually uplifting, neither are they, properly understood, as faith destroying as some seem to assume.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion. Hopefully, it will remind me to stay on focus without getting abrasive and angry. I hope my tone has been too harsh to this point. I will try to be conscious of the danger. I would ask you or anyone else, JLFuller especially, to please understand that you are talking about an institution as dear to me as my own mother. The Catholic Church is my spiritual Mother, and I do not need to pretend that in her human aspect she is perfect. I can acknowledge her weaknesses and frailties. But I cannot stand quietly if I think someone is accusing her unfairly.

Sincerely,

3DOP

[Eguzkitanedan]

The Cathars were totally stamped out with the official approval of Pope Innocent III and his Albigensian Crusade. This attempt to annihalate a people due to their religion and totally destroy their identity would be called a genocide and holocaust if it had occurred in the 20th century.

[3DOP]

The Cathars were totally stamped out with the official approval of Pope Innocent III and his Albigensian Crusade. This attempt to annihalate a people due to their religion and totally destroy their identity would be called a genocide and holocaust if it had occurred in the 20th century.

That's it? You say the Crusade was due to their religion alone? I suggest it was due to the violence of the Albigensian hatred for the Christians living in the south of France which became clearly evident after they murdered the papal legates sent to them. You make it sound like this would be a campaign to wipe out women and children. It might be helpful to note that there were no children since the Albigensians declared that wedlock was sinful and natural offspring an abomination.

"Those who would not curb their sexual drives were encouraged to express them homosexually or even in bestiality rather than heterosexually, so that no children would result from them...For the Perfect, suicide was the highest form of death, carried out according to a formula called the endura.

---The Glory of Christendom, A history of Christianity, vol. 3, p. 165, by Warren A. Carroll

I suppose their "religion" didn't predispose the Christians to think well of these people. After having ambassadors murdered, the Church concluded these people were screwballs irreconcilable with civilized people. The pope called for a Crusade to recover regions that had been lost to them. From a distance of centuries after their disappearance, it is easy to condemn the pope for fearing the growth and spread of what he perceived, mistakenly or not, to be a fearful cult. You are within your rights to suggest it was an unjust war. I do not say that every single Crusade was a just and sacred affair. But I insist that this one had more going on than some alleged desire to commit wholescale destruction of a people for mere doctrinal deviation.

Why do the detractors of the Church never mention any of these details when, even if the Church has committed acts needing to be pardoned, there are still mitigating circumstances? First its popes are said to be burning people. Now its simple genocide. Don't the Church's accusers want to exonerate the innocent? Don't they want to mitigate the guilt of the guilty? It seems they don't. I don't know how they can be this way. Something isn't right. It just seems like our detractors have an agenda to present these events in a light which makes the Catholic Church look as wicked as possible. Why is this do you think? Anybody?

3DOP

[jadams_4242]

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.

no man is perfect; only was Jesus Christ. heavenly father knows this. no prohet or apostle in this church, no catholic leader of any sort or time, no apostle or prophet in ancient of days, and this is excatly why he laid out his plan of salvation as he has.

[Eguzkitanedan]

That's it? You say the Crusade was due to their religion alone? I suggest it was due to the violence of the Albigensian hatred for the Christians living in the south of France which became clearly evident after they murdered the papal legates sent to them. You make it sound like this would be a campaign to wipe out women and children. It might be helpful to note that there were no children since the Albigensians declared that wedlock was sinful and natural offspring an abomination. ---The Glory of Christendom, A history of Christianity, vol. 3, p. 165, by Warren A. Carroll

I suppose their "religion" didn't predispose the Christians to think well of these people. After having ambassadors murdered, the Church concluded these people were screwballs irreconcilable with civilized people. The pope called for a Crusade to recover regions that had been lost to them. From a distance of centuries after their disappearance, it is easy to condemn the pope for fearing the growth and spread of what he perceived, mistakenly or not, to be a fearful cult. You are within your rights to suggest it was an unjust war. I do not say that every single Crusade was a just and sacred affair. But I insist that this one had more going on than some alleged desire to commit wholescale destruction of a people for mere doctrinal deviation.

Why do the detractors of the Church never mention any of these details when, even if the Church has committed acts needing to be pardoned, there are still mitigating circumstances. First its popes are burning people. Now its genocide. Doesn't anybody want to exonerate the innocent? Doesn't anybody want to mitigate the guilt of the guilty? It just seems like people only want to present these events in a light which makes the Catholic Church look as wicked as possible. Why is this do you think? Anybody?

3DOP

So-- Armenians at the time were trying to undermine the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire and there had been outbursts of violence. Jews in Weimar Germany had made substantial economic gains in the wake of the massive suffering of the German people. I wonder why no one ever mentions these mitigating factors when discussing the genocides of this century. Clearly the Ottomans and Germany were within their rights?

[3DOP]

So-- Armenians at the time were trying to undermine the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire and there had been outbursts of violence. Jews in Weimar Germany had made substantial economic gains in the wake of the massive suffering of the German people. I wonder why no one ever mentions these mitigating factors when discussing the genocides of this century. Clearly the Ottomans and Germany were within their rights?

Mitigation of guilt is still guilt. I am not defending the Albigensian Crusade absolutely. I am suggesting that there is a context to your accusation of genocide that you fail to present. I am unfamiliar with the mitigating factors you suggest in regards to the Armenians and Jews. But certainly, if there are factors that weigh in favor of lessening the guilt of Germans or Ottomans, any person of good will and justice would wish to have them present in evaluating the guilt or innocence of the perpetrators. Presumably, those truth seekers who would evaluate the claims of the Catholic Church would be relieved to discover that the popes and prelates of the Middle Ages were something besides bloodthirsty tyrants looking for a reason to kill. Some few others seem to be reluctant to discover and admit that this is indeed the case. Further inquiry will enable the truth seeker to find that not only were some of the members of the Church, not murderers, there were actually good and admirable figures. But for this thread, we will apparently have to content ourselves with the task of showing that Charles Manson is not a reincarnation or type of the medieval papacy.

[Eguzkitanedan]

Mitigation of guilt is still guilt. I am not defending the Albigensian Crusade absolutely. I am suggesting that there is a context to your accusation of genocide that you fail to present. I am unfamiliar with the mitigating factors you suggest in regards to the Armenians and Jews. But certainly, if there are factors that weigh in favor of lessening the guilt of Germans or Ottomans, any person of good will and justice would wish to have them present in evaluating the guilt or innocence of the perpetrators. Presumably, those truth seekers who would evaluate the claims of the Catholic Church would be relieved to discover that the popes and prelates of the Middle Ages were something besides bloodthirsty tyrants looking for a reason to kill. Some few others seem to be reluctant to discover and admit that this is indeed the case. Further inquiry will enable the truth seeker to find that not only were some of the members of the Church, not murderers, there were actually good and admirable figures. But for this thread, we will apparently have to content ourselves with the task of showing that Charles Manson is not a reincarnation or type of the medieval papacy.

Been there, done that, even got my high school diploma from a catholic high school and went to a catholic university and took classics courses for 2 years before I transferred out. Returning to the Catholic Church is on my list of right before listening to some dude named Applegate.

[JLFuller]

Good for him! Middle school has got to be tough, and being principal? Yikes! So that is no trivial honor! But of course I admire your modesty in not bragging.

Yeah. You have to admire my humility.

Really, my Catholic friends (all 2 of them) are going to freak out over this. Chuck, my son-in-law, attended Catholic schools.

[JLFuller]

That's it? You say the Crusade was due to their religion alone? I suggest it was due to the violence of the Albigensian hatred for the Christians living in the south of France which became clearly evident after they murdered the papal legates sent to them. You make it sound like this would be a campaign to wipe out women and children. It might be helpful to note that there were no children since the Albigensians declared that wedlock was sinful and natural offspring an abomination. ---The Glory of Christendom, A history of Christianity, vol. 3, p. 165, by Warren A. Carroll

I suppose their "religion" didn't predispose the Christians to think well of these people. After having ambassadors murdered, the Church concluded these people were screwballs irreconcilable with civilized people. The pope called for a Crusade to recover regions that had been lost to them. From a distance of centuries after their disappearance, it is easy to condemn the pope for fearing the growth and spread of what he perceived, mistakenly or not, to be a fearful cult. You are within your rights to suggest it was an unjust war. I do not say that every single Crusade was a just and sacred affair. But I insist that this one had more going on than some alleged desire to commit wholescale destruction of a people for mere doctrinal deviation.

Why do the detractors of the Church never mention any of these details when, even if the Church has committed acts needing to be pardoned, there are still mitigating circumstances? First its popes are said to be burning people. Now its simple genocide. Don't the Church's accusers want to exonerate the innocent? Don't they want to mitigate the guilt of the guilty? It seems they don't. I don't know how they can be this way. Something isn't right. It just seems like our detractors have an agenda to present these events in a light which makes the Catholic Church look as wicked as possible. Why is this do you think? Anybody?

3DOP

Hey 3DOP.

Just be glad all that is in the past. The RCC is an excellent organization. We all respect it and the dedicated people who make it the center part of their lives. The RCC kept Christ's name alive during some of the the darkest days of human history. Without it there would not be the great universities of the world, advances in medicine. literature, art, great music, architecture and civilization as we know it. We disagree on theology that's all. The world would be a poorer place without your church. It brings grace and beauty to all of us. You don't have to defend it. It stands up very well on its own accord.

[3DOP]

Hey 3DOP.

Just be glad all that is in the past. The RCC is an excellent organization. We all respect it and the dedicated people who make it the center part of their lives. The RCC kept Christ's name alive during some of the the darkest days of human history. Without it there would not be the great universities of the world, advances in medicine. literature, art, great music, architecture and civilization as we know it. We disagree on theology that's all. The world would be a poorer place without your church. It brings grace and beauty to all of us. You don't have to defend it. It stands up very well on its own accord.

Hi JLFuller,

I appreciate your comments very much and I won't use this occasion to repeat my defenses of the historical Church. However, I must briefly insist that I am not a Catholic of this age only, but of all ages. I am not ashamed of what is in the past and I cannot be a Catholic today if I could not have been a Catholic then. It might surprise you to know that if I were to guess, I imagine that future generations may point to our own time as being historically more difficult to defend from a Catholic perspective. Regardless of our different views of history, I thank you very much for your most generous comments. Allow me to assure you of my esteem for your own chosen faith, an assurance that there are no hard feelings, and a prayer that you have a very Blessed Lord's Day tomorrow with your own family and church.

God bless,

Rory, aka 3DOP

[3DOP]

Been there, done that, even got my high school diploma from a catholic high school and went to a catholic university and took classics courses for 2 years before I transferred out. Returning to the Catholic Church is on my list of right before listening to some dude named Applegate.

Hi again Eguzkitanedan,

I am sorry if you find the Catholic faith is on the level of Mr. Applewhite, who if memory serves committed suicide while waiting for the flying saucers. Its kind of ironic that you would choose someone whose ideas are so discredited as a comparable object of scorn with the Catholic Church. The Albigensians, against whom the Church eventually declared a Crusade was promoting the same kind of behavior, and with much greater levels of success. I think that if Mr. Applewhite had managed to convert Provo, Utah with cuckoo ideas that made his adherents commit suicide the Mormons of the state would be alarmed. After the LDS Church received the headless bodies of missionaries sent to speak with them, I think that Pres. Hinckley might have been justified in asking for and supporting the government in an armed, violent intervention with lives sure to be lost. That in my opinion, would not be the LDS Church committing genocide, but making a difficult decision to support arms. I only ask the same consideration for the Catholic Church in history and an examination of the difficult facts. It is my understanding that the decision of Pope Innocent III to ask for arms was taken prayerfully and with much soul searching in grief over the course of the perplexing events. Still, I am not saying that I absolutely know that the pope was absolutely correct in his assessment. I tend to side with the pope. Of course, I am biased. I am only saying that his response to the situation does not prove he was a monster. That is all.

I was talking about seeking the truth. Maybe you thought that I was speaking of "finding out the Catholic Church is true." No. I was reaching for common ground with people of good will toward all. It doesn't have to mean you're a Catholic because you find out that most of the popes were good, many of them were truly holy, and only a few of them were rotten, while none of them were genocidal maniacs. Truth seeking isn't something that you do and are done. It never ends. And it is always active, always searching for the truth of all matters. I am sorry that your own search in regards to my faith seems to have ended rather miserably. I wouldn't imagine to try to persuade someone of another faith that anything I have said here means that the Catholic Church is true. I am only suggesting that your accusation of genocide seems to have ignored some important details. I am only defending the accused of being a monster guilty of malicious and premeditated crimes against humanity. It seems to me that lovers of goodness and truth will always maintain a policy of innocent until proven guilty, and welcome any new facts that would point toward acquittal. Truth seeking in any context can't take place in a mind that doesn't consider the rights of the accused to a full hearing. Surely you agree.

3DOP

[jwhitlock]

I would ask you or anyone else, JLFuller especially, to please understand that you are talking about an institution as dear to me as my own mother. The Catholic Church is my spiritual Mother, and I do not need to pretend that in her human aspect she is perfect. I can acknowledge her weaknesses and frailties. But I cannot stand quietly if I think someone is accusing her unfairly.

Fair enough. I would expect that any faithful believer of any religion would react the same way.

[JLFuller]

Hi again Eguzkitanedan,

I am sorry if you find the Catholic faith is on the level of Mr. Applewhite, who if memory serves committed suicide while waiting for the flying saucers. Its kind of ironic that you would choose someone whose ideas are so discredited as a comparable object of scorn with the Catholic Church. The Albigensians, against whom the Church eventually declared a Crusade was promoting the same kind of behavior, and with much greater levels of success. I think that if Mr. Applewhite had managed to convert Provo, Utah with cuckoo ideas that made his adherents commit suicide the Mormons of the state would be alarmed. After the LDS Church received the headless bodies of missionaries sent to speak with them, I think that Pres. Hinckley might have been justified in asking for and supporting the government in an armed, violent intervention with lives sure to be lost. That in my opinion, would not be the LDS Church committing genocide, but making a difficult decision to support arms. I only ask the same consideration for the Catholic Church in history and an examination of the difficult facts. It is my understanding that the decision of Pope Innocent III to ask for arms was taken prayerfully and with much soul searching in grief over the course of the perplexing events. Still, I am not saying that I absolutely know that the pope was absolutely correct in his assessment. I tend to side with the pope. Of course, I am biased. I am only saying that his response to the situation does not prove he was a monster. That is all.

I was talking about seeking the truth. Maybe you thought that I was speaking of "finding out the Catholic Church is true." No. I was reaching for common ground with people of good will toward all. It doesn't have to mean you're a Catholic because you find out that most of the popes were good, many of them were truly holy, and only a few of them were rotten, while none of them were genocidal maniacs. Truth seeking isn't something that you do and are done. It never ends. And it is always active, always searching for the truth of all matters. I am sorry that your own search in regards to my faith seems to have ended rather miserably. I wouldn't imagine to try to persuade someone of another faith that anything I have said here means that the Catholic Church is true. I am only suggesting that your accusation of genocide seems to have ignored some important details. I am only defending the accused of being a monster guilty of malicious and premeditated crimes against humanity. It seems to me that lovers of goodness and truth will always maintain a policy of innocent until proven guilty, and welcome any new facts that would point toward acquittal. Truth seeking in any context can't take place in a mind that doesn't consider the rights of the accused to a full hearing. Surely you agree.

3DOP

It may seem like hair splitting, but the goodness of popes was not the point of the discussion. I used one just to make a point. I could have used others just as well. I was asking if Christ was in charge. I learned that we have differing views of His involvement in the daily operations of the church.

I am more inclined to support your notion that the RCC was acting in its role as political leader and not religious leader in many of the events I discussed. In that capacity, just as Brigham Young was doing in Johnson's war, political leaders sometimes have to choose between really awful choices and horrendous ones. During the Johnson war no one died during combat as I recall however Brigham did burn a lot of supplies and wagons. Religious leaders are still accoutable as men for what they do though. Maybe there is some latitude when they act as political leaders faced with unenviable choices.

[Danna]

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?

I had to laugh . My Catholic husband is not in the least offended bringing up the inquisition, or witch burning and the like. He would be offended at being asked to defend mass murder. It happened due to ignorance and human stupidity, and as DH has just said, due to a lack of separation of church and state. The concept of papal infallibility is only relatively recent - from the 1800s IIRC. As an exmo, it took me some time to work out that an unbroken chain of authority is not the issue it is for Mormons. Some popes were simply evil. Also, it is not like some sort of winner takes all contest, in spite of earlier, but now corrected doctrine. Bad Catholics will not go to heaven, or have to suffer a bit before getting there. Good other Christians and those ignorant of Christ will also go to heaven. Apparently, as I have just been informed, I am going to purgatory