Thread: The Catholic Church isn't responsible for every bad thing any Pope has ever done

It seems to me like a good 80% of the criticism people lob towards the Catholic Church is not based on any one of her doctrines, but rather on the actions of various popes, bishops, and other clergy throughout the centuries. Anti-Catholics have a whole laundry list of iniquities they blame on the Church. But these complaints usually only reflect on the wickedness of individual members of the Church, which they equate to the Church as a whole.

Thus, for example, they say that "the Church" started the Crusades. Well, no, it didn't. Pope Urban II started the Crusades. That was a his personal decision for which he alone is responsible (and, of course, he did so in response to the marauding conquests of the Seljuk Turks). No one else is responsible for it, unless you believe in collective guilt. It would be one thing, of course, if Church doctrine taught that popes were morally impeccable, but it never has. In fact, such a claim would be heresy.

What is the Church anyway? People are constantly talking about the Church doing this or the Church saying that. Like so many other collective phrases, this vagueness obscures that actions of individuals. The Church has no reality extraneous to the individuals that constitute her, except, Catholic believe, in the workings of the Holy Ghost through her, in sacraments, blessings, charisms, and dogmata. Only those things can be judged or criticized as the actions of the Church per se. All the rest of it is merely the actions of individuals.

I might also add that most of items on the aforementioned laundry list themselves amount to half-truths, exaggerations, or outright myths, which people accept without thinking about because it fits their preconceived narrative of the "evils" of the Church. It doesn't even need verification; many people are glad for any excuse to post hackneyed old boilerplate about how bad Catholicism is.

The media, of course, hasn't the foggiest clue how the Church operates and misreports and misrepresents the goings-on within the Church on a regular basis. But most people, for goodness knows what reason, still pay attention to what the media says about anything. Thus, we have the constant spectacle of people spouting vehement and vociferous opinions on Catholicism with no knowledge or understanding of the facts. Kindly take the trouble to some serious research into the history and teachings of the Church before you decide to pound your pulpit like revivalist tent preacher about how rotten she is. To do otherwise is the definition of bigotry.

Agreed. Be caution about the Pope even if you are a Cathoic. The Pope is just a human that bond to errors.

You don't have to totally support him without any questions, or even defend him to the point make your consciense unease and change what God stand.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

... Thus, for example, they say that "the Church" started the Crusades. Well, no, it didn't. Pope Urban II started the Crusades. ...

So what? Perhaps we can say the responsibility of the catholic church for the western world ended in 2006 when Pope Benedict XVI denied the title "Patriarcha Occidentis" - after a period of 1466 years. But for sure we Catholics are responsible for the Crusades. We did it. How should we not be responsible for the crusades and all results and effects of the crusades in the whole history of all mankind ? Strange idea. No one is able to undo what really had happened in those days and whoelse should be responsible if we are not responsible?

http://youtu.be/RQTR0D6QCSw

Originally Posted by Anobsitar

So what? Perhaps we can say the responsibility of the catholic church for the western world ended in 2006 when Pope Benedict XVI denied the title "Patriarcha Occidentis" - after a period of 1466 years. But for sure we Catholics are responsible for the Crusades. We did it. How should we not be responsible for the crusades and all results and effects of the crusades in the whole history of all mankind ? Strange idea. No one is able to undo what really had happened in those days and whoelse should be responsible if we are not responsible?

http://youtu.be/RQTR0D6QCSw

No one living is responsible for the Crusades. I'm not, you're not, and Pope Benedict is not. Individuals are responsible only for their own actions. Collectives are not responsible for anything because collectives have no minds. There is no "we." There are only individuals and, if you believe so, the Holy Ghost working through those individuals in matters of doctrine and the sacraments.

Also, the Crusades were declared as a defensive action against the conquests of the Turks. The idea that Christians just woke up one day and went off to kill Muslims with absolutely no provocation is a myth. They probably did end up having a negative effect on Europe though, like all wars do. But how much of Christendom should the Turks have been allowed to conquer before the Christians fought back?

You make a reasonable point. One aspect I would add though, is that if you're going to absolve "the Church" of the negative acts carried out by individuals in it's name, you have to absolve it of the positive ones too. Part of the reason the organisation gets blamed for the wrongs of its members is it's own claims of unity with shared beliefs, practices and responsibilities.

Also, while I agree a lot of things fall on the shoulders of individuals, especially in the past when the power was focused even more on a small number of individuals and communications were limited, there have been things that can clearly be attributed to the organisation as a whole (or at least parts of it) rather than single individuals. Decisions made by committee and willingly propagated down through the hierarchy with no (public) objection for anyone down the line. Keeping accusations of child abuse "in house" rather than reporting them to the appropriate secular authorities being the classic example of course.

I'm not fervently anti-Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see the organisation as an especially bad (or especially good) thing. I do think there can be a potential issues with any strictly hierarchical and highly secretive organisation which the Catholic Church is at as much risk of as any other.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

It seems to me like a good 80% of the criticism people lob towards the Catholic Church is not based on any one of her doctrines, but rather on the actions of various popes, bishops, and other clergy throughout the centuries. Anti-Catholics have a whole laundry list of iniquities they blame on the Church. But these complaints usually only reflect on the wickedness of individual members of the Church, which they equate to the Church as a whole.

Thus, for example, they say that "the Church" started the Crusades. Well, no, it didn't. Pope Urban II started the Crusades. That was a his personal decision for which he alone is responsible (and, of course, he did so in response to the marauding conquests of the Seljuk Turks). No one else is responsible for it, unless you believe in collective guilt. It would be one thing, of course, if Church doctrine taught that popes were morally impeccable, but it never has. In fact, such a claim would be heresy.

What is the Church anyway? People are constantly talking about the Church doing this or the Church saying that. Like so many other collective phrases, this vagueness obscures that actions of individuals. The Church has no reality extraneous to the individuals that constitute her, except, Catholic believe, in the workings of the Holy Ghost through her, in sacraments, blessings, charisms, and dogmata. Only those things can be judged or criticized as the actions of the Church per se. All the rest of it is merely the actions of individuals.

I might also add that most of items on the aforementioned laundry list themselves amount to half-truths, exaggerations, or outright myths, which people accept without thinking about because it fits their preconceived narrative of the "evils" of the Church. It doesn't even need verification; many people are glad for any excuse to post hackneyed old boilerplate about how bad Catholicism is.

The media, of course, hasn't the foggiest clue how the Church operates and misreports and misrepresents the goings-on within the Church on a regular basis. But most people, for goodness knows what reason, still pay attention to what the media says about anything. Thus, we have the constant spectacle of people spouting vehement and vociferous opinions on Catholicism with no knowledge or understanding of the facts. Kindly take the trouble to some serious research into the history and teachings of the Church before you decide to pound your pulpit like revivalist tent preacher about how rotten she is. To do otherwise is the definition of bigotry.

If the doctrine of the catholic church is that the pope represents God on earth then yes, what every pope has done since the beginning of the catholic church undermines or confirms it's legitimacy. Therefore, the catholic church has no legitimacy.

The flaws of any person of any persuasion, be it Popes, Hitler, Stalin, kings, queens, presidents, you, me, or anyone else is of no relevance to the veracity or morality of that persuasion.

The argument is only valid when discussing the Catholic doctrine that certain acts the Pope commits are perfect or infallible. I'm not sure how widespread that doctrine is within the Catholic church though.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

No one living is responsible for the Crusades. I'm not, you're not, and Pope Benedict is not. Individuals are responsible only for their own actions. Collectives are not responsible for anything because collectives have no minds. There is no "we." There are only individuals and, if you believe so, the Holy Ghost working through those individuals in matters of doctrine and the sacraments.

?

Sounds like a clever bit of Jesuit Shyster sophistry defence argument.

Hmmm.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

No one living is responsible for the Crusades. I'm not, you're not, and Pope Benedict is not. Individuals are responsible only for their own actions. Collectives are not responsible for anything because collectives have no minds. There is no "we." There are only individuals and, if you believe so, the Holy Ghost working through those individuals in matters of doctrine and the sacraments.

?

Its look like even the Pope do not subscribe to your apparent derviously twisted logic. However , IF you are correct then why would the Pope apologise and asked foregiveness for sins /wrongs , the Vatican/ Papacy was'nt guilty of ?

Would you apologise and ask forgiveness of sins which you've not committed or consider yourself (or the org you represent ) guilty of ?


Read and learn : this is out of the horse's (sorry Pope's) mouth .

Pope says sorry for sins of church


"Saving one of his most audacious initiatives for the twilight of his papacy, John Paul II yesterday attempted to purify the soul of the Roman Catholic church by making a sweeping apology for 2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.
From the altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome he led Catholicism into unchartered territory by seeking forgiveness for sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples

Centuries of hate and rivalry could not recur in the third millennium. "We forgive and we ask forgiveness. We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions

The Pope, on June 24, 2004 apologized for the annihilation of Constantinople (currently called Istanbul , Turkey ) by Christian Crusaders during 4 days of madness, mayhem and murder in April of the year 1204 A.D. Yes, 1204 A.D.

Three hundred million Eastern Orthodox Christians were ecstatic about the long overdue apology. The world rejoiced. The multitudes went wild, taking to the streets in celebrations never before seen. Finally, world peace is at hand. The apology that we were all waiting for now is a reality.

As we all know, the sacking of Constantinople (known as the Fourth Crusade) was one of the most significant historical events between the fall of the Roman Empire and the discovery of America in the New World . It changed the course of world civilization. It changed the history of European international trade for the next ten centuries. (What! You didn’t know that?)

At least it cannot be said that the Catholic Church does not own up to its mistakes. It’s never too late to apologize. It’s never too late to say you’re sorry. Who cares if its 900 years overdue.


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith, confessed to the sins of the congregation's predecessor, the Inquisition. "Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel," he said.

Applause from the congregation greeted the Pope's arrival in the basilica. He kneeled before the Pieta, Michelangelo's statue of the dead Christ in the arms of his mother, before being wheeled to the altar. He leaned on his silver staff and it took several attempts for him to get out of his chair to kiss a crucifix. The Vatican no longer denies the Pope has Parkinson's disease. An operation to remove a tumour, several falls and an assassination attempt have left him hunched and stiff.

Seeking forgiveness has been a leitmotif of his papacy since his election in 1978. He has apologised for the crusades, the massacre of French Protestants, the trial of Galileo and anti-semitism.

Yesterday's apology was by far the most sweeping and an unprecedented act for the leader of a major religion. One of the highlights of this year's jubilee, or holy year, it was the result of four years' research by a panel of 28 theologians and scholars

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000...icism.religion


tatty=byeeee.


...

Duplicate deleted