Hard Question for Catholics

[lori4dogs]

And I have link after link that takes me to one sex scandal after another that directly or indirectly involve the pope himself. Then so many others that involve Bishops, not to say of thousands of priests.
Then there are the Crusades.
Not to mention the Inquisitions.

Myself and others have provided you with information that shows that more Protestants have committed sex crimes against children than Catholic. Not 3% of the Catholic clergy have committed sex crimes. You just refuse to listen. The pope has not committed any sex crime, DHK, that is a lie.

If it were not for the crusades, you would be speaking Arabic now.

 

[DHK]

Myself and others have provided you with information that shows that more Protestants have committed sex crimes against children than Catholic. Not 3% of the Catholic clergy have committed sex crimes. You just refuse to listen. The pope has not committed any sex crime, DHK, that is a lie.

If it were not for the crusades, you would be speaking Arabic now.

You have shown us nothing but opinion, and unverified propaganda which no one but Catholics agree to? As the McDonald's patron quipped, "Where's the meat?"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have shown us nothing but opinion, and unverified propaganda which no one but Catholics agree to? As the McDonald's patron quipped, "Where's the meat?"

DHK a small percentage of priest are actual pedeophiles. Just a are a small percentage of pastors.

Historically speaking the crusades did in effect stop islamic incursion into Europe. Only the first was successful. However, Unfortunately western Europe not only stopped the Islamic onslaught but destroyed the Byzantine empire isloating our eastern christian brothers. The inquisitions were government run and the catholic priest involvement was only to delare what was heresy and what was not. Often Priest were there to lessen the civil charge. Note there was also a protestant inquisition and killing on both sides. Calvin had his best friend killed in Geneva. Look how many died for Luther? So Europe was a pretty complex place during those times.

 

[DHK]

DHK a small percentage of priest are actual pedeophiles. Just a are a small percentage of pastors.

Historically speaking the crusades did in effect stop islamic incursion into Europe.

That makes mass murders, genocide, and often rape right in the sight of God.
This was done under the name of Christianity mind you? Is it what you call Christianity?
The Crusades was not only against Islam. Have you ever heard of the peace-loving, Bible-believing Albigenses, that the RCC took upon themselves to exterminate. Why the Crusade against them? The Crusades were horrible mass murders, never sanctioned by God. Stopping Islamic incursion is an excuse. You can use the excuse that hindsight is better than foresight. Had not the RCC gone on its Crusades, we do not know what the outcome of history would have been. You cannot make assumptions about Islamic domination or the RCC stopping it.

Only the first was successful. However, Unfortunately western Europe not only stopped the Islamic onslaught but destroyed the Byzantine empire isloating our eastern christian brothers. The inquisitions were government run and the catholic priest involvement was only to delare what was heresy and what was not.

If I believe that you believe in heresy, does that give me the right to thrust a sword through you or behead you or torture you in any way? Does it? Really? Is "heresy" an excuse for torture and murder? And all in the name of so-called Christianity? The government was a state-church government which didn't make any decision without seeking the authority of the church. Of course the government sanctioned Inquisitions were by the RCC. It was the Catholics that carried them out. The government would do nothing without the RCC's permission.

Look at the history of England. Have you every heard of "Bloody Mary of Tudor"? Why that name?

Often Priest were there to lessen the civil charge. Note there was also a protestant inquisition and killing on both sides. Calvin had his best friend killed in Geneva. Look how many died for Luther? So Europe was a pretty complex place during those times.

Yes, that was during the Reformation. There were Inquisitions and the Crusades before the Reformation ever took place, and the torture and murder happened on a scale that never can compare to what happened during the Reformation.

 

[DHK]

Brazil judge orders arrest of Polish priest suspected of sexually abusing former alter boy

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=i31898.xml

It never stops. It is in the news every day.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That makes mass murders, genocide, and often rape right in the sight of God.
This was done under the name of Christianity mind you? Is it what you call Christianity?
The Crusades was not only against Islam. Have you ever heard of the peace-loving, Bible-believing Albigenses, that the RCC took upon themselves to exterminate. Why the Crusade against them? The Crusades were horrible mass murders, never sanctioned by God. Stopping Islamic incursion is an excuse. You can use the excuse that hindsight is better than foresight. Had not the RCC gone on its Crusades, we do not know what the outcome of history would have been. You cannot make assumptions about Islamic domination or the RCC stopping it.

If I believe that you believe in heresy, does that give me the right to thrust a sword through you or behead you or torture you in any way? Does it? Really? Is "heresy" an excuse for torture and murder? And all in the name of so-called Christianity? The government was a state-church government which didn't make any decision without seeking the authority of the church. Of course the government sanctioned Inquisitions were by the RCC. It was the Catholics that carried them out. The government would do nothing without the RCC's permission.

Look at the history of England. Have you every heard of "Bloody Mary of Tudor"? Why that name?

Yes, that was during the Reformation. There were Inquisitions and the Crusades before the Reformation ever took place, and the torture and murder happened on a scale that never can compare to what happened during the Reformation.

Inquisition were primarily civil afairs and the civil authority cut off their heads or burned them at the stake. Because in those days there was not a seperation of the church and state. And if the state believed that your faith was treason they would kill you for it. So it was with the Albignese (and they were weird and not baptist btw). Bloody Mary of England killed 300 protestants which is why the term Bloody Mary but because she like her father believed to be of a different religious value than her it was treason against the state. Not Elizabeth also killed (not as many) Catholics and don't forget it was Henry VIII that went after Tyndale.
God Permited the mass murder of caananites men women and children and live stock. Not that it is ok after the revelation of Jesus Christ but hardly apealing to God on his past record is a fine line. I'm not oking the Crusades but I understand them in their context. I find them horrible and shameful for Christianity. But I also find the treatment of Catholics in Ireland by the English just as abhorent. And you can make assumptions about Islam taking over Europe. They got as far as France and if not for the cruelty of the Romanians they would have gotten as far as germany.

 

[BobRyan]

Inquisition were primarily civil afairs and the civil authority cut off their heads or burned them at the stake. Because in those days there was not a seperation of the church and state. And if the state believed that your faith was treason they would kill you for it.

Some attention to Lateran IV would be helpful just then.

CANON 3
Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a Catholic source (Cardinal Roger Etchegaray) being quoted as being in full agreement regarding the existence of a system of government and methods that Lateran IV describes.

Catholic Church says must own up for Inquisition

By Alessandra Galloni

VATICAN CITY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Thursday said it had to take responsibility for one of the darkest eras in Roman Catholic church history and not lay blame for the Inquisition on civil prosecutors.

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, head of the Vatican's main committee for the year 2000, opened a three-day symposium on the Inquisition saying it was time to re-examine the work of the special court the church set up in 1233 to curb heresy.

Etchegaray said some scholars claimed there were several inquisitions: one in Rome, which worked directly under the Holy See's control, and others in Spain and in Portugal which were often aided by the local civil courts.

``We cannot ignore the fact that this (attempt to distinguish between inquisitions) has allowed some to make apologetic arguments and lay responsibility for what Iberian tribunals did onto civil authorities,'' he said.

``The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese crowns...had powers of intervention...on inquisitory tribunals does not change the ecclesiastical character of the institution,'' he said.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition to help curb heresy, but church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison and even torture heretics.

One of the Inquisition's best known victims was the astronomer Galileo, condemned for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.

The Inquisition reached its height in the 16th century to counter the Reformation. The department later became the Holy Office and its successor now is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which controls the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

Some of the conclusions of the international symposium, which ends on Saturday, could be included in a major document in which the church is expected to ask forgiveness for its past errors as part of celebrations for the year 2000.

The church ``cannot pass into the new millennium without urging its sons to purify themselves, through penitence, of its errors, its infidelities and its incoherences...,'' Father Georges Cottier, a top Vatican theologian and head of the theological commission for the year 2000, told the symposium.

Etchegaray said the conference could also draw on examples that scholars had been able to examine since January, when the Vatican opened secret files.

The archives also opened the infamous Index of Forbidden Books which Roman Catholics were not allowed to read or possess on pain of excommunication. Even the bible was on the blacklist.


Pope John Paul has said in several documents and speeches that the Church needs to assume responsibility for the Inquisition, which was responsible for the forced conversion of Jews as well as the torture and killing of heretics[/b].

While there may have been mitigating historical factors for the behaviour of some Catholics, the Pope has said this did not prevent the church from expressing regret for the wrongs of its members in some periods of history.

He initiated the procedure that led to the rehabilitation of Galileo, completed in 1992.

19:01 10-29-98

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Some attention to Lateran IV would be helpful just then.

That passage just supports what I said.

 

[BobRyan]

That passage just supports what I said.

How so?

You said -

Inquisition were primarily civil afairs

By contrast - Lateran IV says that any civil authority that fails to carry out the dictates of the RCC order to exterminate heretics will be subject to the loss of office, loss of lands and denied access to heaven.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How so?

You said -



By contrast - Lateran IV says that any civil authority that fails to carry out the dictates of the RCC order to exterminate heretics will be subject to the loss of office, loss of lands and denied access to heaven.

This is exactly what I said and I will bold the applicable points.

Inquisition were primarily civil afairs and the civil authority cut off their heads or burned them at the stake. Because in those days there was not a seperation of the church and state. And if the state believed that your faith was treason they would kill you for it. So it was with the Albignese (and they were weird and not baptist btw). Bloody Mary of England killed 300 protestants which is why the term Bloody Mary but because she like her father believed to be of a different religious value than her it was treason against the state. Not Elizabeth also killed (not as many) Catholics and don't forget it was Henry VIII that went after Tyndale.

Now the canon which you quote only suggest that once Heresy is determined that the persons is left to the auspice of the civil authorities and would not be protected by the church. Note this passage in the canon

Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders

It goes into more details. But remember no seperation of church and state and if you went against the kings religion you were treasonous.

 

[BillySunday1935]

This is exactly what I said and I will bold the applicable points.

Now the canon which you quote only suggest that once Heresy is determined that the persons is left to the auspice of the civil authorities and would not be protected by the church. Note this passage in the canon It goes into more details. But remember no seperation of church and state and if you went against the kings religion you were treasonous.

I believe a king's rationale for such action could be consolidated thusly: if you disobeyed the Church, then how likely would you be to disobey the king himself? Henece, the proactive "nip it in the bud" approach to governance.

Peace!

 

[BobRyan]

Now the canon which you quote only suggest that once Heresy is determined that the persons is left to the auspice of the civil authorities and would not be protected by the church. .

Instead of arguing that the person is "not protected by the Church" -- Lateran IV has the Church threatening BOTH the person that the RCC accuses AND the civil authorities that might dare to hesitate to carry out the RCC's wishes. BOTH are being threatened in the Canon.

CANON 3
Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

My next post (should you find the need to have this spelled out) will divide up the Canon into the threats and punishment specified by the church against the accused heretic.

And then list the threats and punishments specified by the RCC in the text above - for any civil authority that might dare to neglect to carry out the punishments on the heretic specified by the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Can you believe this:

RIO DE JANEIRO - Lawyers for a Polish priest accused of sexually abusing a teenage boy in Brazil and maintaining an "erotic dungeon" in a parish house requested Tuesday that he be freed pending trial.

The rest of the story is here:
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=i32769.xml

This pervert wants to be free. Do you know that Texas executed 11 people so far this year? hmmmm
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=a29927.xml

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Instead of arguing that the person is "not protected by the Church" -- Lateran IV has the Church threatening BOTH the person that the RCC accuses AND the civil authorities that might dare to hesitate to carry out the RCC's wishes. BOTH are being threatened in the Canon.



My next post (should you find the need to have this spelled out) will divide up the Canon into the threats and punishment specified by the church against the accused heretic.

And then list the threats and punishments specified by the RCC in the text above - for any civil authority that might dare to neglect to carry out the punishments on the heretic specified by the RCC.

in Christ,

Bob

By the way the latin on extermination is a bit off. The quote still shows Civil authorities carrying out punishment. The injunction to clear the world of heretics is still to be carried out by civil authorities. However, I agree a Christian Church should not do that becuase its not what Jesus Christ would want. However, just like times were different under Joshua times were different in the middle ages.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the threat leveled squarely at any civil authority that might dare to refuse to comply with the extermination orders as written in the Lateran IV document of Canon Law.

===================
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness,

1. let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff,

2. that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance

3. and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics,

4. who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;


the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent).

Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

 

[BobRyan]

However, just like times were different under Joshua times were different in the middle ages.

How so?

In the days of Joshua - Israel had just been set up as a Holy Nation - in a divine theocracy.

At the time of the Apostle Paul - the Christian church had just been setup by Christ Himself - no torture or extermination of anyone was being allowed. Rather the supreme order was "love your neighbor as yourself".

Not one instance of torture or extermination to be found in the NT church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How so?

In the days of Joshua - Israel had just been set up as a Holy Nation - in a divine theocracy.

At the time of the Apostle Paul - the Christian church had just been setup by Christ Himself - no torture or extermination of anyone was being allowed. Rather the supreme order was "love your neighbor as yourself".

Not one instance of torture or extermination to be found in the NT church.

in Christ,

Bob

So you suggest its still ok to go into a "godless land" and kill men women and children because they were pagan anyway and would hinder our spiritual growth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is the threat leveled squarely at any civil authority that might dare to refuse to comply with the extermination orders as written in the Lateran IV document of Canon Law.

===================
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness,

1. let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff,

2. that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance

3. and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics,

4. who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;


the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent).

Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

But if you weren't a Catholic Civil authority you didn't have to worry about being excommunicated. It doesn't change the argument.

 

[BobRyan]

On the contrary the Catholic church owned Europe and in the text we see that the subjects of the civil authority were no longer bound to honor/obey/respect that authority. It was the equivalent of being fired at the very LEAST for a non-Catholic civil authority.

And note - that there is nothing that says a CATHOLIC civil authority would not also be a bit reluctant to carry out extermination orders against his own people.

But worse than that - all the lands/property being administered by that civil authority fell into the hands of the public that had now deposed him.

Pretty hard NOT to see this as a threat directly against the civil authority that might be reluctant to comply with the extermination orders.

in Christ,

Bob