How to Answer for Church's Past Crimes

[chosen people]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

Well, good for him! He has gone to his judgment, hasn't he? I guess that we will all find out in the end. In any case, as I recall, his "apology" was not a "blanket" apology, but included a lot of qualifiers such as "some acts" by "some individuals," etc. Not an exact quote, of course. I don't have the time nor the interest to look it up. Nothing that he said was infallible, and given its ambiguity, it can be read in so many different ways by so many different people.

The Catholic Church placed Jews in ghettos. As the Jews didn't live in ghettos before, the first step was to steal their property. Needlessly to say, the ghetto in Rome was in the least desirable area, unhealthy,prone to flooding, wildly overcrowded, and locked up at night. Jews leaving the ghetto had to wear special clothing marking them as Jews, making them an easy target. Jews were prevented from engaging in virtually every occupation which determined that they would live in poverty. They were banned from education with others. On Saturday's (the Jewish Sabbath) they were forced to attend classes on Christianity or to pay a heavy fine. Of course, I could go on and on, but I believe these were some of the things that were behind the Church apology. Of course, if these things against the Jews were justified, then there was no place for an apology. However, what happened that it was no longer necessary to keep Jews in ghettos, impoverished, denied basic civil and legal rights etc?

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by chosen people

The Catholic Church placed Jews in ghettos. As the Jews didn't live in ghettos before, the first step was to steal their property. Needlessly to say, the ghetto in Rome was in the least desirable area, unhealthy,prone to flooding, wildly overcrowded, and locked up at night. Jews leaving the ghetto had to wear special clothing marking them as Jews, making them an easy target. Jews were prevented from engaging in virtually every occupation which determined that they would live in poverty. They were banned from education with others. On Saturday's (the Jewish Sabbath) they were forced to attend classes on Christianity or to pay a heavy fine. Of course, I could go on and on, but I believe these were some of the things that were behind the Church apology. Of course, if these things against the Jews were justified, then there was no place for an apology. However, what happened that it was no longer necessary to keep Jews in ghettos, impoverished, denied basic civil and legal rights etc?

Those individuals are all dead and have all gone to their judgments. The Triune God knows their hearts and all their secret thoughts; I don't. When the King of Heaven returns in glory, we will all know the truth. I see no point in trying to judge souls who have already been judged. If Pope John Paul II offered an apology, good for him; I choose not to sit in judgment of those individuals who are not even here to defend themselves. As for the late Pontiff, his apology was neither infallible nor binding.

[PJD1987]

Originally Posted by PrincepsAuguste

One subject that is surprisingly lacking on this forum is the discussion of dark spots in the history of the Catholic Church. There are many contradictions between modern church teaching and the actual behavior of the Church in its history. I will list a few here:

1) The Church's modern understanding of capital punishment as an undesirable solution for crime is undermined by its burnings and executions of heretics and other opposition in centuries past.

While I haven't read this thread and I'm sure others have made similar points, I wanted to respond with my thoughts. First of all, I highly reccommend watching two videos (I apologize I cannot link them now, but I will should anyone be interested). They are on the Inquisition and the Crusades, and they are by Michael Voris on ChurchMilitant.TV, available free, you just have to register a username/pw. In any case, he gives a vigorous defense of the Church during the period of the Inquisitions (undoubtedly what is referred to here). The Inquisitions were set up to stop random acts of violence against heretics by unlearned lay people. They afforded more rights to the accused than any other state institution in the world. Most of the accused were either acquitted or given penalties much less severe than death. Of those accused, only 2% were put to death. During the Spanish Inquisition, 12% were put to death, and this had much more to do with Spanish internal politics, and the sample size is much smaller so the number jumps 10%. I won't get into the specifics, because Mr. Voris does an excellent job, much better than I, at explaining these things. I highly recommend the video.

Originally Posted by PrincepsAuguste

2) The modern example of popes as humble shepherds of the Catholic church is undermined by the behavior of popes during the height of the Church's power in Renaissance times, when rich families bought seats as cardinals and, once Pope, abused its power and wealth as a tool for nation building. These popes created dynasties and corrupted the purpose of the papacy by carting money to cardinals in advance of Conclave in order to insure a "desirable" transition. These were the same popes who sold indulgences for the reduction of temporal punishment. It was not until the Reformation that the higher level clergy realized that the Church was collapsing around their ears due to their decadent attitudes.

Pope Leo X said, "God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it," to his relative after being made pope. This sums up the sad state of the chair of St. Peter during that era.

"The Bad Popes" as they are often called are another common justification for anti-Catholic thought. And it deserves the standard answers. Frankly, yes, there were some pretty awful popes. Why that is surprising to anyone is beyond me. Even one of Jesus 12 Chosen Apostles betrayed him, since the Last Supper there has always been scandal in the Church, the weed amongst the wheat if you will. We are all sinners, even Cardinals and Popes, the Church does not make a claim that Popes are sinless, they are men. The claim we make is that the Church, not the people who compose it, is holy and perfect. The terrible Popes we suffered through are just testament to that. As bad as they were, they never led the Church into error. The Holy Spirit steered the Church through these difficult times, and will continue to do so until the end. Also, the fact that we have had sinners as Christ's Vicar on Earth, to me at least, is quite humbling. It shows that the Lord works with what he has, and gives me hope knowing the poor sinner that I am. This very vulnerable and human quality to the Church is a dimension that makes it quite genuine and real, and edifies my faith even moreso than if the Church were run by Saints all the time.

I would also point out that it was NEVER a Popes command that led certain traveling Priests to sell indulgences. These Priests did this on their own without Papal Approval to help the building of St. Peter's Basilica. Does not make it right, but it was never Church teaching to do so.

Originally Posted by PrincepsAuguste

3) The Crusades. Many will note that while Benedict XVI emphasizes strongly a stance of peace in all foreign affairs matters (this was his recent proclamation about Syria), the history of the Church seems to show that it has not always been so friendly to a mission of worldwide peace. While I personally believe there is a good case to justify the Crusades, I am looking to see if others have any good arguments in defense of them.

Again, I highly recommend the video by Michael Voris that explains this thoroughly. Many people, even scholars have bought into this myth of the Crusades as a bloody rampage by mobs of Christian persecutors. The facts when examined closely, tell a different story. Islam was the religion being spread by the sword sweeping across the known world in the period leading up to the Crusades. If it were not for Charles Martel, Muslims would have swept over all of Europe and forced all people to convert or die by the sword. The Catholic Church rallied to the DEFENSE of the Orthodox Church who was begging for its help. This was the First Crusade. After having defeated the Muslims and retaken the Holy City of Jerusalem, a peace was established between Muslims and Christians. It was the Muslims, 10 years later that broke the peace.

The Church was simply coming to the aid of its brother Christians, and reclaiming land that was forcefully taken from it by conquering Muslim hoards. I would also point out that Islam began its conquest somewhere in the 600's, and the Church did not respond to the threat until 1183 (or thereabouts). Hardly a bloodthirsty rampage against "peaceful" Muslims; it took 400-500 years for the Church to respond to the threat.

Again, highly recommend the video on ChurchMilitant.TV

Originally Posted by PrincepsAuguste

4) Finally, the most recent debacle in Church history, the sex abuse scandal, where a minority priests have been revealed as child molesters, and the Church's reaction has been woefully slow. Keep in mind that studies have shown that as little as 4% or so of priests have been accused substantially of these crimes, a percentage which is very close to the rate among ALL American men, indicating that the priesthood is no more a haven for pedophiles, than, for example, teaching or sports coaching.

Well you have already got part of your answer there in the question. Also, this is just further testament to the points made in #2. Yes, the Church is made up of sinful people. This should not come as a surprise to anybody. Some priests have done despicable things. The Institution of the Church itself, however, the teachings of the Truths passed on from Christ and the Apostles, is stil the same, and always will be. There also always will be sinners, that in no way nullifies the Truth. They are separate issues, and while the Church can change people (I.e. Soften their hearts, open their eyes, introduce them and invite them into a deeper relationship with Christ), people do not change the fundamental teachings of the Church. It is Christ and the Church to which we owe allegiance and faith, not in fallible and sinful men whom the Lord uses to run it. And yes, some of these Priests never really loved Christ, or were lost along the way, but our faith is in God, not in men.

Originally Posted by PrincepsAuguste

Many people may recognize the beauty and greatness of the church, but when they recall what they have learned about the Church's history it can be hard to reconcile its modern mission with its deeds of the past millennia. With that in mind, how best can a Catholic educate himself to defend the modern church for the crimes of the past?

Finally, these are all pretty standard anti-Catholic arguments. Most people who throw out the words "Inquisition" and "Crusades" and "Indulgences" and the like, quite frankly don't even know what they are talking about. They simply parrot what they've heard from others with no real knowledge of the facts of independent research. It is sad that so many have fallen victim to, (to borrow a phrase from St. Peter) cleverly devised myths, about the true history of the Church. Some of the crimes of the past are legitimate, but some are not. Regardless, it is no reason to forsake the Truth which is taught and held within Holy Mother Church. Yes, it is disheartening sometimes when bombarded with these attacks, when we realize just how fragile and susceptible to temptation and sin we are, even those we hold in esteem. But the Church is the Rock of our faith, the Truth of Jesus Christ. Men will always let us down, but Christ will not. It is important to distinguish between the two and not muddle the issue.

God bless.

-Paul