Not even I know the answer.
i like how you worded that.
i would argue that the Church requires questioning obedience. many of the Church Fathers and later writers have stated (though no specific quotes come to mind right now) that the Truth withstands all scrutiny and its depths and nuances are more greatly brought to light by questioning and investigation. st. augustine’s “confessions” is a good example of this and the fruit it bears. the desire to address the questioning mind is proven by the Church’s requirement, since the beginning, that people be educated before entering into any of the sacred mysteries.
what cannot be tolerated is undue or uninformed criticism and personal statements of nonconformity. where people find themselves unable to endorse some tenet of doctrine, the Church teaches that the person must accept those doctrines by faith alone, so the heart can be lead by the Holy Spirit to knowledgable understanding and acceptance.
The selling of indulgences, Galileo and Adolph Hitler to just name a few.
if you cite examples such as these, you should carefully examine the facts surrounding them.
almsgiving is and has always been a valid way of obtaining indulgences. in the past, as well as in the present, alms given to alleviate the needs of the Church or the poor were taken by individuals and used for personal gain. that is sinful. but it is the personal sin of the individuals. the Church, neither as a matter of doctrine or discipline, has ever endorsed this. there have been times in particular places where this corruption was popular, and Rome eventually addressed it. it is not much different in character from the current sex scandal in the united states and elsewhere.
read John Paul II’s recognition of galileo’s ordeal and the facts of his imprisonment. while it may have been a mistake for some officials to get involved in the situation in the way they did (the Church doesn’t dictate the truths of science), galileo’s trouble really started when he denounced the Church as a whole. he declared himself an apostate, and for better or worse, that was a crime at the time. it is something he would most likely not have done, if Church leaders hadn’t been involved, but that event in history was not about a “discipline of the Church”. galileo wasn’t a pilar of faith in the first place either.
throwing around the name ‘adolf hitler’ as some blanket accusation is dangerous. don’t forget that the pope did issue statements, but was limited in what could be said and done. the vatican was on the brink of invasion and he was responsible for millions under the control of fascism. 12 million died at the hands of the nazis, not just 6 million, and the greater percentage of them were Catholics. how many more would you have had him sacrifice by further inflaming the situation? i don’t know anything about what a few might have done regarding passports and what not. being a nazi and being a mass murdering nazi are two different things. there are plenty of men walking around germany who were nazis, but i don’t know of any walking around who were butchers in the death camps. if the vatican provided passports to “nazis” it is the burden of the accusers to show that those people were known mass murders. i have never read or heard of credible accounts of them knowingly assisting anyone who should have been brought trial. this issue needs to be kept in perspective, especially by those of us who didn’t have to live through it. and if by saying “and yes, the Pope was involved with it” you expect me to believe that the pope was down in the basement printing up passports and shaking hands with these nazis as they got on boats and planes, don’t hold your breath. what? was he holding the visa stamp and processing the passports one by one?
if anyone wants to object to the faith, fine. but let’s leave the psycho conspiracy theories out of it.