I wonder if any thought has been given to how organised religion evolves. Given that Islam was founded in 622 AD. If we compare our own religion in the 14th century with Islam now are there not paralells. Our church was engaged in brutal practices including torture and cruelly devised execution. It treated unbelievers including the Jews and Cathars abominably killing hundreds. The ghetto was part of daily life in the Papal States et al Is it possible that as the earthly practice of any religion evolves it simply goes through a period of zealotry, cruelty and intolerance
Yes. The severity and duration of these periods, as well the frequency of them, is dependent on the amount and severity of the errors within the faith. The other factor involved, which is universal regardless of how erroneous a faith is or is not, is the sinfulness of man.
The Papal States were a relatively modern example of regressive rule and I consider IS desire for a caliphate, very similar to our church’s desire to be a temporal as well as spiritual power. Not until recently did Popes absurd the triple crown and an earthy coronation
The Papal States can hardly be considered “relatively modern” given that the existed in some form or another as far back to at least the 8th or 9th Century.
I don’t think that they were disestablished until 1870 and Modern History is usually 1750ish onwards
In a marriage & family counseling class I took many yrs ago there was comment made by the instructor that when Mary was declared a saint by the Church in the 11th century that it changed western civilization forever. Putting a woman in such a position on a par with men elevated the status of all women and ushered in the age of chivalry. To this day I am shocked that a professor in a secular college would make such a claim but there it was. Now compare that to Islam which still treats women as property or worse. peace
You can’t divorce religion and society. Any religion will be influenced by the society around it, and vice versa.
At the time the Catholic Church may have been involved in “brutal practices including torture and cruelly devised execution”, these were also the norm for the surrounding society at that time. Society and religion influence each other, for better or worse. The doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” for example came about partly because the surrounding society seemed so threatening to the Papal States at the time. Had there been less of a feeling of being isolated, the doctrine would probably not have arisen at that time.
If you consider Moslem extremism right now, many of the ISIS fighters were probably bloodied in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and all the rest of the places where violence has become endemic. They haven’t just popped out of a social and political vacuum.
Prior to the Civil War, slavery was accepted in the southern US states and the churches at that time supported it. Slavery was the accepted norm in the surrounding society.
Aparthied in South Africa had the imprimatur of the Dutch Reformed Church which formed the spiritual home of the Afrikaans people. But it was also the accepted social norm in that society.
They go together. That’s why St. Paul was such a theological revolutionary. He was a Jew, a Pharisee’s Pharisee, and as a consequence he would have grown in a social setting of religious exclusion from Gentiles. But he was prepared to jettison the Mosaic baggage pretty much entirely, and in that sense resist being influenced by his social background.
On the other hand, without his Jewish training, he would never have had the theological background to act as a bridge between Judaism and Christian outreach to the Gentiles.
The Church didn’t invent the internet. That’s a social invention. But we’re using it for religious purposes. Fifty years ago the sort of discussion we’re having here would have been unthinkable.
It’s a two way deal. Society and religion influence each other at all times.
Where did they get that idea from I wonder. It’s simply not true that she was declared a saint only in the 11th century. She had been considered a saint from the very earliest times.
The Church didn’t kill anyone. Catholic states may have, but the Church did not.
The difference is at best technical in many cases and I have come to dislike it as a piece of apologetics because it brings too mind the image of thrusting dirty laundry out of site and hoping no-one will notice it.
And really I don’t see how it is even remotely relevant to anything happening today.
I believe it has relevance but I also feel such deeds are often dragged up at times by those with grudges who wish to keep them going amongst fellow Christians. A better course of actions is admitting they occurred and thinking what can best be learned from such events to lessen the chance of them happening again.
It is an important distinction. It is inherently wrong for the Church to kill. It is not inherently wrong for the state to kill, but the morality of killing by the state depends on the circumstances.
You’re correct. Even if the statement “the church didn’t kill anyone” is technically correct (and you’d have to do a lot of research to prove it), the Church was often an accessory party to the death penalty and torture.
It’s somewhat akin to someone being guilty of a crime, and someone else being an accessory to that crime. The second person may not have carried out the act (eg. the Inquisition executions) but it was certainly privy to the matter.
The problem is you’re assuming that executions are inherently criminal, which is not so.
I’m simply using the term “accessory to a crime” as an example. Not as a statement of fact in the case of the church.
As for the “church” not killing anybody, it’s a bit hard to divorce the church from Popes who rode into battle themselves -
Pope Julius II, reigning from 1503 to 1513, represents the best and the worst of the newly self-confident Rome of the Renaissance. His energetic sense of purpose on behalf of the holy see emerges as naked aggression in territorial matters; yet the same boldness and ambition makes him the greatest patron of the arts in the history of the papacy.
In 1503, his first year in office, Julius launches the great scheme to rebuild St Peter’s. In 1509 the pope invites Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and persuades Raphael to decorate three rooms in the Vatican. Christian Rome’s greatest glories have been conceived within a space of six years.
Julius’s territorial ambitions are fired by a determination to restore the papal states, recently much reduced by the activities of Cesare Borgia and by encroachment from Venice. To achieve his purposes, this pope even marches into battle in armour at the head of the papal forces.
I didn’t know that. That’s crazy.
It’s a part of Catholic Church history, whether we like it or not. But it’s easy to make judgements about past generations, who may have thought quite differently from ourselves. Julius’ compatriots probably saw nothing strange about it.
When Christ stated Peter was the Rock, He was setting up an office. He would have known full well that some of the occupants of that office would be very good, some not so good, some incompetent, and a handful downright bad. I mean immediately He declared Peter the Rock, in the very next breath Christ rebuked Peter himself for incorrect motives - “Get behind me, Satan!” There could hardly be a less auspicious beginning to the “infallible” Papacy than that.
But that doesn’t negate the office. Christ was giving the Church authority, but He knew full well the office would always be occupied by imperfect men.
To say the Church has never killed anybody is a bit like saying the US Presidency has never killed anybody. Technically it hasn’t. I don’t know of any US President who has pulled out a Colt 45 and plugged a member of Congress. Mind you, they’d probably like to at times.
But there hasn’t been a single war involving the US without Presidential approval. And those wars have killed a lot of people.
There have also been some less than perfect Presidents. But the office remains.
you make a number of false statements here. Claiming our Church engaged in tortue etc is totally false. If you are going to talk about history and what happen in the past, please be factual about it and stop using the usual false generalizations.
And what Popes rode into battle? When Attila the Hun was attacking Rome, Pope Gregory the Great rode out to met him to try and stop the attacking. He didn’t go out to kill him in battle. Please get your facts correct. The Pope rode out to stop the fighting, not add to it.