Need help addressing sins of the Catholic Church


#1

How to respond to these accusations …

alot has been written…all this information control…but honestly to say the Popes and others of the church’s members were not involved in the Inquisitions is like the muslims saying Islam has been hijacked and that those standing by watching all the evil deeds don’t know anything about it or why it’s going on! Is staying neutral or being used in silence what your church is about? What is there to hide? Is that why there has been index of prohibited books by some of your popes? Why is there all that censorship? What about the Vatican’s secret archives? What are the secrets that the public are not allowed to see? Sir, to say that the Popes or some priest were not involved in the politics of the day or that they didn’t influence them in any way is a bit naive isn’t it? Then why even in our day and time do the popes continue to appologise? Is the motive only for their pardon? I think its wonderful to repent Sir…its the right thing to do! So for you to say I am bearing false witness for the heretic comment is a bit out of line isn’t it?..hmmmm why do you say that, because in your Church’s appology they still refuse to take any responsibility on the Vatican itself or on the Catholic Church as an institution? Could it be some of your popes are and have been infallible in their actions? I guess to do so would then force the Roman Catholic Church to address the issue of who is the real authority and head of Christ’s church? It has that same feeling of a muslim saying they cannot ever question Islam because it’s too holy and a crime to do so! Should one trust their salvation in any other man but Jesus? Because what you are saying is that the ONLY way is through the Roman Catholic church!

“Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the Lord. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited. Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, And whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit” (Jeremiah 17:5)

“The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe” (Proverbs 29:25)

It’s important to put your trust in Jesus, but when a church puts Peter or another man such as a pope above the power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus then there is no middle ground is there? Because your church is built on Peter…and your church is built on not questioning the pope! When a church teaches that the head of Christ’s Church is a pope instead of Jesus and that this pope is not to be questioned do you not see how this institution is in danger of being used or abused in the future by evil? God never makes a mistake but MEN DO! The pope is the son of a man…and yet the catholics call him HOLY FATHER?

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4)

“Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (Psalm 146:3)

“It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in princes” (Psalm 118:8,9)

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths” (Proverbs 3:5,6)
“He who heeds the word wisely will find good, And whoever trusts in the Lord, happy is he” (Proverbs 16:20)

2 Timothy 3: 14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***


#2

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

[list]*] CARDINAL EDWARD CASSIDY: It’s more than an apology. We feel that we need to repent, not only for what we may have done individually, but also for those members of our Church who failed in this regard.

*] DEBORAH LIPSTADT Well, I think historians tend to veer away from–or, I as a historian tend to veer away from what if, could have, should have questions, but let me attempt this one. I think it could have made a difference. And I’ll tell you when I think it could have made a difference, possibly not in '42, '43, '44, but it could have made a difference in 1933, 1934, and 1935, at the very beginning. And let’s not forget that one of the first international agreements, if not the first one, that the Nazi regime signed is a Concord–with the Vatican signed in, I believe, it’s July 1933. So those kind of early attempts to work with the Nazis, to overlook their overt anti-Semitism, was expressed right at the beginning, I think leads to the Nazi regime feeling–the German regime feeling that it could do what it wanted. The Vatican wasn’t alone in its failure to criticize early on, but signing that agreement, I think, is something that can’t be ignored. So that’s a very disturbing event. I think one also must acknowledge the bravery of individual nuns, individual priests, convents, seminaries, bishops throughout the Catholic Church, who took great risks, at great risks to their own lives attempted to save Jews, hide Jews. In Vilna, there were was a small convent of nine nuns where they hid thirteen Jews. There were more Jews hiding there than there were nuns. So I think there were those who acted with great bravery, and they deserve to be celebrated, but let’s not translate their actions into the actions of the masses, because that wasn’t what happened. … pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june98/vatican_4-8.html

*] Pope John Paul II vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon_en.html
Last month, the Vatican issued a 14-page report that apologized for the Catholic Church’s silence during the Holocaust. pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june98/vatican_4-8a.html[/list]

Thanks in advance for your replies.


#3

[quote=Sir Knight]*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

Thanks in advance for your replies.
[/quote]

Really, you have a bunch of issues rolled up that need to be taken one at a time. Don’t fall prey to the “shotgun” assault, OK?

Perhaps it’d be best to split these questions into separate threads.

However, a few random thoughts:

  1. The Church is spotless, but her members can sin and do not lose their free will. The members can reject or accept the perfect holiness of Christ’s Mystical Body to various degrees.

  2. Jesus commands us to listen to sinful humans, including Peter (Mt 16:19), the Church hierarchy (Mt 18:15ff), and at the time, even those sinful people who occupied the chair of Moses, even though he warned against doing what sins they themselves committed:

Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

Remember that even the writers of the books of the Bible were sinners.

More:
catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp
catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
turrisfortis.com/history.html
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp


#4

We have a scattergun ranter here:

alot has been written…all this information control…but honestly to say the Popes and others of the church’s members were not involved in the Inquisitions is like the muslims saying Islam has been hijacked and that those standing by watching all the evil deeds don’t know anything about it or why it’s going on!

The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish Government, and Pope Sixtus protested its excesses. He was told to keep his nose out!

In any event the Inquisition killed fewer people in 400 years than the protestant Cromwell killed Catholics in **one week ** in Ireland. Is he denying Protestantisms complicity in that?

Is that why there has been index of prohibited books by some of your popes? Why is there all that censorship?

Does he not have prohibited books? Manuals of Jehovah’s winess doctrine, Witchcraft manuals, pornography? Is that censorship?

What about the Vatican’s secret archives? What are the secrets that the public are not allowed to see?

Conspiracy theories. No doubt he believes in Area 51 too?

Then why even in our day and time do the popes continue to appologise? Is the motive only for their pardon? I think its wonderful to repent Sir…its the right thing to do! So for you to say I am bearing false witness for the heretic comment is a bit out of line isn’t it?.

Church Apologies are part of a mutual reconciliation process. They are a christian gesture of good will. They are not “confessions” of “guilt” as your friend wishes to hurl them back into our faces.

I guess to do so would then force the Roman Catholic Church to address the issue of who is the real authority and head of Christ’s church? It has that same feeling of a muslim saying they cannot ever question Islam because it’s too holy and a crime to do so! Should one trust their salvation in any other man but Jesus? Because what you are saying is that the ONLY way is through the Roman Catholic church!

Jesus established one church, and gave his authority to the Church he established - not to any book. The sole authority of a book is an idea from ISLAM. He is the one following Islamic ideology.

It’s important to put your trust in Jesus, but when a church puts Peter or another man such as a pope above the power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus then there is no middle ground is there? Because your church is built on Peter…and your church is built on not questioning the pope!

Jesus gave peter and the apostles power to bind and loose, and forgive sins. He promised to be with them and the Church He founded until the end of time, guiding it in truth, and saying hell would not prevail against it. Why does your correspondent disbelieve these promises of Jesus?


#5

DEBORAH LIPSTADT Well, I think historians tend to veer away from–or, I as a historian tend to veer away from what if, could have, should have questions, but let me attempt this one. I think it could have made a difference. And I’ll tell you when I think it could have made a difference, possibly not in '42, '43, '44, but it could have made a difference in 1933, 1934, and 1935, at the very beginning. And let’s not forget that one of the first international agreements, if not the first one, that the Nazi regime signed is a Concord–with the Vatican signed in, I believe, it’s July 1933. So those kind of early attempts to work with the Nazis, to overlook their overt anti-Semitism, was expressed right at the beginning, I think leads to the Nazi regime feeling–the German regime feeling that it could do what it wanted. The Vatican wasn’t alone in its failure to criticize early on, but signing that agreement, I think, is something that can’t be ignored.

This is the usual innuendo thrown against the church.

  1. The Concordat was signed to protect the rights of the Church against a hostile government. You don’t need to do this if you are allies.

  2. Catholics were virtually the only group who protested Nazi policies isolating the jews, introducing Eugenics and the euthanasia of the handicapped. In 1937 Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church (arresting 200 priests on charges of financial and sexual impropriety). Pope Pius XI issued a Papal Bull (declaration) entitled “Mit brennender Sorge” (“With burning anxiety”) over what was going on in Germany.

3 What did the Protestants do? Hitler created a Reich Church an umbrella organisation of all 28 Churches. Within this, he supported the “German Christians”, who believed that pastors should take an oath of loyalty to Hitler and that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked. Their leader, Ludwig Muller, was given the title of “Reich Bishop” in 1933. Their slogan was “The swastika on our breasts and the cross in our hearts.”

  1. Even the governments of the Allied powers didn’t “speak out” on the jews. The catholic church, in the most danger, and with the least power did and said more than any of them. Yet today people single out the Catholic Church and try to point the finger!

Here are some links on the Catholic church and the Holocaust

catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a014.html

users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html


#6

About the Holocaust, what is the reason for the increasing “smear campaign” of the Church during WWII?

Here are some articles from CA:

catholic.com/library/how_pius_xii_protected_jews.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003up.asp

And an article from Pat Buchanan that ran in the newspaper:

buchanan.org/pa-98-0401.html

Here is an excerpt from Pat Buchanan:

[font=Verdana][size=2]“The document doesn’t even mention Pius XII’s failure to speak out against Nazi atrocities,” said a disgusted New York Times – as it dismissed Rome’s recent statement on the Vatican and the Jews in World War II. “It now falls to John Paul and his successors to take the next step toward full acceptance of the Vatican’s failure to stand squarely against the evil that swept across Europe.” **Yet, here is the same New York Times on December 25th, 1941: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. … He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” **

[/size][/font]


#7

About the “secret archives”, they must not be that “secret” as they are available to scholars:

vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/docs/index.htm


#8

About the Inquisition, the quote says “but honestly to say the Popes and others of the church’s members were not involved in the Inquisitions is like the muslims saying Islam has been hijacked and that those standing by watching all the evil deeds don’t know anything about it or why it’s going on!”

**When did anyone say the Church was not involved in the Inquisiton? **
It was, but not in the way most people think:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). **Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.


#9

[quote=Eden]About the “secret archives”, they must not be that “secret” as they are available to scholars:

vatican.va/library_archives/vat_secret_archives/docs/index.htm
[/quote]

Right. It is no different than any major university library with a special collection. There are very valuable and irreplaceable books and documents in them and they don’t want every Joe Blow rummaging through the collection damaging things, stealing things, etc. Anyone with scholarly creds can get in.

Scott


#10

About the Inquisiton:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. **For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. **

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.


#11

Dear Sir Knight…
In reading your post I am reminded of a man wearing a large coat, and this coat has many pockets. Each pocket is filled with rocks, his pants and shirt pockets are also filled with rocks…
not only that, he tightly (white knuckles) holds a good sized rock…in each hand.
with a very intense look in his eye…
He wants to know why there are so many sinners in the catholic church ! …and has ideas of what should be done about it.

Someone probably should tell him why.
**“Therefore a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.”
** Heb.4:9

"Come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon your shoulders and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart. your souls will find rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Matt.11:28-30

gusano


#12

Thank you for your answers. I will use them to formulate my reply. If anyone wishes to join in the discussion directly, I welcome you to do so here – I could use the back-up. Thanks again.


#13

My cent:

Historically, Church officials at all levels have done wrong. That’s too bad, as a body, we all suffer from it. We are sorry for things any Church officials or laity have done, both because of their temporal damage and the ugly face they paint onto Christ, whose image they are supposedly bringing to His sheep.

Overall, that’s not surprising because we are a hospital of sinners. We try to keep our leaders from going too far out of bounds, and so far we’ve been reasonably able to do that, and the Church as an organization has a better history of stability than any world government.

The Church herself will not fall under the gates of hell. Come on in; the water’s fine.

To borrow a phrase from an insurance company ad, “Come on in, protection is right here.”

It’s like, wow. If there’s a flood, the Church will become an ark.

Alan


#14

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.