For the most part I have great respect for my catholic friends and the catholics that I know. I have disagreements on a lot of issues with the institution but in general the individuals are moral, concerned, thoughtful and kind people. Many support good causes and do 'good works'.
I wouldn't indict the whole bunch of them (all 1.1 Billion) anymore than I would all Americans because bad things happen here, all Muslims because of a few extremists or everyone who worked for Sears (if a pedophile was caught there)for that matter.
The system that brought Bernard Law also brought people like Mother Theresa, which the world sorely needs.
--I didn't vote--I couldn't find a category that fit for me, - not being a up on my Catholic history I don't know if there is a way to determine if their good outweighs their bad over 20 centuries
I to beleive that catholics do more good than bad. Some of our best friends are catholics, and than they do where most good can be dunn, as are alot of good christian groups.
Mark, your poll implies that Catholics are somehow monolithic, or perceived as such. In my view, the billion-plus practioners of Catholicism are comprised of all your choices (except the last, speaking for myself), and many more. You might give the poll more thought and better define what you want to learn, and then, determine the best question and choices to offer.
Most people, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, can fine something the U.S. government does or supports that they find terribly wrong or distasteful (that doesn't include weather forecasts BTW), yet most pay their taxes , while if grudgingly, without active protest.
Maybe using the government is not the best example, but by endorsing or supporting any group or entity that's not perfect, are we endorsing the wrongs someone in the group might be doing?
From the sound of the question and the choices given, it has been made to seem that Catholics are the only source of pedophilia.
Now I know there are just so many ways to word a question...and I know there are just so many ways to word merely 5 choices for an answer...but the way pedophilia and Catholocism are linked here I really don't like it.
What about all the sports coaches...lost of them fondle boys and girls in their care.
How about teachers?
How about scout leaders?
If a person is a pedophile, they will do their thing anywhere they find it.
Maybe a better question would be something like....do you thinks pedophiles are drawn to be priests in the Catholic church...or something like that.
I live in a huge RC town, I am not RC, but in my sphere of speaking and working with them, it is not like "us". haha
RC look at you funny when ya metion God or spirit it is about rituals and tradition and rules and regulations and who knows who at church... how the priest is a family friend power and playing kind of stuff. not so much purpose and education . I have never gone to confession but I know people who have confessed or spoken to their priests and it helps them get along in life.
I do not think the RC, want huge reform and change for the most part it is status quo.
some do. and they often break off from the "real" church because of it... but they want the strength of the church ie.. money and support. The church doesnt work that way .
Do not underestimate the impact that Way training has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience.
Now. the Catholic church has its problems and needs to deal straightforwardly with the molestation issues and even with the whole celibacy thing that is a farce in the minds of most even devout catholics who might not admit in public. Obviously its cheaper for the church to support a single person than it is them and their family which is most likely why they still push the celibacy thing even when they know that many priests take lovers at some point (not all of them are gay or after kids either).
In the end I hope people make decisions about the catholic church based on information and personal experience as opposed to residual waybrain. The same is true for other denominations also. Don't let what vic or craig said rule your brain in this regard.
"Do not underestimate the impact that Way training has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience."
I agree.
Having been raised a Baptist, I was told of the 'evils' of the RCs since before I could speak. Such does have a lasting impression.
"Now. the Catholic church has its problems and needs to deal straightforwardly with ... molestation ... celibacy ... many priests take lovers ... "
It does have problems, but then so does about every large business.
"In the end I hope people make decisions about the catholic church based on information and personal experience ..."
Yes, I have had numerous friends who have been RC. One of our current renters is a RC, she comes down to our apartment every Friday for drinks and we discuss religion. We have fun with it, her hubby is in my lodge as well.
I have been blessed with the opportunity of knowing many RCs whom I have been able to have long debates with.
To my understanding [yes, I know that my understanding is terribly limited], every religion that has become a business, takes advantage of it's followers and 'vices' soon occur.
My issue with that religion is more the matter of fact method whereby they derive doctrine. 'Good' was this, but then it changed to 'this', but then during this age 'good' changed to 'this', but then later it changed to 'this', and today we dont really accept any of those things as the developed doctrine of the Church is 'this'.
To me how can anything be good or bad, if we willingly change our morales with each generation?
Can't there exist a single un-changing system by which we derive the definitions of both 'good' and 'bad'? Maybe something that was formed by a mind, outside of the human?
Mark, your poll implies that Catholics are somehow monolithic, or perceived as such. In my view, the billion-plus practioners of Catholicism are comprised of all your choices (except the last, speaking for myself), and many more. You might give the poll more thought and better define what you want to learn, and then, determine the best question and choices to offer.
With 5 choices, I tried to give a spectrum from "evil" to "fully approve" in the best manner possible. My limited writing ability and the limitations of one question with 5 selections restricts my ability to develop a poll.
As to my poll implying that Catholics are somehow monolithic, you'll note that two of the moderate choices offered have the expression "most" in the description, thus implying a diversity of thought. The approach to this was, frankly, a response to a statement you made, "Until things change, any Catholic who knowingly sends money to Rome, directly or indirectly, is funding institutionalized pedophilia." This statement is a very broad-brush statement that implies a shared responsibility for any practicing Catholic. To make an accusation that a minimum of 27 million people (44% of the Catholic population of 62 million -- in 2002) are responsible for the actions of a very small percentage of a very small sample of that overall population of 62 million is simply ludicrous, along the lines of a statement that every single German was singly and personally responsible for Hitler or that every single Russian had a personal responsibility for Stalin. It was a bigoted and highly offensive statement that has no more place in a discussion than some of the posts the far-left wingers posted on the 'tacks board during the past presidential campaign. Frankly, Satori, I would have thought it to be beneath you to make that kind of comment. I was curious if this bigotry was either a thoughtless comment posted by you, an honest, heartfelt, sincere form of bigotry, or represented a general consensus among a significant percentage of GSers. Had the latter been the case, that would have been my second-to-last post on GSC. I am relieved to see that, at least according to this poll, it is, apparently, not the consensus.
I've avoided discussion of this issue on other threads because there have not been enough facts presented to have an intelligent discussion on the issue and, it being such an emotional issue, a presentation of facts would not be favorably met.
In my experience (which, I am sure am shared by at least a few others), in any conflict between two people, there are at least 3 "truths." The subjective "truth" that reflects the experience through the eyes of the participant accounts for two of them. The subjective "truth" seen by supposedly neutral observers accounts for others. The "objective" truth, seen without the filter of human experience will actually lie somewhere in the middle of all of this muddle.
We have been saturated by one perspective, that of the victim advocacy group, by a media whose objective may or may not be "truth," but whose objective certainly involves newspaper sales and/or Nielsen ratings.
Let me give you a few numbers to illustrate my point.
From 1950 to 2002, there have been a little over 4,300 priests accused of 10,832 incidents of abuse (this is a separate number from the number where the accusations were shown to be valid). This works out to be an overall number of less than 3% of the total number of clergy throughout that period of time. To look at predators, though, you find even a smaller number: 772 priests received 4 or more allegations against them from 1950-2002 (that is about 0.49% of the total). Out of that, 149 priests (0.093%) were responsible for 26% of the total number of allegations. It is interesting to me, though, that out of these 10,832 allegations of abuse over this 52 year period, over 1/3 of them were reported in 2002. The majority of those allegations reported in 2002 referred to alleged incidents that occured prior to 1979 (80%).
The total number of incidents rose from approximately 50 priests being accused of 50 incidents in 1960, to a peak of approximately 460 priests being accused of 800 incidents in 1981. The number rapidly dropped off after that period and returned to the approximately 50 priests/ 50 incidents by 1995. The number has stayed relatively level since that time (the study data stopped in 2003). The scandal first was widely reported in the media in the late 1990s or 2000, if memory serves correctly (as a resylt of the Geoghen (sp?) and Shandley (sp?) cases). So its doubtful that reaction to media and/or public pressure caused a change back in 1981. So, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what change happened in the late 70s/early 80s that would cause such a drop?
You don't hear about that with the advocacy groups, nor will you hear the media report it extensively. I wonder how many journalists who have reported on abuse stories have even taken the time to read the John Jay study (to my knowledge, the only comprehensive study on the subject -- if I'm wrong, please cite something so that I can take a look at it). Satori, I would have expected you to treat the media with great caution and at arms length, particularly after the biased reporting we saw during the last political season. Red meat reporting is red meat reporting, whether the object of the report is Pres. Bush or the Catholic Church.
Frankly, I don't care to continue a discussion of this topic on the public board. I guarantee you that somebody is going to say I'm defending pedophiles, just from the above 3 paragraphs I've written. Let me assure you, I don't. The Church as an institution made some serious, horrible policy mistakes that resulted in many mentally ill men being ordained who had no business being put in a position of such great trust, ultimately resulting in unspeakable damage being done to thousands of teenaged boys (80.9% of the victims were male, 52% of victims were between 13 and 17 -- 79.3% were 10 or over). If you or anybody else would like to continue on, leaving the invective at the door, I'd be happy to continue in a private discussion. I would just prefer not to do it in an environment where the only thing guaranteed is that somebody, who knows who, will not read an entire post and will start sniping based upon what they misread.
"Until things change, any Catholic who knowingly sends money to Rome, directly or indirectly, is funding institutionalized pedophilia. "
I know some good Catholics (shoot -- I used to be one).
Whenever I put my buck or two into the collection plate, I was supporting the local church and not Rome, as most practicing Catholics are today.
However in twi I was supporting *Rome*, and not the *local church*.
Pedophilia is not the main purpose of the RCC (though it's happened), but mind control certainly IS the main purpose of twi.
Which would you call the worse of these two *denominations*?? -->
Everyone (past and present) who has done their abs properly (or improperly), can be considered a contributer to mind control, since that is/was/and always shall be the goal of twi, despite the occasional good that leaks out of their outfit because of the Grace of God.
Knowingly giving to the Roman Catholic Church in no way endorses the actions of the *miscreant crowd* amongst them, because it is not something that is mainstream, even though *--it* Happens.
As far as that other *denomination* -- not only is "Giving Equals Receiving" (or has that changed with the *New Prevailing Truth*? -- gag me with a spoon, or some other blunt object), but the *giving* there goes straight to the top, and rarely finds it's way back down.
Oh wait -- *wayfers* are like mushrooms --
Kept in the dark, and fed bs.
They don't know.
Neither did I.
But when in the Catholic church, I knew my *abs* there wasn't gonna travel all the way to *Rome*, but I bet they still had the forms to fill out!
I think that my decade plus, of abs to twi did more damage than anything I ever contributed to the Roman Catholic Church -- when I was *in* there. :)-->
I did not vote either as I did not find a choice that fit. But I would respond to this quote by Diazbro:
Do not underestimate the impact that Waytraining has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience.
I dont think so! Even with today's Molestation issues aside the Catholic Church History speaks for itself, and it ain't pretty. These sicko's make the Way look like the Micky Mouse Club....
Here is a little of 12 years of Catholic School basic Church History without Way comments. You can look it up in any Church History Book.
And now, in no particular order...
It was said that Pope John XII (955-64) invented sins that had not been known since the beginning of the world and whole monasteries spent days and nights praying for his death. He turned his home, the Lateran Palace, into a brothel. He used the papal treasury to pay off his gambling debts. He died on May 14th 964 aged twenty-four, after he was caught in bed by the husband of one of his mistresses in 'the very act of adultery'.
Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92) sired eight illegitimate sons and probably as many daughters, of whom he openly acknowledged. His reign as Pope was known as 'The Golden Age of Bastards'. He authorised an inquisition against those thought to be witches. On his death bed a wet nurse was found for his final craving - woman's milk.
Pope John XXII (1316-34) excommunicated fellow clergymen for not paying their taxes.
In 1932, Pope Pius XI (1922-39) as well as condemning contraception, ordered German Catholics to drop their hostility towards Hitler. He also backed Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia.
Pope Celastine II (1143-44) had a certain Count Jordan condemned to a horrible death, he was strapped naked to a scalding iron chair while a red-hot crown was nailed to his head.
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) instituted the approved method of interrogation of suspected sodomites. In order to make them confess, suspects were lowered naked onto a red-hot spike. This method was kept until the year 1816.
Robert of Geneva was well known for his ability to decapitate a man with a pike. He became Pope Clement VII (1378-94) and was 'much given to fleshy pleasure'. He surrounded himself with page boys, whose jackets, it was noted, shrunk from being knee length, to mid-buttock 'or even worse'.
Pope Benedict XIII (1394-1417) gave a dispensation to the twenty-nine-year-old Richard II of England to marry Isabella, the seven-year-old daughter of the King of France.
The child-pope Benedict IX (who became Pope at the age of 12!) was bi-sexual, sodomised animals, ordered murders and dabbled in witchcraft and Satanism. He loved to throw wild, bi-sexual orgies. Benedict IX held the post of Pope in the years 1032-44, 1045 and 1047-48. He was described as "A demon from hell in the disguise of a priest...", and St Peter Damian said of him: "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality". Dante estimated that under Benedict IX the papacy reached an all-time low in immorality and debauchery. When he was 23 he survived an assassination attempt (strangling at the altar during Mass). Benedict went on to marry his cousin and sell the papacy to his godfather, Gregory VI.
Pope Boniface VII (974; 984-85) was described as: "a horrid monster" and "a man who in criminality surpasssed all the rest of mankind".
In the year 440 Pope Sixtus III (432-40) was tried for the seduction of a nun.
Pope Leo I (440-61) was a warped and sadistic torturer. He made his victims confess that they mixed semen with the sacrament and used young girls at the altar for the purpose. He was the first Pope to claim the right to put anyone who disagreed with him to death.
Pope Pius VII (1800-23) comdemned bible societies as "a most abominable invention that destroyed the very foundation of religion".
It was widely rumoured that the ex-pirate Pope John XXIII (1410-15) was an Atheist. He tortured his own cardinals and was said to have "had wicked company with two of his own sisters". Robert Hallum, Bishop of Salisbury said that he: "ought to be burnt at the stake".
The homosexual Pope Paul II (1464-71) liked to see naked men being racked and tortured. Alledgedly, he died of a heart attack whilst being sodomized by one of his favourite boys.
Pope John XIII (965-72) { yes, I know there was more than one John XIII } was condemned as an adulterer who "defiled his father's concubine and his own niece". He was said to have died at the hands of an enraged husband, caught in the act of adultery - just like his dad, Pope John XII.
Pope Sergius III (904-11) enjoyed sex with underaged girls. According to the historian Baronius, Sergius III was "the slave of every vice". When he was 45, Sergius took a 15- year-old mistress - the affair produced a son who went on to become Pope John XI.
Pope Stephen VI (896-97) had the body of his predecessor, Pope Formosus (891-96) dug up, dressed in papal vestments, set on a throne and tried for perjury and coveting the papacy.
Pope Benedict XII (1334-42) was such a hardened drinker that the expression "drunk as a pope" became popular in his lifetime.
Pope Anacletus (1130-8) committed incest with his sister and several other female relatives. He enjoyed raping nuns.
Pope Clement VI (1342-52) was described by Petrarch as "an ecclesiastical Dionysus with his obscene and infamous artifaces". Clement VI slept with prostitutes and had dozens of mistresses. When he died, fifty priests said Mass for the repose of his soul for nine consecutive days, but it was generally agreed that this was not going to be nearly enough to prevent the dead pope from going directly to hell.
Pope Pius II (1458-64) had been a well known author of erotic literature, and had fathered about 12 illegitimate children.
The Sistine Chapel was built by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84). He had six illegitimate sons, of which one was the result of an incestuous relationship with his sister.
Pope Julius II (1503-13) who commissioned Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the the Sistine Chapel, was a paedophile and spent much of his time with small boys and male prostitutes.
In the year 1095 Pope Urban II introduced the callagium, a sex tax which alllowed the clergy to keep mistresses, provided they paid an annual fee to the papacy. This had the immediate effect of reducing the use of concubines and hugely increasing clerical homosexuality.
Pope Paul III (1534-49) enjoyed an incestuous relationship with his daughter. To gain control of his family inheritance, he poisoned several relatives, including his mother and neice. He killed two cardinals and a Polish bishop to settle an argument over a theological point. Paul III was probably Rome's biggest ever pimp - he kept a roll of about 45,000 prostitutes, who paid him a monthly tribute.
Pope Julius III (1550-55) sodomized young boys, of which one was his own, illegitimate, son. He appointed several handsome teenage boys as cardinals. Cardinal della Casa's famous poem In Praise of Sodomy was dedicated to Pope Julius III.
Testing the Claim of Scriptural Support
Was Peter the Foundation of the Church?
Matt 16:16-19 - This passage is the foundation for papal authority. It may appear here that Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock upon which the Church would be built. Several problems exist with this interpretation however. Many scholars find that Jesus is referring not to Peter, but to his confession of faith made in the verses just before this one. It was upon acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ that the Church would be built, not on a mere man. Evidence for this follows:
"Peter" (petros in Greek) and "rock" (petra) in this passage are two different words with two different meanings. Petros is a small stone while petra is a huge rock. The play on words seems to be intentional.
The pronouns used to refer to Peter in this passage are always 2nd person, the reference to the rock is 3rd person, thus separating the two.
Even if Peter was the rock being referred to, he was not the only rock - nor was he the chief rock (Eph. 2:20; Revelation 21:9-14; Matt. 21:42-45; 1 Peter 2:4-7; ).
Was Peter Promised Infalliblity?
Luke 22:32 - This passage is not a prayer for Peter's perfect wisdom in matters of faith, it is instead a prayer for his perseverance after his coming trial (which he would fail). Peter's faith did not leave him entirely even after his denial - an affirmative answer to Christ's prayer. A simple look at the whole passage (22:31-34, 55-62) confirms this.
Nowhere in the Bible is Peter (or anyone else) ever said to have this supposed infallibility.
Testing the Claim of Traditional Support
No Historical Support
No pope ever had the powers bestowed upon the apostles to seal their claim of apostleship.
It was the Emperor, not the Bishop (pope) of Rome who originally held supreme power over the church for many centuries.
The Church Fathers did not agree with the interpretation of Matt 16:16-19, it was only used later to bolster their false claim.
No church council in the first 1,000 years of church history were called by popes.
For the first 1,000 years of the church's existence not a single doctrinal issue was decided by a pope.
The infallibility doctrine was cause for 55 bishops to leave Vatican I in protest. It then passed by less than half of the original voters (535/1084) supporting the idea.
The pope in power at Vatican I was deposed less than 2 months after papal infallibility was declared.
Fraudulent documents like The Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals were at the foundation for much of the supposed tradition of Roman Catholic teaching, and although found to be false by the 1500's, are followed today.
Papal Problems
Heresy - Pope Honorius I was condemned by the church for heresy regarding the nature of Christ. This is obviously a large problem for Roman Catholicism's claim to the pope's inability to be mislead on issues of doctrine!
Multiple Popes - In the history of the Roman Catholic Church there have been no less than 35 "anti-popes", two opposing popes in authority at the same time. There is no infallible list of popes, nor an infallible method of knowing which one was the "real" pope. So which is it?
Roman Catholicism's Heritage
The Inquisition - It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has killed more Christians than any other religious institution in man's history (some estimates put the death toll at 50 million). The fact that the Roman Catholic Church no longer has the power to enforce its policies should not make us any more comfortable, for the infallible pronouncements made to create the Inquisition are technically in force today.
The Crusades - Many are unaware that there were actually several crusades commissioned by popes. Beyond the "noble" crusades that set out to free Jerusalem from the Saracens, there existed crusades against Christians! In fact, those who took part in them were promised absolution for all sins committed while on crusade. The slaughter of the innocent that ensued, not to mention the horrible atrocities against women and children, should come as no surprise.
Indulgences - The main issue that prompted Luther to separate from the Roman Catholic Church was the selling of indulgences. For a small fee you could get your loved ones out of Purgatory and into heaven.
Galileo - in 1633 Galileo was tried under the Inquisition for heresy for his discovery of a non-geocentric universe. Because the Roman Catholic Church followed Ptolemy's idea of an earth-centered universe Galileo remained under house arrest as a heretic until his death.
Adolph Hitler - In contrast the Roman Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler (although past popes have been dug up after death, dressed in robes, and brought to trial only to be excommunicated by other popes). In fact it celebrated his 50th birthday with special ceremonies and prayers for his success (which only helped Roman Catholicism due to numerous treaties made with various european dictators throughout its history). Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing.
Conclusion
Is the history of Roman Catholicism a testimony to its leaders inability to be deceived? Hardly. The Roman Catholic Church has never recanted or apologized for any of its above actions. Examples of hypocrisy and outright sin of the Roman Catholic Church could be easily multiplied. Volumes could (and have been) written on papal abuses, sinful obsessions, and false teachings. How can any honest person look into these matters and come away believing that the pope is God's "vice-regent" on earth? a man whose official title, "vicar of Christ", translates literally into "anti-christ"? The title is apt, for to millions of Roman Catholics around the world, the pope stands in the place of Christ.
Do you have a source for this tract? Jack Chick, maybe? Or did you copy it from the highly reliable and completely objective site?
As to the contents, I am familiar with John XII and, without a doubt, he was some kind of a "winner."
However, I would take issue with the statements pasted in here against Pius XI. In fact, he did sign an agreement with the Fascists of Italy...but that agreement was to relinquish claim to the Papal States in exchange for an agreement of sovereignty and independence for the Vatican City State. As to support for the Fascists, though, he actually was very critical of them, as shown in his encyclical, Non Abbiam Bisogno. (And, for those interested, there can be no doubt about his attitude toward Nazis after reading , an encyclical published in 1937) But this Pope was best known for his writings on Labor, particularly Quadragesimo Anno (1931). Shoot, even the Wikipedia has some good things to say about him!
And, by the way, Clement VII's name was Guilio de Medici, from Florence, not Geneva, and he reigned from 1523-1534, not 1378-94. Too bad your tract got that one wrong too.
Frankly, I don't have either the time or inclination to bother to refute all the garbage that is in that tract you pasted into your post. But, I would love to know the source of it.
Folks, this kind of bigoted, warped crap is just a typical example. I am very, very glad that White Dove posted this garbage...it is just the typical twisted mess that is pummelled into peoples' heads over time that then makes people want to believe the worst when they hear something, rather than to even bother attempting to discern objectivity in analyzing a situation like clergy abuse.
Absolutely, Trefor. In a 2,000 year history, with about 1/2 of that where the Papacy was in fact a major European power, there could be no doubt that covetous men would try and succeed from time to time in getting into the office through simony or other methods. There is a difference between looking at some men who ascended to the position and judging the entire institution based upon aberrations, as the tract quoted above attempted to do.
It would be the equivalent of judging the entire UK, as a country, by the actions of a couple of medeival kings.
It would be the equivalent of making a statement that all homosexuals are pedophiles, because a miniscule percentage are.
It is logically flawed and intellectually dishonest.
First of all I'm not a catholic. I have met many christians who are catholic. So are we bashing the church or the people.
When I give to my local church I'm giving the money to God. Not the local, state, or national organizations.
Now lets say that there are some people out there who have problems. Some of those people go a path where they are exposed to young children. these people are preditors that need to be taken care of. Personally I think giving the to the community would be a good think.
The catholic church is reacting as a family would to protect its own. I think that many of those who are saying molestation are just going for the money.
I think that many of those who are saying molestation are just going for the money.
Try telling that to the victims themselves, and see where it gets you. Also keep in mind all the 'relocations' of the accused priests who just wind up doing it again. There is ample evidence for that.
Whereas there is NO evidence for your point about the accusers simply doing it for the money. Just the accusation.
I have long since lost my high school church history book in fact I doubt we ever got to keep them as I remember. But this is common knowledge even the priest Father Thomas who taught us knew this. I'm sure the textbook is out of print by now but it was simply called Church History I believe. Okay so maybe there are some typos in the information above I'll give you that. Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid? I guess if you don't get all of the dates right then that means it never happened I'm sure those molested will be happy to know that. Speaking of logically flawed and intellectually dishonest it is hardly just a few as you imply it is years and years of Pope's and it is still rampant today in the church.
I don't have the time or desire to research all of the Pope's for you it was boring enough in Catholic school the first time. But you can google it or read up on it yourself.
Here is one I did find online though from Catholic Answers. It happened get over it!the poops were sicko's.
And the "Babylonian Captivity of the papacy, 1309-1377" [when Clement V was captured and imprisoned in France so The French King, Philip IV, could control of his every move and be subjected to French rule], they then turned focus onto the Knights Templars and their treasure.
In 1307, they ordered a sweeping raid during which all known Knights were rounded up and thrown into dungeons to be tortured. In 1312 the Pope issued the order to turn all holdings of the order to France. Hundreds of devout Templars were tortured and killed including their Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Few survived to escape to Scotland where their legacy could continue.
There are organizations that do remember.
:-)
Unfortunately when you look at an organization that has been around for so long, it does take a really long time for the 'modern' popes to finally outnumber all those who went before during the Church's first two millennia.
No doubt one day [many centuries from today] if they keep their noses clean, finally there will come a day when, we can say publicly and proudly that 'most' popes were 'good' men.
:-)
Galen Young
Harry S. Truman #649, F&AM, Naples, Italy
Reliance Chap #70 Bremerton Washington
Steadfast Lodge #216, Bremerton Washington
Valley of Bremerton, Orient of Washington
- Knight of the Rose Croix, Knight of the order of St Andrew
Affifi Temple, Tacoma, Washington
- Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the mystic shrine.
Female Popes??? Never knew they had any! Does that make them Pope-ettes? :)-->
Actually, in answer to the thread title Catholics are:
uh...people. Just like any other group of people. They are doing what they belive in and what they think is best before God, just like anyone else. I don't agree with thier doctrine, but then, I don't have to. Nor do they have to agree with what I believe in.
John Anglicus was a ninth century Englishman. He travelled to Athens where he gained a reputation for his knowledge of the sciences. Eventually he came to lecture at the Trivium in Rome where his fame grew even larger. He became a Cardinal, and when Pope Leo IV died in 853 A.D., he was unanimously elected pope. As Pope John VIII he ruled for two years, until 855 A.D. However, while riding one day from St. Peter's to the Lateran, he had to stop by the side of the road and, to the astonishment of everyone, gave birth to a child. It turned out that Pope John VIII was really a woman. In other words, Pope John was really Pope Joan. According to legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people of Rome tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until she died.
While it was all heavily documented at the time, history of the era has since been argued a great deal.
"We have found some authors who scoff at the whole idea of a female pontiff, for no better reason than that they cannot conceive of a member of the 'second sex' having the wit to reach the supreme position in the Catholic Church unrecognized. For C.A. Patrides, whose recent study adds little new to the subject, the medieval belief in Pope Joan is enough to make him 'suspect that judgment had fled to brutish beasts, and men had lost their reason'.(2) We do not share this extreme view. St Hildegund seems to have entered the monastery at Sch? because it was the easiest and most convenient thing for her to do at the time, but the fact remains that she lived and worked among monks without her secret being revealed. Another woman could well have taken the same step out of unwillingness to accept the traditional supportive, nurturing role which was the only one then available to her within the Church or, indeed, outside it. If she had sufficient determination, what might she not have achieved? It is certainly not impossible that she might finally have gained the ultimate accolade of election to the Papal Chair."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
3
9
13
Popular Days
Apr 15
26
Apr 14
12
Apr 16
10
Apr 17
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Galen 6 posts
mstar1 3 posts
WhiteDove 9 posts
markomalley 13 posts
Popular Days
Apr 15 2005
26 posts
Apr 14 2005
12 posts
Apr 16 2005
10 posts
Apr 17 2005
4 posts
johniam
Hey, what's up with this poll? I voted ostriches and the poll results I saw only had 2 total votes, neither of which was ostriches.
Update: Now there's 4 total votes, one of which is ostriches, my bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
For the most part I have great respect for my catholic friends and the catholics that I know. I have disagreements on a lot of issues with the institution but in general the individuals are moral, concerned, thoughtful and kind people. Many support good causes and do 'good works'.
I wouldn't indict the whole bunch of them (all 1.1 Billion) anymore than I would all Americans because bad things happen here, all Muslims because of a few extremists or everyone who worked for Sears (if a pedophile was caught there)for that matter.
The system that brought Bernard Law also brought people like Mother Theresa, which the world sorely needs.
--I didn't vote--I couldn't find a category that fit for me, - not being a up on my Catholic history I don't know if there is a way to determine if their good outweighs their bad over 20 centuries
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
I to beleive that catholics do more good than bad. Some of our best friends are catholics, and than they do where most good can be dunn, as are alot of good christian groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Mark, your poll implies that Catholics are somehow monolithic, or perceived as such. In my view, the billion-plus practioners of Catholicism are comprised of all your choices (except the last, speaking for myself), and many more. You might give the poll more thought and better define what you want to learn, and then, determine the best question and choices to offer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Most people, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, can fine something the U.S. government does or supports that they find terribly wrong or distasteful (that doesn't include weather forecasts BTW), yet most pay their taxes , while if grudgingly, without active protest.
Maybe using the government is not the best example, but by endorsing or supporting any group or entity that's not perfect, are we endorsing the wrongs someone in the group might be doing?
Maybe we should boycott everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I really don't like this question.
From the sound of the question and the choices given, it has been made to seem that Catholics are the only source of pedophilia.
Now I know there are just so many ways to word a question...and I know there are just so many ways to word merely 5 choices for an answer...but the way pedophilia and Catholocism are linked here I really don't like it.
What about all the sports coaches...lost of them fondle boys and girls in their care.
How about teachers?
How about scout leaders?
If a person is a pedophile, they will do their thing anywhere they find it.
Maybe a better question would be something like....do you thinks pedophiles are drawn to be priests in the Catholic church...or something like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I live in a huge RC town, I am not RC, but in my sphere of speaking and working with them, it is not like "us". haha
RC look at you funny when ya metion God or spirit it is about rituals and tradition and rules and regulations and who knows who at church... how the priest is a family friend power and playing kind of stuff. not so much purpose and education . I have never gone to confession but I know people who have confessed or spoken to their priests and it helps them get along in life.
I do not think the RC, want huge reform and change for the most part it is status quo.
some do. and they often break off from the "real" church because of it... but they want the strength of the church ie.. money and support. The church doesnt work that way .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Do not underestimate the impact that Way training has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience.
Now. the Catholic church has its problems and needs to deal straightforwardly with the molestation issues and even with the whole celibacy thing that is a farce in the minds of most even devout catholics who might not admit in public. Obviously its cheaper for the church to support a single person than it is them and their family which is most likely why they still push the celibacy thing even when they know that many priests take lovers at some point (not all of them are gay or after kids either).
In the end I hope people make decisions about the catholic church based on information and personal experience as opposed to residual waybrain. The same is true for other denominations also. Don't let what vic or craig said rule your brain in this regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
diazbro:
"Do not underestimate the impact that Way training has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience."
I agree.
Having been raised a Baptist, I was told of the 'evils' of the RCs since before I could speak. Such does have a lasting impression.
"Now. the Catholic church has its problems and needs to deal straightforwardly with ... molestation ... celibacy ... many priests take lovers ... "
It does have problems, but then so does about every large business.
"In the end I hope people make decisions about the catholic church based on information and personal experience ..."
Yes, I have had numerous friends who have been RC. One of our current renters is a RC, she comes down to our apartment every Friday for drinks and we discuss religion. We have fun with it, her hubby is in my lodge as well.
I have been blessed with the opportunity of knowing many RCs whom I have been able to have long debates with.
To my understanding [yes, I know that my understanding is terribly limited], every religion that has become a business, takes advantage of it's followers and 'vices' soon occur.
My issue with that religion is more the matter of fact method whereby they derive doctrine. 'Good' was this, but then it changed to 'this', but then during this age 'good' changed to 'this', but then later it changed to 'this', and today we dont really accept any of those things as the developed doctrine of the Church is 'this'.
To me how can anything be good or bad, if we willingly change our morales with each generation?
Can't there exist a single un-changing system by which we derive the definitions of both 'good' and 'bad'? Maybe something that was formed by a mind, outside of the human?
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Satori, you said:
With 5 choices, I tried to give a spectrum from "evil" to "fully approve" in the best manner possible. My limited writing ability and the limitations of one question with 5 selections restricts my ability to develop a poll.
As to my poll implying that Catholics are somehow monolithic, you'll note that two of the moderate choices offered have the expression "most" in the description, thus implying a diversity of thought. The approach to this was, frankly, a response to a statement you made, "Until things change, any Catholic who knowingly sends money to Rome, directly or indirectly, is funding institutionalized pedophilia." This statement is a very broad-brush statement that implies a shared responsibility for any practicing Catholic. To make an accusation that a minimum of 27 million people (44% of the Catholic population of 62 million -- in 2002) are responsible for the actions of a very small percentage of a very small sample of that overall population of 62 million is simply ludicrous, along the lines of a statement that every single German was singly and personally responsible for Hitler or that every single Russian had a personal responsibility for Stalin. It was a bigoted and highly offensive statement that has no more place in a discussion than some of the posts the far-left wingers posted on the 'tacks board during the past presidential campaign. Frankly, Satori, I would have thought it to be beneath you to make that kind of comment. I was curious if this bigotry was either a thoughtless comment posted by you, an honest, heartfelt, sincere form of bigotry, or represented a general consensus among a significant percentage of GSers. Had the latter been the case, that would have been my second-to-last post on GSC. I am relieved to see that, at least according to this poll, it is, apparently, not the consensus.
I've avoided discussion of this issue on other threads because there have not been enough facts presented to have an intelligent discussion on the issue and, it being such an emotional issue, a presentation of facts would not be favorably met.
In my experience (which, I am sure am shared by at least a few others), in any conflict between two people, there are at least 3 "truths." The subjective "truth" that reflects the experience through the eyes of the participant accounts for two of them. The subjective "truth" seen by supposedly neutral observers accounts for others. The "objective" truth, seen without the filter of human experience will actually lie somewhere in the middle of all of this muddle.
We have been saturated by one perspective, that of the victim advocacy group, by a media whose objective may or may not be "truth," but whose objective certainly involves newspaper sales and/or Nielsen ratings.
Let me give you a few numbers to illustrate my point.
From 1950 to 2002, there have been a little over 4,300 priests accused of 10,832 incidents of abuse (this is a separate number from the number where the accusations were shown to be valid). This works out to be an overall number of less than 3% of the total number of clergy throughout that period of time. To look at predators, though, you find even a smaller number: 772 priests received 4 or more allegations against them from 1950-2002 (that is about 0.49% of the total). Out of that, 149 priests (0.093%) were responsible for 26% of the total number of allegations. It is interesting to me, though, that out of these 10,832 allegations of abuse over this 52 year period, over 1/3 of them were reported in 2002. The majority of those allegations reported in 2002 referred to alleged incidents that occured prior to 1979 (80%).
The total number of incidents rose from approximately 50 priests being accused of 50 incidents in 1960, to a peak of approximately 460 priests being accused of 800 incidents in 1981. The number rapidly dropped off after that period and returned to the approximately 50 priests/ 50 incidents by 1995. The number has stayed relatively level since that time (the study data stopped in 2003). The scandal first was widely reported in the media in the late 1990s or 2000, if memory serves correctly (as a resylt of the Geoghen (sp?) and Shandley (sp?) cases). So its doubtful that reaction to media and/or public pressure caused a change back in 1981. So, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what change happened in the late 70s/early 80s that would cause such a drop?
Source: John Jay Study of Clergy Sexual Abuse, 2002.
You don't hear about that with the advocacy groups, nor will you hear the media report it extensively. I wonder how many journalists who have reported on abuse stories have even taken the time to read the John Jay study (to my knowledge, the only comprehensive study on the subject -- if I'm wrong, please cite something so that I can take a look at it). Satori, I would have expected you to treat the media with great caution and at arms length, particularly after the biased reporting we saw during the last political season. Red meat reporting is red meat reporting, whether the object of the report is Pres. Bush or the Catholic Church.
Frankly, I don't care to continue a discussion of this topic on the public board. I guarantee you that somebody is going to say I'm defending pedophiles, just from the above 3 paragraphs I've written. Let me assure you, I don't. The Church as an institution made some serious, horrible policy mistakes that resulted in many mentally ill men being ordained who had no business being put in a position of such great trust, ultimately resulting in unspeakable damage being done to thousands of teenaged boys (80.9% of the victims were male, 52% of victims were between 13 and 17 -- 79.3% were 10 or over). If you or anybody else would like to continue on, leaving the invective at the door, I'd be happy to continue in a private discussion. I would just prefer not to do it in an environment where the only thing guaranteed is that somebody, who knows who, will not read an entire post and will start sniping based upon what they misread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I know some good Catholics (shoot -- I used to be one).
Whenever I put my buck or two into the collection plate, I was supporting the local church and not Rome, as most practicing Catholics are today.
However in twi I was supporting *Rome*, and not the *local church*.
Pedophilia is not the main purpose of the RCC (though it's happened), but mind control certainly IS the main purpose of twi.
Which would you call the worse of these two *denominations*??
-->
Everyone (past and present) who has done their abs properly (or improperly), can be considered a contributer to mind control, since that is/was/and always shall be the goal of twi, despite the occasional good that leaks out of their outfit because of the Grace of God.
Knowingly giving to the Roman Catholic Church in no way endorses the actions of the *miscreant crowd* amongst them, because it is not something that is mainstream, even though *--it* Happens.
As far as that other *denomination* -- not only is "Giving Equals Receiving" (or has that changed with the *New Prevailing Truth*? -- gag me with a spoon, or some other blunt object), but the *giving* there goes straight to the top, and rarely finds it's way back down.
Oh wait -- *wayfers* are like mushrooms --
Kept in the dark, and fed bs.
They don't know.
Neither did I.
But when in the Catholic church, I knew my *abs* there wasn't gonna travel all the way to *Rome*, but I bet they still had the forms to fill out!
I think that my decade plus, of abs to twi did more damage than anything I ever contributed to the Roman Catholic Church -- when I was *in* there.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Catholics and Jews are, by and large, my best friends.
The Catholic influence and inspiration on traditional sacred music is beyond any measure or price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I did not vote either as I did not find a choice that fit. But I would respond to this quote by Diazbro:
Do not underestimate the impact that Waytraining has on the exWayfer's opinion of the Catholic church and mainstream churches in general. I know plenty of former way people who have been out for 15 years who characterize *all* major denominations as being "evil". For me its distrubing that they don't realize that their fear and loathing of these institutions are based on comments by Way leadership as opposed to personal experience.
I dont think so! Even with today's Molestation issues aside the Catholic Church History speaks for itself, and it ain't pretty. These sicko's make the Way look like the Micky Mouse Club....
Here is a little of 12 years of Catholic School basic Church History without Way comments. You can look it up in any Church History Book.
And now, in no particular order...
It was said that Pope John XII (955-64) invented sins that had not been known since the beginning of the world and whole monasteries spent days and nights praying for his death. He turned his home, the Lateran Palace, into a brothel. He used the papal treasury to pay off his gambling debts. He died on May 14th 964 aged twenty-four, after he was caught in bed by the husband of one of his mistresses in 'the very act of adultery'.
Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92) sired eight illegitimate sons and probably as many daughters, of whom he openly acknowledged. His reign as Pope was known as 'The Golden Age of Bastards'. He authorised an inquisition against those thought to be witches. On his death bed a wet nurse was found for his final craving - woman's milk.
Pope John XXII (1316-34) excommunicated fellow clergymen for not paying their taxes.
In 1932, Pope Pius XI (1922-39) as well as condemning contraception, ordered German Catholics to drop their hostility towards Hitler. He also backed Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia.
Pope Celastine II (1143-44) had a certain Count Jordan condemned to a horrible death, he was strapped naked to a scalding iron chair while a red-hot crown was nailed to his head.
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) instituted the approved method of interrogation of suspected sodomites. In order to make them confess, suspects were lowered naked onto a red-hot spike. This method was kept until the year 1816.
Robert of Geneva was well known for his ability to decapitate a man with a pike. He became Pope Clement VII (1378-94) and was 'much given to fleshy pleasure'. He surrounded himself with page boys, whose jackets, it was noted, shrunk from being knee length, to mid-buttock 'or even worse'.
Pope Benedict XIII (1394-1417) gave a dispensation to the twenty-nine-year-old Richard II of England to marry Isabella, the seven-year-old daughter of the King of France.
The child-pope Benedict IX (who became Pope at the age of 12!) was bi-sexual, sodomised animals, ordered murders and dabbled in witchcraft and Satanism. He loved to throw wild, bi-sexual orgies. Benedict IX held the post of Pope in the years 1032-44, 1045 and 1047-48. He was described as "A demon from hell in the disguise of a priest...", and St Peter Damian said of him: "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality". Dante estimated that under Benedict IX the papacy reached an all-time low in immorality and debauchery. When he was 23 he survived an assassination attempt (strangling at the altar during Mass). Benedict went on to marry his cousin and sell the papacy to his godfather, Gregory VI.
Pope Boniface VII (974; 984-85) was described as: "a horrid monster" and "a man who in criminality surpasssed all the rest of mankind".
In the year 440 Pope Sixtus III (432-40) was tried for the seduction of a nun.
Pope Leo I (440-61) was a warped and sadistic torturer. He made his victims confess that they mixed semen with the sacrament and used young girls at the altar for the purpose. He was the first Pope to claim the right to put anyone who disagreed with him to death.
Pope Pius VII (1800-23) comdemned bible societies as "a most abominable invention that destroyed the very foundation of religion".
It was widely rumoured that the ex-pirate Pope John XXIII (1410-15) was an Atheist. He tortured his own cardinals and was said to have "had wicked company with two of his own sisters". Robert Hallum, Bishop of Salisbury said that he: "ought to be burnt at the stake".
The homosexual Pope Paul II (1464-71) liked to see naked men being racked and tortured. Alledgedly, he died of a heart attack whilst being sodomized by one of his favourite boys.
Pope John XIII (965-72) { yes, I know there was more than one John XIII } was condemned as an adulterer who "defiled his father's concubine and his own niece". He was said to have died at the hands of an enraged husband, caught in the act of adultery - just like his dad, Pope John XII.
Pope Sergius III (904-11) enjoyed sex with underaged girls. According to the historian Baronius, Sergius III was "the slave of every vice". When he was 45, Sergius took a 15- year-old mistress - the affair produced a son who went on to become Pope John XI.
Pope Stephen VI (896-97) had the body of his predecessor, Pope Formosus (891-96) dug up, dressed in papal vestments, set on a throne and tried for perjury and coveting the papacy.
Pope Benedict XII (1334-42) was such a hardened drinker that the expression "drunk as a pope" became popular in his lifetime.
Pope Anacletus (1130-8) committed incest with his sister and several other female relatives. He enjoyed raping nuns.
Pope Clement VI (1342-52) was described by Petrarch as "an ecclesiastical Dionysus with his obscene and infamous artifaces". Clement VI slept with prostitutes and had dozens of mistresses. When he died, fifty priests said Mass for the repose of his soul for nine consecutive days, but it was generally agreed that this was not going to be nearly enough to prevent the dead pope from going directly to hell.
Pope Pius II (1458-64) had been a well known author of erotic literature, and had fathered about 12 illegitimate children.
The Sistine Chapel was built by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84). He had six illegitimate sons, of which one was the result of an incestuous relationship with his sister.
Pope Julius II (1503-13) who commissioned Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the the Sistine Chapel, was a paedophile and spent much of his time with small boys and male prostitutes.
In the year 1095 Pope Urban II introduced the callagium, a sex tax which alllowed the clergy to keep mistresses, provided they paid an annual fee to the papacy. This had the immediate effect of reducing the use of concubines and hugely increasing clerical homosexuality.
Pope Paul III (1534-49) enjoyed an incestuous relationship with his daughter. To gain control of his family inheritance, he poisoned several relatives, including his mother and neice. He killed two cardinals and a Polish bishop to settle an argument over a theological point. Paul III was probably Rome's biggest ever pimp - he kept a roll of about 45,000 prostitutes, who paid him a monthly tribute.
Pope Julius III (1550-55) sodomized young boys, of which one was his own, illegitimate, son. He appointed several handsome teenage boys as cardinals. Cardinal della Casa's famous poem In Praise of Sodomy was dedicated to Pope Julius III.
Testing the Claim of Scriptural Support
Was Peter the Foundation of the Church?
Matt 16:16-19 - This passage is the foundation for papal authority. It may appear here that Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock upon which the Church would be built. Several problems exist with this interpretation however. Many scholars find that Jesus is referring not to Peter, but to his confession of faith made in the verses just before this one. It was upon acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ that the Church would be built, not on a mere man. Evidence for this follows:
"Peter" (petros in Greek) and "rock" (petra) in this passage are two different words with two different meanings. Petros is a small stone while petra is a huge rock. The play on words seems to be intentional.
The pronouns used to refer to Peter in this passage are always 2nd person, the reference to the rock is 3rd person, thus separating the two.
Even if Peter was the rock being referred to, he was not the only rock - nor was he the chief rock (Eph. 2:20; Revelation 21:9-14; Matt. 21:42-45; 1 Peter 2:4-7; ).
Was Peter Promised Infalliblity?
Luke 22:32 - This passage is not a prayer for Peter's perfect wisdom in matters of faith, it is instead a prayer for his perseverance after his coming trial (which he would fail). Peter's faith did not leave him entirely even after his denial - an affirmative answer to Christ's prayer. A simple look at the whole passage (22:31-34, 55-62) confirms this.
Nowhere in the Bible is Peter (or anyone else) ever said to have this supposed infallibility.
Testing the Claim of Traditional Support
No Historical Support
No pope ever had the powers bestowed upon the apostles to seal their claim of apostleship.
It was the Emperor, not the Bishop (pope) of Rome who originally held supreme power over the church for many centuries.
The Church Fathers did not agree with the interpretation of Matt 16:16-19, it was only used later to bolster their false claim.
No church council in the first 1,000 years of church history were called by popes.
For the first 1,000 years of the church's existence not a single doctrinal issue was decided by a pope.
The infallibility doctrine was cause for 55 bishops to leave Vatican I in protest. It then passed by less than half of the original voters (535/1084) supporting the idea.
The pope in power at Vatican I was deposed less than 2 months after papal infallibility was declared.
Fraudulent documents like The Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals were at the foundation for much of the supposed tradition of Roman Catholic teaching, and although found to be false by the 1500's, are followed today.
Papal Problems
Heresy - Pope Honorius I was condemned by the church for heresy regarding the nature of Christ. This is obviously a large problem for Roman Catholicism's claim to the pope's inability to be mislead on issues of doctrine!
Multiple Popes - In the history of the Roman Catholic Church there have been no less than 35 "anti-popes", two opposing popes in authority at the same time. There is no infallible list of popes, nor an infallible method of knowing which one was the "real" pope. So which is it?
Roman Catholicism's Heritage
The Inquisition - It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has killed more Christians than any other religious institution in man's history (some estimates put the death toll at 50 million). The fact that the Roman Catholic Church no longer has the power to enforce its policies should not make us any more comfortable, for the infallible pronouncements made to create the Inquisition are technically in force today.
The Crusades - Many are unaware that there were actually several crusades commissioned by popes. Beyond the "noble" crusades that set out to free Jerusalem from the Saracens, there existed crusades against Christians! In fact, those who took part in them were promised absolution for all sins committed while on crusade. The slaughter of the innocent that ensued, not to mention the horrible atrocities against women and children, should come as no surprise.
Indulgences - The main issue that prompted Luther to separate from the Roman Catholic Church was the selling of indulgences. For a small fee you could get your loved ones out of Purgatory and into heaven.
Galileo - in 1633 Galileo was tried under the Inquisition for heresy for his discovery of a non-geocentric universe. Because the Roman Catholic Church followed Ptolemy's idea of an earth-centered universe Galileo remained under house arrest as a heretic until his death.
Adolph Hitler - In contrast the Roman Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler (although past popes have been dug up after death, dressed in robes, and brought to trial only to be excommunicated by other popes). In fact it celebrated his 50th birthday with special ceremonies and prayers for his success (which only helped Roman Catholicism due to numerous treaties made with various european dictators throughout its history). Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing.
Conclusion
Is the history of Roman Catholicism a testimony to its leaders inability to be deceived? Hardly. The Roman Catholic Church has never recanted or apologized for any of its above actions. Examples of hypocrisy and outright sin of the Roman Catholic Church could be easily multiplied. Volumes could (and have been) written on papal abuses, sinful obsessions, and false teachings. How can any honest person look into these matters and come away believing that the pope is God's "vice-regent" on earth? a man whose official title, "vicar of Christ", translates literally into "anti-christ"? The title is apt, for to millions of Roman Catholics around the world, the pope stands in the place of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
Do you have a source for this tract? Jack Chick, maybe? Or did you copy it from the highly reliable and completely objective site?
As to the contents, I am familiar with John XII and, without a doubt, he was some kind of a "winner."
However, I would take issue with the statements pasted in here against Pius XI. In fact, he did sign an agreement with the Fascists of Italy...but that agreement was to relinquish claim to the Papal States in exchange for an agreement of sovereignty and independence for the Vatican City State. As to support for the Fascists, though, he actually was very critical of them, as shown in his encyclical, Non Abbiam Bisogno. (And, for those interested, there can be no doubt about his attitude toward Nazis after reading , an encyclical published in 1937) But this Pope was best known for his writings on Labor, particularly Quadragesimo Anno (1931). Shoot, even the Wikipedia has some good things to say about him!
And, by the way, Clement VII's name was Guilio de Medici, from Florence, not Geneva, and he reigned from 1523-1534, not 1378-94. Too bad your tract got that one wrong too.
Frankly, I don't have either the time or inclination to bother to refute all the garbage that is in that tract you pasted into your post. But, I would love to know the source of it.
Folks, this kind of bigoted, warped crap is just a typical example. I am very, very glad that White Dove posted this garbage...it is just the typical twisted mess that is pummelled into peoples' heads over time that then makes people want to believe the worst when they hear something, rather than to even bother attempting to discern objectivity in analyzing a situation like clergy abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
No mention in the above list of the Alexander VI Borgia, who sired children, made his son Cesare a Cardinal and who poisoned his enemies.
He also organised orgies in the Lateran Palace.
At least modern Popes are somewhat better behaved
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Absolutely, Trefor. In a 2,000 year history, with about 1/2 of that where the Papacy was in fact a major European power, there could be no doubt that covetous men would try and succeed from time to time in getting into the office through simony or other methods. There is a difference between looking at some men who ascended to the position and judging the entire institution based upon aberrations, as the tract quoted above attempted to do.
It would be the equivalent of judging the entire UK, as a country, by the actions of a couple of medeival kings.
It would be the equivalent of making a statement that all homosexuals are pedophiles, because a miniscule percentage are.
It is logically flawed and intellectually dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
First of all I'm not a catholic. I have met many christians who are catholic. So are we bashing the church or the people.
When I give to my local church I'm giving the money to God. Not the local, state, or national organizations.
Now lets say that there are some people out there who have problems. Some of those people go a path where they are exposed to young children. these people are preditors that need to be taken care of. Personally I think giving the to the community would be a good think.
The catholic church is reacting as a family would to protect its own. I think that many of those who are saying molestation are just going for the money.
Thats my opionion and I'm sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Try telling that to the victims themselves, and see where it gets you. Also keep in mind all the 'relocations' of the accused priests who just wind up doing it again. There is ample evidence for that.
Whereas there is NO evidence for your point about the accusers simply doing it for the money. Just the accusation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark
I have long since lost my high school church history book in fact I doubt we ever got to keep them as I remember. But this is common knowledge even the priest Father Thomas who taught us knew this. I'm sure the textbook is out of print by now but it was simply called Church History I believe. Okay so maybe there are some typos in the information above I'll give you that. Does that make the truth that it happened any less valid? I guess if you don't get all of the dates right then that means it never happened I'm sure those molested will be happy to know that. Speaking of logically flawed and intellectually dishonest it is hardly just a few as you imply it is years and years of Pope's and it is still rampant today in the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Any?
Maybe-
as time allows I'll look into it
I, like Mark, however would like to know the link from where you got this history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't have the time or desire to research all of the Pope's for you it was boring enough in Catholic school the first time. But you can google it or read up on it yourself.
Here is one I did find online though from Catholic Answers. It happened get over it!the poops were sicko's.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/heresies_heretics/86201
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801fea4.asp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
WhiteDove:
"... Pope John XII (955-64)
... Pope Innocent VIII (1484-92)
... Pope John XXII (1316-34)
... Pope Pius XI (1922-39)
... Pope Celastine II (1143-44)
... Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)
... Pope Clement VII (1378-94)
... Pope Benedict XIII (1394-1417)
... pope Benedict IX
... Pope Boniface VII (974; 984-85)
... Pope Sixtus III (432-40)
... Pope Leo I (440-61)... "
LOL
I had seen and read much better lists.
You left off the female popes.
And the "Babylonian Captivity of the papacy, 1309-1377" [when Clement V was captured and imprisoned in France so The French King, Philip IV, could control of his every move and be subjected to French rule], they then turned focus onto the Knights Templars and their treasure.
In 1307, they ordered a sweeping raid during which all known Knights were rounded up and thrown into dungeons to be tortured. In 1312 the Pope issued the order to turn all holdings of the order to France. Hundreds of devout Templars were tortured and killed including their Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Few survived to escape to Scotland where their legacy could continue.
There are organizations that do remember.
:-)
Unfortunately when you look at an organization that has been around for so long, it does take a really long time for the 'modern' popes to finally outnumber all those who went before during the Church's first two millennia.
No doubt one day [many centuries from today] if they keep their noses clean, finally there will come a day when, we can say publicly and proudly that 'most' popes were 'good' men.
:-)
Galen Young
Harry S. Truman #649, F&AM, Naples, Italy
Reliance Chap #70 Bremerton Washington
Steadfast Lodge #216, Bremerton Washington
Valley of Bremerton, Orient of Washington
- Knight of the Rose Croix, Knight of the order of St Andrew
Affifi Temple, Tacoma, Washington
- Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the mystic shrine.
Edited by ET1 SSLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Female Popes??? Never knew they had any! Does that make them Pope-ettes?
:)-->
Actually, in answer to the thread title Catholics are:
uh...people. Just like any other group of people. They are doing what they belive in and what they think is best before God, just like anyone else. I don't agree with thier doctrine, but then, I don't have to. Nor do they have to agree with what I believe in.
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Pope Joan / Pope John VIII 853-855 AD
John Anglicus was a ninth century Englishman. He travelled to Athens where he gained a reputation for his knowledge of the sciences. Eventually he came to lecture at the Trivium in Rome where his fame grew even larger. He became a Cardinal, and when Pope Leo IV died in 853 A.D., he was unanimously elected pope. As Pope John VIII he ruled for two years, until 855 A.D. However, while riding one day from St. Peter's to the Lateran, he had to stop by the side of the road and, to the astonishment of everyone, gave birth to a child. It turned out that Pope John VIII was really a woman. In other words, Pope John was really Pope Joan. According to legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people of Rome tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until she died.
While it was all heavily documented at the time, history of the era has since been argued a great deal.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/PopeJoan9.html
"We have found some authors who scoff at the whole idea of a female pontiff, for no better reason than that they cannot conceive of a member of the 'second sex' having the wit to reach the supreme position in the Catholic Church unrecognized. For C.A. Patrides, whose recent study adds little new to the subject, the medieval belief in Pope Joan is enough to make him 'suspect that judgment had fled to brutish beasts, and men had lost their reason'.(2) We do not share this extreme view. St Hildegund seems to have entered the monastery at Sch? because it was the easiest and most convenient thing for her to do at the time, but the fact remains that she lived and worked among monks without her secret being revealed. Another woman could well have taken the same step out of unwillingness to accept the traditional supportive, nurturing role which was the only one then available to her within the Church or, indeed, outside it. If she had sufficient determination, what might she not have achieved? It is certainly not impossible that she might finally have gained the ultimate accolade of election to the Papal Chair."
Edited by ET1 SSLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.