Wouldn’t you think that, if your organization was controversial and constantly under attack, you would stand up to defend it and to support it? So WHY do Catholics constantly accuse their own Church of “embarrassments” such as the Galileo incident and the Crusades?
These things are not embarrassments. Galileo was an annoying guy and it was more to do with his personal vendettas than with his scientific beliefs. Copernicus (the guy who actually came up with the heliocentric model) was a Catholic priest. The Crusades were basically an extensive turf war: Jerusalem belonged to the Eastern Christians, but got invaded by the Moors. Then the Eastern Christians called the Western Christians and asked for help.
If you call yourself Catholic, please, PLEASE read up on these stupid discussions (do NOT read the Revisionist History version) and learn the facts–the real ones. Liberals and progressives like to pick on these because they think they know so much. Do NOT go making fun of your own church–defend our people and stand up for the truth!
|
Indeed! It always amuses me: comparatively little criticism is given to the worldview that resulted in the atrocities of the 20th century’s atheist totalitarian regimes, and yet whenever any cases such as the ones you’ve cited are mentioned, it’s “religious brainwashing” and the like up to no good again. Hogwash.
ok, Ink, but what about the hundreds of millions slaughtered in the Inquisition?
The vast majority of the deaths in the Inquisition were brought about by secular authorities claiming the authority of the Church – the Church Herself was not the blood-thirsty monster many have painted Her to be. The majority of the guilt rests upon the “Catholic” monarchs of Spain and other European kingdoms.
Ben, I presume you are joking. I’ve heard folks, usually Evangelicals with no sense of history whatsoever, bandy about the hundreds of millions figure, which is absurd by any standard. The Inquisition did not cause, or even contribute to, the plague which killed all those folks.
Gen are you taking Ben’s comment seriously? Let’s make a few points:
1. The Inquisition, of any sort, had jurisdiction ONLY over Catholics. Non-Catholics were not subject to it. Now, people who converted, or purported to convert, were subject to it.
2. The Inquisition had no authority to execute anyone – that was the State’s authority. Of course a finding of apostasy would often lead to execution.
3. During the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries apostasy from the official church, Catholic or Protestant, was a State offense – treason. Similarly there were penalties for not being part of the local official church. With today’s sensibilities we find that repugnant, but it was the law and is not, per se, immoral. Make no mistake many Catholics were killed by the Protestant States for being Catholic during these time. Not happy about it either way, but the application of moral principals in the civil arena at that time was pretty clear about religious freedom and apostasy.
Frankly, it’s one reason why I get nervous about the Church’s application of, or recommendations on the use of, civil power. History has too frequently shown that such uses have not always been prudent and not look positively tyrannical.
Delete final “not” in final sentence above. 🙂 oops. Proof-reading, a lost skill!
yes – I was kidding.
I was reminded of one of John Martignoni’s letters:
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter_details.php?id=78
This also reminds me of Mike’s quote (which I like more and more as I continue to repeat it):
Wow. It’s amazing that they could kill each person at least twice in the Inquisition. Would that count as a miracle?
Ah – that’s what I get for skimming the comments quickly seeing “millions slaughtered” and not re-reading. Mea culpa.