Did the Christian "Church" commit numerous atrocit

[wayfriend]

I'd still like to know what are the "contributions to humanity" the Catholic Church can be credited with.

[Vraith]

I'd still like to know what are the "contributions to humanity" the Catholic Church can be credited with.

they made the roman legions run on time?????

[Rawedge Rim]

None of which negates the argument that over the course of it's history, the church's sum contribution to humanity might be seen as positive rather than negative.

What facts back up that argument? What list of accomplishments outweighs the long, long list of atrocities?

Does stability under a feudal dictator counterbalance religious wars?
Does preservation of the written word counterbalance misogyny spread through the written word?
Do good deeds done out of fear of God outweigh spreading fear of God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_C ... vilization

The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.[1] During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.[2] The university is generally regarded[3][4] as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting, born from Cathedral schools.[5] The Reformation brought an end to religious unity in the West, but the Renaissance masterpieces produced by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael at that time remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Christian sacred music by composers like Pachelbel, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Liszt, and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.

The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage and family life have also been both influential and (in recent times) controversial. Christianity played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[6] infanticide and polygamy.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology

also about the "fear of God"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God

Doesn't mean what you seem to feel it does, it's closer to "respect".

and quite frankly, the Bible extolled men to treat women far better than was the norm, particlularly in the Mid-East
https://www.openbible.info/topics/how_a ... t_his_wife

[Skyweir]

I dont think we can dismiss the good the church has done .. in particular the influence it has had on western society .. you just need to look at our legal systems, our justice systems, even democracy .. and I do acknowledge the influence that many of the early greek and roman philosophers had in these regards also.


There have been unquestionable wrongs done in gods name throughout history .. I think the incidents of this kind are much reduced these days .. as humans are a little bit more discriminating, and have access to greater knowledge today than historically.

As to me personally, Id say Im agnostic .. I am yet to be convinced there is a god, and more importantly that such a knowledge 1. is relevant to me and 2. is beneficial to me.

Probably sounds selfish .. but if gaining a knowledge like that of a god .. means that I have less freedoms, more burdens, I dont think that is all that desirable.

As for the bible and women .. there are very few instances in the bible where women hold positions of authority or are greatly respected .. I think of Lots daughters and how willing Lot was to trade them to safeguard his angelic guest .. to be raped and defiled.. maybe even killed. Women were considered property even in biblical times .. and continued to be seen as such right up until about 1700BC

[Skyweir]

Comparatively yes RR .. if you compare Christianity to say Islam .. you are absolutely right .. but not until the New Testament did things deal somewhat more fairly between the sexes .. but remember .. women were commanded to obey their husbands and husbands were counselled to love their wives.

Those two things are very different.


Love is unquestionably the ideal .. but obedience is not its equivalent. In theory yes .. if you love someone today .. you take into consideration their thoughts and feelings .. but love in biblical times may have been more about providing for your partner, dealing justly with her etc. Its not a direct equivalency

Obedience is expected of women, as it was not deemed a women was capable of making sound decisions. Women were the weaker sex, they were still seen as unclean and untouchable when they had their period etc. The way a woman was viewed in biblical times .. is simply a reflection of the times. It is how a woman was viewed. In retrospect we can criticise but if you lived at that time .. it was simply ones reality.

[wayfriend]

RR, I asked for "contributions to humanity". Positive ones being implied.

You answered a different question, namely how has the Church influenced things.

Just for one example: "The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization." I agree that contributions to architecture are a positive contribution, but why do we give credit to the Church for this? The Church literally did not allow architecture to be exhibited in any other way except as building Cathedrals. The necessary sciences involved were advanced despite the Church rather than because of it, and that they were allowed to advance at all was because it contributed to the grandeur of the Church. You cannot disallow all great human achievements except as an expression of the Church, and then give the Church credit for having the greatest human achievements?

That's just one example. I could make similar comments for everything else you listed. (Don't even get me going on slavery.)

No. You need to consider what might have happened if there had not been a Church. A Church that suppressed scientific advancement for over a millenium. A Church that enabled divine rule at the cost of every other form of government. A Church that advocated the mendacity of all women. A Church that hunted down and killed all other religuous beliefs. A Church that accumulated all wealth into itself.

When you show that the world is better off for having the Church than what it would have been without it, then you have showed a positive contribution to humanity.

[Skyweir]

Good post Wayfriend .. its given me food for thought. Itd make an interesting comparison .. even theoretically, would make an interesting exercise.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Church defends Indigenous peoples: ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ was never Catholic

Pope Francis meets with indigenous people and communities during his penitential piligrimage to Canada in July 2022 (2022 Getty Images)

A “Joint Statement” from the Dicastery for Culture and the Dicastery for Integral Human Development formally repudiates "those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’."

Thanks to dialogue with indigenous peoples, “the Church has acquired a greater awareness of their sufferings, past and present, due to the expropriation of their lands … as well as the policies of forced assimilation, promoted by the governmental authorities of the time, intended to eliminate their indigenous cultures,” according to a “Joint Statement” issued by the Dicastery for Culture and Education and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, and published on Thursday.

The document states that the “Doctrine of Discovery” — a theory that served to justify the expropriation by sovereign colonizers of indigenous lands from their rightful owners — “is not a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.” It further affirms that the papal bulls that granted such “rights” to colonizing sovereigns have never been a part of the Church’s Magisterium.

This important text, coming eight months after Pope Francis' penitential journey to Canada, clearly reaffirms the Catholic Church's rejection of the colonizing mentality. “In the course of history,” the document recalls, “the Popes have condemned acts of violence, oppression, social injustice, and slavery, including those committed against indigenous peoples.” It also notes the numerous examples of bishops, priests, women and men religious and lay faithful who gave their lives in defense of the dignity of those peoples.” At the same time, it acknowledges that “many Christians have committed evil acts against indigenous peoples for which recent Popes have asked forgiveness on numerous occasions.”

Regarding the so-called “Doctrine of Discovery", the Statement explains: “The legal concept of ‘discovery’ was debated by colonial powers from the sixteenth century onward and found particular expression in the nineteenth-century jurisprudence of courts in several countries, according to which the discovery of lands by settlers granted an exclusive right to extinguish, either by purchase or conquest, the title to or possession of those lands by indigenous peoples.” According to some scholars, this “doctrine” found its basis in several papal documents, specifically two bulls of Nicholas V, Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455); and Alexander VI’s bull Inter Caetera (1493). These are legal acts by which these two Pontiffs authorized the Portuguese and Spanish sovereigns to seize property in colonized lands by subjugating the original populations.

“Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question, written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith,” the Statement declares. Nonetheless, “the Church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples.” The Statement goes on to say that “ It adds that “the contents of these documents were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities.” The two Dicasteries, therefore, affirm, “It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon.”

The Statement then quotes the words of Pope Francis: “Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.” The Statement goes on to say that, “in no uncertain terms, the Church’s Magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being,” and concludes, “The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’.”

The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’.

The Statement recalls the “numerous and repeated” declarations of the Church and the Popes in favour of the rights of indigenous peoples, beginning with the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus of Paul III, which solemnly declared that indigenous peoples “are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”

Concluding, the Statement notes that, more recently, “the Church’s solidarity with indigenous peoples has given rise to the Holy See’s strong support for the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” It adds, “the implementation of those principles would improve the living conditions and help protect the rights of indigenous peoples as well as facilitate their development in a way that respects their identity, language, and culture.”

[Skyweir]

The money quote:

The Statement then quotes the words of Pope Francis: “Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others.”

Good to see ~ let’s hope it leads to affirmative action in support of indigenous peoples claim to ancestral lands.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Will disowning ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ reopen a theological can of worms? [News Analysis]

Pope Francis at Nakasuk Elementary School Square in Iqaluit, Canada, on July 29, 2022. (Credit: Gregorio Borgia/AP)

ROME — Though it was, in a sense, 530 years in the making, required two separate departments of the Roman Curia to address, and came a full eight months after demands burst into full public view during a high-profile papal trip to the New World, Thursday’s repudiation of the “Doctrine of Discovery” by the Vatican may turn out to have been the easy part.

To be clear, what the Vatican formally disowned yesterday [Thur, Mar 30] is a legal and political concept, not a theological tenet.

[…]

Part of the design for the joint statement was to craft it as an historical and politico-social declaration, without any theological import — it’s telling, in that regard, that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was not among its signatories.

Yet no matter how hard the Vatican may try, it seems unlikely that the theological underpinnings of what came to be known as the “Doctrine of Discovery” can be avoided indefinitely. Indeed, the issuance of Thursday’s statement seems likely to embolden forces seeking a theological reevaluation too.

Philip P. Arnold, a professor of religious studies at Syracuse University and the director of an Iroquois cultural center, told the New York Times that yesterday’s repudiation was only a “first step.”

The Vatican needs to address the “worldview” underlying the Doctrine of Discovery, Arnold said, including the idea that Christianity is superior to other religions.

And therein lies the rub.

When Pope Alexander VI granted King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I sovereignty over a broad swath of the “New World” in Inter Caetera, he may well have been issuing a political decree that was not, in itself, de fide. Yet there’s no denying that the underlying justification was theological, rooted in the inherently missionary nature of Christianity.

“Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread,” Alexander VI told the Spanish monarchs.

One of thorniest doctrinal dilemmas unleashed by the Second Vatican Council, though never resolved by it, was how to reconcile two core teachings: First, the missionary nature of the church, expressed in the final command of Christ on earth to “make disciples of all nations”; and second, the idea that non-Christian religions nevertheless contain “seeds of the word” and “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.”

The practical question which presents itself, in light of that tension, is whether the Catholic Church should still be trying to convert followers of other religions or not.

In the 1990s and 2000s, it seemed that issue was destined to become the titanic theological contest of the era. A spate of Catholic theologians working on what became known as the “theology of religious pluralism,” including the late Belgian Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, Indian Jesuit Father Michael Amaladoss, the late Spanish and Indian Father Raimundo Panikkar, Sri Lankan Jesuit Aloysius Pieris and the American Jesuit Roger Haight, were all investigated and/or sanctioned at one point or another.

In general terms, the “theology of religious pluralism” holds that the diversity of the world’s religions is not simply a byproduct of original sin, but rather a positive good willed by God, and non-Christian religions can be vehicles of salvation in their own right. Christianity’s missionary instinct, therefore, has to be reimagined in terms of dialogue, outreach and mutual respect, rather than bringing souls to the faith so they don’t burn in hell.

Critics of the theology of religious pluralism argue that while respect and dialogue with other faiths are good things, it would be a betrayal of the core of Christianity to suggest that Christ is somehow inessential to salvation, or that anyone’s life would not be enriched by explicitly embracing Christian faith and practice.

Tensions reached a high-water mark in 2000, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, issued a document titled Dominus Iesus. It declared that whatever the Holy Spirit brings about in other religions “serves as a preparation for the gospel, and can only be understood in reference to Christ,” and insisted that Catholics must be committed to “announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ.”

Yet as suddenly as the storm had broken, it seemed to dissipate.

As pope, Benedict XVI had other fish to fry, and without his leadership the Vatican’s doctrinal office didn’t seem inclined to press the issue. At the beginning of the Francis papacy, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, a Ratzinger protégé, tried to launch another investigation of Amaladoss, but the pope welcomed his fellow Jesuit to his morning Mass and declared him a “good theologian,” effectively ending any threat of censure.

It’s possible — indeed, it seems, likely — that as reaction to Thursday’s joint statement continues to unfold, activists and thinkers inside and outside the church may press to reopen the theological issues they see as underlying the “Doctrine of Discovery.”

If so, Vatican officials may end up feeling as if, in the effort to cure one headache, they’ve inadvertently created many more.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/us/archd ... index.html

A report from Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown released Wednesday alleges 156 Catholic clergy members and others abused at least 600 children over the course of more than six decades.

“From the 1940s through 2002, over a hundred priests and other Archdiocese personnel engaged in horrific and repeated abuse of the most vulnerable children in their communities while Archdiocese leadership looked the other way,” the report reads. “Time and again, members of the Church’s hierarchy resolutely refused to acknowledge allegations of child sexual abuse for as long as possible.”

The report lists descriptions of graphic sexual and physical abuse allegations: It includes stories of how some alleged abusers provided victims with alcohol and drugs and describes in vivid detail how they coerced and forced victims to perform sexual acts.

The report’s list of abusers includes clergy members, seminarians, deacons, teachers and other employees of the Archdiocese.

Forty-three priests who “served in some capacity or resided within the Archdiocese of Baltimore” committed sexual abuse in locations outside Maryland, the report alleged. Of these 43 priests, 40 of them allegedly committed sexual abuse in only one other location, while the other three allegedly committed sexual abuse in two other locations outside Maryland, the report says.

[Fist and Faith]

So then ... yes?

[Skyweir]

Very interesting Wos ~ it certainly may well be a can of worms but one well worth the opening imv.

This is such a progressive perspective ~ and good to see a leader of Christian theological institutions recognising this.

… and non-Christian religions can be vehicles of salvation in their own right.

I participate in a group that discusses theology ~ even though I consider myself an A-theist … I was a Christian for many decades and still very much love the character of Jesus (whether a fictional character or actual).

One of the things I find quite disturbing is the ire and force of passion in judgement concerning the value Christians of different faiths possess.

It’s surprising how many zealots rush to condemn their opposites or those that are not part of their particular faith-community.

It’s smacks as ANTI-Christian ~ quick to judge and condemn others.

The upside is rubbing shoulders with truly good humans who try to mirror a more Christ-like interchange.

One cannot minimise the influence Christianity has had on western life, culture and systems (justice/government/societal principles ie welfare etc).

Repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery, I agree is merely a first step, but a step in the right direction. I admire an approach which caters for religious pluralism and I disagree that it signals Christ is non-essential element of salvation ~ I think it actually spotlights Christ as the centrifuge from which all Christian religious ideologies arise.

Interesting thanks good to read.

[High Lord Tolkien]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/us/archd ... index.html

A report from Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown released Wednesday alleges 156 Catholic clergy members and others abused at least 600 children over the course of more than six decades.

Now lets multiply by 100 because of unreported cases.
I'm not saying that each and every catholic priest in the whole world is a child raping monster but because of the massive worldwide coverup...there no way to be sure.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/us/archd ... index.html

A report from Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown released Wednesday alleges 156 Catholic clergy members and others abused at least 600 children over the course of more than six decades.

Now lets multiply by 100 because of unreported cases.
I'm not saying that each and every catholic priest in the whole world is a child raping monster but because of the massive worldwide coverup...there no way to be sure.

Absolutely. Which is why I walked away from the church, and have nothing but contempt for those who willfully belong to and contribute money to such a reprehensible organization.

The details in that report are lurid. I felt sick reading them.

[Skyweir]

I sympathise with that sentiment but it’s an error to implicate all priests with the crimes of … well a significant number of priests.

It’s hard because the church could do much more than it is to safeguard victims of abuse and in many ways the priesthood is akin to a breeding ground for abusers.

There are many notable positives in Catholicism but there’s a lot of work to do in order to address institutional abuses within Catholicism.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

No one I'm aware of is implicating all priests. The church did nothing other than move their criminally abusive staff members around into unsuspecting communities so they could continue to sexually abuse children.

They should at the very least lose their tax-exempt status, and probably be branded as a hate group, given the hell they've visited on so many children.

[Skyweir]

I completely agree they should lose their tax free status ~ but I think all churches today should.

Gone are the days of ecclesiastic courts and charitable contributions ~ sure some church’s make some charitable ~ but the whole reason they were afforded their tax free status was because as a society the church was far more involved in welfare provision, ecclesiastical courts etc.

Many church’s today have for-profit interests and have amassed great wealth that is not going back into the community.

[SoulBiter]

I agree and disagree. Crazy I can see both sides. On one side, if you take the tax free status away, then Churches will not be free to openly push politics from the pulpit. That has the potential to be dangerous.

Also I have been a part of many Churches that fulfill the mission of Christ in their neighborhoods and communities. Sadly, it appears just that the love of money is the root of all evil, and as Churches grow they lose their way. Which is why so many mega-churches get embroiled in scandal.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I agree and disagree. Crazy I can see both sides. On one side, if you take the tax free status away, then Churches will not be free to openly push politics from the pulpit. That has the potential to be dangerous.

They already do that. Political candidates make pilgrimages to this church or that church.

Do away with their nonprofit and tax-exempt status and let them compete with the tarot card readers and fortune tellers.