Re: [OT] Catholics (not in Space)

Ok, some more theology and ecclesiastical history, if you can bear the
topic.

I too, am a Catholic, and do participate in our parish life.

I grew up in the largely Lutheran city of Hamburg, thus I was very much
in a
minority. In fact, until very late in the 19th century no Catholic
churches
were allowed in the City. Anyway, my experience may not have been
typical of
thoroughly Catholic areas.

And if you don't like the topic or might be offended by some
pro-Catholic
views, just hit the "delete" button.

----- Original Message -----
> Laserlight wrote:
> > From: Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> > > Hordes of starships stamping out heresy is a Puritan (protestant)
> > > thing, more likely to spring from a tightly knit group of
born-again
christians,
> > > than from Roman Catholics.

My view too, at least of we extrapolate from the present situation.

> > Beg your pardon?  The Catholic Church preached the original crusades
> > right after Manzikert, and continued to stamp out heretics (eg the
> > Albigensians) for quite a while.  The Papal States sent ships to
> > Lepanto and IIRC had their own troops until mid 1800's or so.
>
> The power of the Papacy went into a nosedive once there was more than
one
> christian church in western europe.  Once Martin Luther's ninety-nine
> theses were nailed to that door, the temporal power of the Papacy was
> doomed.  The Vatican City does have a small self-defence force of
Swiss
> troops (formerly mercenaries, but now the volunteers from the Swiss
army)

Some plea for precise terminology here:
Strictly speaking, "Temporal power" by churchmen implies a bishop,
abbot,
pope etc. directly ruling a territory, like a king, duke or president.
In
this sense, the temporal power of the Church was always quite limited.
The
largest church territories were the papal state around Rome and the
state of
the Teutonic order in Prussia. In European terms, these were, at best,
mid-sized countries. Other territories were, at most, county-sized. And
except for the Papal state itself, these were not ruled by the pope, but
by
the local bishop, Grand Master or whatever, whose debt of obediency to
the
pope was usually a rather theoretical matter.

A different thing is the influence the pope had over secular rulers,
kings
and dukes. This was certainly quite strong during the Middle Ages, but
should not be exaggerated, either. It was very much a matter of the
overall
political situation whether a king or emperor could face down a conflict
with the pope.

BTW, the Crusades were indeed inspired and organized by the Church, but
she
did not command the campaigns. The actual forces were led by secular
lords,
who did not neccessarily heed the church's bidding.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stilt Man" <stiltman@teleport.com>
> Well, let's put it this way... the Mongol Empire under the Khans got a
lot
> of refugees seeking asylum from the Catholic Church during the Middle
> Ages... because under the Mongols, nobody cared what god you
worshipped as
> long as you bent knee to the Khans.

On the other hand, if you or anybody in your city didn't bend his
knee....

> Meanwhile, the Lutherans were hardly permitted to go quietly away from
Rome,
> and Elizabeth I had a very real struggle just to stay alive long
enough to
> take the throne after Bloody Mary's purges (which were heartily
supported
by
> the Pope), much less survive as a Protestant Queen.  It was not until
the
> Spanish Armada was defeated that England became safely Protestant.

And safe enough to persecute those who preferred to stay Catholic or to
belong a non-Anglican denomination, IIRC.

> Under the Catholic Church, even an idea so simple as stating that the
earth
> was not the center of the universe was a heresy punishable by death.
> Copernicus did not dare publish his book theorizing that the earth
orbitted
> around the sun until he was on his deathbed.	Galileo underwent quite
a
bit
> of pressure from the Church to repudiate his theories under threat of
being
> burned at the stake.	It's only been in the last ten years that the
Church
> has finally conceded that Galileo's theories were right.

The case of Galileo is a bit more complex than that. He had some
prominent
supporters in the Church hierarchy who were quite ready to re-interpret
the
critical passages in the Bible if sufficient proof of the heliocentric
view
was provided. After all, that the Earth was in the center of the
universe
was not a central dogma of Christianity like, say, the trinity.
Unfortunately, this faction lost out in the discussions surrounding the
case. We should keep in mind that Galileo's data were not all that
solid.
After all, it was only Kepler with his elliptical orbits that provided a
solid mathematical framework for the heliocentric view. In the final
round
of the trials it boiled down to whether Galileo would state his views as
fact (the heresy) or whether he would present them as a workable
mathematic
model and not-yet-proven hypothesis (the acceptable version).

And no, it is not the Catholic Church that insists on teaching Darwinian
Evolution as "merely one hypothesis among others" in some American
schools.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
>
> > > The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages has easily as much blood on
its
> > > hands as any religious institution of the last millenium.
... but the Catholic Church has been far from a peaceful
> > > organization.

Two general remarks here:
* By most reckonings the Middle Ages ended sometime between 1450 and
1500.
Later periods would be Renaissance or Early Modern. The reformation and
associated struggles, as well as the witch hunts (wonder why nobody
brought
up that topic yet) and the rise of science all happened aftre the Middle
Ages.
* It is a somewhat silly argument to try to compare some people's crimes
against each other. Still, if want to place charges against the Catholic
church, the same could be said about the various Protestant kings and
lords
who used their churches for their own purposes, and were in no way more
tolerant than the Catholic church of that time. And there were equally
harsh
persecutions between, say Lutherans and Calvinists, as with countries
where
the ruling family was Catholic.
At least in Germany, the disputes were settled after the 30 years war by
the
rule "Cuius regio, eius religio" - the ruler would define what religion
was
allowed in their country. Anybody else would have to go elsewhere. In
time,
the lords found out, that to attract specialists or just normal
immigrants,
they had to provide both tax breaks and religious tolerance. This in
turn
provided political support for the ideaas of teh enlightenment.

> Anyway, here's my opinion: The Anglican (in the US Episcopalian)
church
> is but pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism without the Pope or Priestly
celebacy,
> at least in the High form. Post-Vatican 2 catholicism is way more
relaxed,
> laid-back and even a bit touchy-feely new-age-ish.

My impression too - as regards the Catholic church. I can't comment on
the
Anglicans. In my early school years, I have seen the old Catholic
church,
and I grew up to see the changes, for the better in the Church. There
are
still conservative holdouts, but there are many more open-minded people,
at
least as far as I can make out.

> The bad press that Middle-Age Catholicism has got is just that - bad
press.
> All the printing presses were in Northern Europe, and the massive
outpouring
> of anti-Catholic propaganda has come down through history as the only
> record of the time that most people know. And it's mostly Propaganda
of
the
> most mendacious kind.

Yep

> Here's a question for you:
> In its 400 year history, How many people in toto did the Spanish
Inquisition
> burn (or cause to be burnt)?
>
> a) Millions
> b) Hundreds of thousands
> c) Tens of thousands
> d) Thousands
> e) Hundreds
> f) Tens
>
> Correct answer is e). Surprised the heck out of me, too.

Right. Out of some 45.000 cases handled by the inquisition, somewhat
over
800 ended in death sentences. Bad enough, but not exactly a murderous
regime. And acquittals were not uncommon.

In fact, compared to common judicial practices in the late Middle Ages
and
Renaissance times, the Inquisition was a model of the rule of law.
Procedures were strictly laid out, proofs had to be provided, everything
was
recorded in writing, claims had to be corroborated, there were appeal
procedures etc.

And though torture might be used and some harsh sentences were dealt
out,
this should be compared with general court practices of the time, which
dealt at least as harshly with common criminals. This said not to excuse
the
Inquisition but to put things into perspective.

> Then there's the Crusades against the Hussites, Moldavians etc. Dark,
> bloody and awful deeds. Oh yes, the 30 years war, the sack of
Magdeburg,

BTW the protestants in the 30 years war did not behave any better. That
conflict has rightly been called a "War against the People". And
Cromwell's
men in Ireland left some pretty unpleasant memories, AFAIK.

> and God only knows how many disgusting atrocities done in the name of
Holy
> Mother Church. Some people never do get the word - take a look at the
> behaviour of some Serbs to some Bosnians.

BTW. the Serbs are Orthodox, who saw the Bosnian Muslims as their
enemies.
The Croatians were the Catholics in that conflict. AN the Catholic
church
has loudly protested against all bloodshed there.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
> What was the theory in the late 1960's - no minority was going to
oppress
> anyone because they had suffered oppression and hence would be
incapable
> of treating their oppressors as they had been treated (at least in
> degree) IIRC. We swallowed a lot of myths in that period only for
reality
> to wake us up years later.

Yes, indeed. We just knew too little history (or a too one-sided version
of
it).

##############
> OK, I've managed to upset nearly everybody. So in summary:
> Merry Christmas, Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all Men.

Exactly
Karl Heinz