Benedict XVI

Remove all ads!

@ Toughluck and Chev, Thanks.

Morogoth opposed the church supporting individual candidates. That I accept. They however wield the same right to speak on issues as any other lobby group. They have a larger audience than any of these other groups, and that, I suspect is the reason behind such jealousy...

President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints called Pope John Paul II a tireless crusader for Morality. Are the Catholic faithful around the world deserving of any less from Pope Benedict XVI?

Well Put Chev. I think that point is lost in the debate over gay rights. Just because a man is tempted to have sex with another man stronger than he is tempted to have sex with a woman is not damnable. Temptation, no matter what the sin is is to be resisted to the best of you're ability. In two places in the New Testament, where homosexuality is condemned, it is listed as equivalent of fornication and adultery.

Pac man, I'm sure that Chev is aware of how much rock stars do in situations like that. Whenever a rock star does smoething other than drugs and hookers, it's plastered all over the media! Meanwhile major religeous organizations (like the Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints) do much more than that, but it's not broadcast all over the world. The press doesn't give a damn because they aren't Bonehead--er Bono...

 

He deserves a bit more respect than being called bonehead, even in jest. Like i said, Bono was just an example, but you had to come up with the counterargument of rockstars, high on dope, who suddenly feel the need of doing something for the good of mankind. Well, 90% of em probably fit that description, but the other 10% are still doing more good than that whole Catholic sharade. The needy need food, medicine, tools, and whatnot, and not a couple of Hail Mary's, waived in their direction on tv by a socalled holy man.

 

Huh? The Pope gets more press coverage than any other person in the world, other than the president of the United States!

 

Yeah, but when was the last time you've heard of a Franciscan Hospital in Zaire, which was built thanks to donations from Catholics all over the world? Thought so.

These places were conquered and hellenised by Alexander the Great. Then Romans invaded them. Christianity spread with great impetus throughout the hellenistic world because it was quickly deemed right and correct.
Charlemagne's conquests didn't begin until the late 8th century, AND they were in northern Europe. While some people did 'convert' at the point of a sword, look at Eastern Europe, and St. Ciril's and St. Methodius's work. A lot of counterexamples there. Thus, we can either talk about crusades or about conversions at the point, not about both, because:
a) they haven't happened in the same place;
b) they haven't happened at the same time;
c) they aren't the result of the actions of the same group (yes, there were Muslims trying to 'convert' at the point in conquered states, plus there were exiles, banishments and outright murder of those that didn't accept Islam).

Oh, the news. Now we are left without an argument at all. This must have been definitely true, as media are known for their truthfulness. When they quoted, they probably ran a recording of him, as media are known for their forthcoming with facts in order to prove veritable. Also, this was most certainly a meticulously and painstakingly correctly done translation, as media are known for their accuracy and steering clear of misinterpretations, or potential for misinterpretation.
Now, for those that didn't get it: the above was irony, and I suspect the media wanted to highlight only a certain small and perhaps irrelevant aspect of what Ratzinger said, if they weren't lying outright. Furthermore, such a comment is useless without context.
Next, I have no way of verifying it, as:
a) I don't know when it was broadcasted;
b) I don't know what TV had it on;
c) even if I knew, I would have to get a tape with that airtime recorded—and this would cost a lot;
d) even if I did get that tape, I don't know Dutch.

 

Exactly HB and what's more teh "holy folk" get a free pass more often than not. While Mother Teresa was bilking the public and spending stolen money(or whatever she was doing with the money she recieved from a major player in the S&L scandal), no one in the press except for Christopher Hitchens even dared to look into the matter(s).
it took 20 years(or more) and thousands upon thousands of victims before the press finally broke down and covered the pedophilia that was rampant within the Catholic Church.

@Toughluck

 

Where did you get this Pope = anti-rock waffle from? Edit: Oh wait, didn't see where you said this - never mind

After all, if this guy is following after John Paul II, well - he certainly didn't mind rock. *points to wikipedia article*

Apparently the U2 recording session kept getting interupted by the Pope wanting to discuss plans for aid relief in Africa or something

I guess you've missed the HUGE amount of Catholic missionary/aid organisations that go around to places and try to un-screw them. At school we just had a talk by a Marist brother - and yes, they are doing a lot.

 

RQ—how rampant is it? Assuming you listen to the media, you can get the impression that nearly all of the priests, regardless of their position in hierarchy, are paedophiles and homosexuals up to their knees in fornication. Well, 100%? I doubt it. I doubt it's greater than 1%, and even that is pushing it. In Poland, where there are more Catholics than in USA, and where there are more priests per capita than in USA, I've heard of 3 or 4 situations, and many allegations, with the loudest and most recent one, molestation alleged on a controversial priest (Msgr. Jankowski) ending in lifting all allegations of molestation and now is deemed to be allegations raised to reduce his popularity.

Furthermore, about money from scandals, etc. I don't care. If it's not the Church that causes a scandal (a recent "Stella Maris" foundation in Poland, for example), I don't care. After all, can you tell a scandal apart? How would she [Mother Theresa] know where the money came from? She didn't care. She received it bona fide, and the money was necessary, and has been put to good use. Or, how about a situation in which a charity organisation receives money from a cynic, who then exposes that the money came from a scam, and his reason was to 'expose the hypocrisy of Church'?
I guess that even though the scandalists are the guilty party, it makes bad publicity for the Church, so let's shift blame???

Before Constantine, Christianity wielded absolutely no power within the Roman Empire and indeed abhorred it. They didn't seek honours, they simply lived their lives as best they could. As you say, Constantine had no choice, but to accept the fact. But Christianity did not spread through the Mediterranean through force. Edict of Milan came in 313 AD. How would you explain the 250 years+ spread of Christianity under oppresion?

You know 'some' can apply to any portion ranging from PPB to 99.9999%, right? I used a juxtaposition of forced conversion vs. Cyril and Methodius vs. parts of Europe which weren't conquered then. Some through forced conversion, some through peaceful, the rest was left alone.

Didn't you?

Maybe you didn't, but you did suggest that the Muslim conquests were poetic justice against the evil Christians.

 

It could also be a statement from his pre pope period, maybe even a quote from one of the books he wrote, but the man who brought this news is usually not someone who goes around yelling lies or even rumors. Since it's a quote from a tv show i can't back it up with a link or any other form of proof, so you're gonna have to take my word for it.

 

I won't argue this. It may very well be possible. However, we cannot know what he meant unless you have some context to go with it. He might have addressed only the certain kind of rock and roll (e.g. Marylin Manson type), which sends out a clear message, in both the music and the lifystyle. And I am sure he's not off-base with these.

 

I guess everyone can give his own interpretation to it, rock&roll is a world on it's own. I can understand why he would describe Marylin Manson as satanic, or a freak like Ozzy Osbourne, but generalizing an entire musicbranch and put them all in the same category goes too far.

But then again...what else could you expect from the Vatican ?

 

First of all, one must approach history with the proper attitude and proper methodology. Every science has its own methods and tools and history is no exception. Viewing past situations and events through the prism of current categories and the current realia is not a part of proper historical methodology.

In Northern Gaul, which is the later France, war was raging practically since the conquest by Julius Caesar back in 52 BC, with little break. The border with Germania was far from peaceful most of the time. The Franks, one of the invading barbarian tribes which eventually chose to establish households within the Roman Empire, became an ally of the Western Empire and, after its demise, took over all the state functions. One of those was foreign policy, so to call it. As the state was consolidated under the rule of one king, its power grew and it became powerful enough to face the long time enemies with renewed strength, eventually leading to conquest and gaining a limited supremacy. Genocide was in custom of the barbaric peoples of that era and the Franks were no exception. Conversion to Christianity, along with the culture, not just the religion, was a way of dealing with the enemy in such a way as to avoid further attacks on their part as well as avoid genocide on the victors' own part. The multitude of sword-point conversions is a myth. In fact, most of those were convenience conversions.

What's more, Charlemagne didn't reach much farther than the nowadays Germany, Netherlands and Italy. Italy he saved from a barbarian invasion of Longobards at the request of the Pope, who was the representative of the local populace abandoned by the Eastern Empire and unable to form a universally accepted secular authority. That's it about Charlemagne's conquests and supposed massive genocide.

Actually, the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire did the job. Barbarians adopted Christianity for their own political reasons, apart from actual spiritual conversions, often in some heretical forms (arianism, for example). Sword point conversions were impossible in this case if only for the reason that barbarians were way more powerful than Rome, collecting tribute and hostages from the Roman emperors. In fact, it may be said that Christianity civilised the barbarians. Otherwise, we would have had one big slaughter and that would be the end of the Graeco-Roman culture.

Yeah, especially in the forests of Germania and the steppes of Crimea.

Conversely, by similar logic, it would be unfair towards Catholics to make them suffer non-Catholics having an opinion, ultimately leading to the conclusion that it's unfair for everyone else that someone has an opinion. Tough luck, that's how it is with opinions. Notice that we aren't speaking about dictating laws at gun point but about merely verbal influence. Priests aren't leading people on the streets. The enemies of the Church demand that the Church should not speak, not even act. Freedom of speech, anyone?

Ever heard about caesaropapism? I suppose you may be a great specialist in sciences, but history is not as easy as repeating the rumours on the mouth of biased crowd. The fact is, that the separation of church and state had been postulated even more by the church and churchmen than the secular rulers. The Catholic Church has had a long list of martyrs murdered by secular authorities, including the nominally Christian ones, for sticking to the morality and even the theological dogma of their faith. Kings appointing bishops and abbots, treating those religious functions as their own to give to family, friends and obedient servants, influencing the choice of the pope by vetoing half the cardinals or blocking the fair and square elect from being recognised, always putting pressure on the clergy to speak pro-government rather than call bad things by their bad names. Expelling whole religious orders and confiscating their estates. Forcing popes into exile or submission to secular kings. Truly, the Church had it no better than she has now.

The point is to create opportunities, not to give freebie points. Inhibiting the whites to push the blacks forward does no job other than dragging both as low as you can get.

Especially in the United States, a former colony of an empire in which Catholicism was outlawed and persecuted by penal laws. It was the rift among various competing episcopalian factions which drew Anglo-Saxons to Rome. Others were Irish, Italian and Polish immigrants who were as low class as you can get. Influencial ones were limited to a handful of landowners from Maryland -a former colony made for Catholics exiled from the British Isles. In the 19th and 20the century, it was not the halberds of the Swiss Guard which made people embrace Catholicism.

So much is spoken about it, but all I hear is presumptions. I'm not supposed simply to accept the presumption that the Catholic Church is responsible for genocide, am I? Some examples, please.

As many musicians call the music they come up with rock & roll, many people call the fancy ideas they come up with Christianity. Christians world-wide have many differing interpretations of the Bible, but this doesn't mean that all interpretations are sound, let alone equally valid. The truth is somewhere, whether you believe it's in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, among Protestants or wherever else.

Why should I be specifically keeping track of that, in the first place?

Ignorance is how you call it when someone hasn't heard about the multitude of Catholic missionary and humane aid organisations. The difference is that the Catholic organisations don't teach you can have all you want and give condoms away along with the loads of commercial rubbish, but try to teach the peoples some social mores and solidarity, educate them, make them something more than passive recipients of free food and condoms.

Don't shift the burden on me. You came up with an absurd generalisation that no one seems to take seriously and it's your job to handle it.

Words. That's your specific perception of the world that not everyone seems to share, to put it nicely. Maybe some numbers?

Have you ever seen a Catholic mission even in a movie? The priest is practically a male nurse if not a qualified doctor, nuns are competent medical personel and there's always a doctor on board. After the hospital comes the school. Tools and everything arrives with new personnel. Ever asked Catholic parish priest how much of the donations he collects goes over to missions?

The people over there need medicine, education and some basic human kindness and decency. Catholic missions come with that, and not with a boatload of free condoms and a MacDonalds bar. Those people need to be taught how to build a society and not how to become passive welfare recipients spending the gracious donations on commercial junk from the West.

Again, if by aggressive you mean violent, give examples. Especially if you consider it more aggressive than anyone else. Next, don't confuse Christianity with the Western civilisation per se. Ultimately, don't confuse the Catholic Church with what the secular princes did against the spiritual commands of the popes and bishops.

Again, words. It's your opinion, of course, but you've hardly been there and it doesn't seem to agree with history. The fact is that Christianity spread widely in the Roman empire in spite of everyday discrimination and occasional prosecution. The East practically converted to Christianity on its own, from the lowest of the low, before the emperors issued the Milan edict (which in fact was probably an edict of Galerius, the previous emperor, and hardly at Milan, but that's besides the point), starting as a religion of slaves and poor workers. Somehow, people were drawn to a god who said "love thy neighbour" instead of "compete with thy neighbour for my favour and give me lots of sacrifices".

He recognised Christianity as a fact. His own conversion came only on deathbed, though, and from a heretic arian priest. He dabbled with Christian theology a bit before, so maybe it was something real. Difficult to say.

Before Charlemagne? Tell me more. And I've already addressed "much of Europe".

So why single them out and make them special?

And the crusades were not about conversion. They were about defending the Byzantine empire from Seljuk invaders and regaining the lands lost to them, after the Byzantine empire was forced to request aid from the West.

It's not a matter of what you would but what you do. It can't be helped unless you choose to research facts instead of giving ear to catchy rumours.

 

Crusades were about defending Byzantine empire from Seljuk Turks? Yeah sure. Have I to remind you the 1204 sack by the fourth crusade? As far as the first crusade is concerned, Alexios Komnenos never asked for a crusade, he just sent a letter to the count of Flanders (and not to the pope) where he asking help in order to recruit mercenaries and nothing more. Imagine how happy he was when he saw the mob of Peter the Hermit outside of his walls.

 

Would have to look on the letter somewhere. Wonder if there was only one. However, the difference between the first crusade and the sack of Constantinople was over 100 years.

By the way, it's good you mentioned the sack of Constantinople. It was organised by Venetian merchants and forbidden by the pope. On learning about the attack, the pope excommunicated the crusaders.

Blaming the papacy for the sack of constantinople is like blaming John Paul II for Bush' intervention in Iraq or for Kerry's voting record or for some Catholic politicans' oposition to banning segregation in the US (they were excommunicated in the sixties).

 

There probably are not any extant reliable sources of the text of Komnenos' letter to Flanders, so it's difficult to say for certain what his request was. It can't even be said for certain that the letter was to the Count...or merely "through" him. There are, however, five surviving transcripts of Pope Urban's call for crusade at the Council of Clermont. If you wish to see them, you can read them here

 

I mentioned the fourth crusade because in your post you said "crusades" and not crusade. As far as the responsibility of the papacy is concerned, if I'm not mistaken a crusade could not be launched without pope's approval, so yes papacy is responsible even if the sacking was not included in pope's initial plans. To use an example similar to yours to claim that papacy has no responsibility is like claiming that Bush is not responsible for Abu Graib . Also, the pope has excommunicated the crusaders (I don't remember this but I accept that you are right) but afterwards he didn't hesitate to accept a latin emperor in the puppet state and to place a latin patriarch, who of course recognised pope as the leader of whole christianity (something that no other patriarch had ever done, and which was the real reason of the schism).

 

The crusade was intended to reach Palestine. The crusaders went into a quarrel with Byzantine royals competing for the throne, most notably Izaac Angelos. When the Pope learnt about the possibility of an armed conflict with the Byzantines, he forbad it. When it happened in violation of his prohibition, he excommunicated the offenders whose leader was the Marquis of Montferrat. It's more than the Vatican does today in such cases.

I would translate the Pope's condemnation of that for you, but I've lent the book to one of my students.

Depends. Until a certain time, all patriarchs accepted a certain degree of Rome's supremacy. Over centuries, various Eastern Churches and their patriararchs have been in full communion with the Roman Church with a large level of autonomy. If you mean specifically constantinopolitan patriarchs, they had even been nominated and deposed by popes before the schism. I suppose the problem was between the Eastern emperor and the pope more than between the patriarch and the pope, especially with the increasing level of the emperor's control over the patriarchate.

Anyway, we had a IV Crusade thread before and I addressed the problem in length, among others, explaining how the crusaders took sides in an internal Greek conflict rather than make a new one. They had both enemies and allies in the many Greek feudal lords.

As a side note, the third crusade is an example of what happens when the Church does NOT have a say, rather than when she does. If they had listened to the pope and obeyed the tenets of the Christian religion, there would have been no sack of Constantinople. On the other hand, if they had managed to silence the pope, there would have been no excommunication and no condemnation of the atrocities they committed. Same way it was with the evils of the conquistadors.

 

If the roman catholic church wasn't responsible for the sacking then why did John Paul II apologize for it?

I mean the constantinopolitan patriarchs, but the other patriarchs as well had never accepted Pope's authority over them, they had just agreed that the pope should get higher honour as St. Peter's succesor (IIRC the exact words of the Nicane Creed were "the first among the equals"). Some constantinopolitan patriarchs had indeed the backing of the pope (John Chyshostom is the first who comes to my mind), but it was always the emperor the one who decided who was going to be the patriarch. Also, perhaps the problem was more between the emperor and the pope, as you say, but this was happening only in the begining of the whole crisis between the churches. After the schism of 1054 and especially during the paleologian dynasty, the emperors had tried many times to reunite the churches (for political reasons) but always the patriarch and the clergy opposed to the reunion. One of the most famous clergy's sayings in the last years of the empire was "better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the pope".

 

What was the exact wording? When apologising for the evils of all crusades, the Pope didn't intend to take the whole blame of it all on the Catholic Church. He was apologising for the atrocities committed by the crusaders. It was quite an unreciprocated gesture. The Pope wanted some reconciliation that hasn't come yet.

Well, that's incorrect. Even at the moment, we have quite a number of Eastern Churches headed by patriarchs within the Catholic Church. Armenian, Coptic, Syro-Malabarian, Syro-Malancarian, Maronite, Chaldean...

And they had it they way they preferred.

 

Eastern churches not orthodox churches. The orthodox patriarchs recognise the patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical and these churches you mentioned (and which perform the orthodox rituals but follow the roman catholic doctrine) are considered heretics by the orthodox church and are viewed as a vile papacy's attempt to undermine the orthodox church.

 

Well, that was 4th–5th century. The Great Schism occured in 1054 (as most commonly dated), and the first Crusade started in 1095. Not really to prove anything, but this goes to show how little prejudice the West harboured against the East. Many probably even didn't know about any schism then.