Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good?

http://www.wordonfire.org ^ | May 25, 2015 | Matt Nelson

[NKP_Vet]

Western civilization is greatly indebted to the Catholic Church. Modern historical studies—such as Dr. Thomas E. Woods' How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization—have demonstrated with force and clarity that it is the Catholic Church who has been the primary driving force behind the development and progress of the civilized world.

The Church has provided innumerable 'goods' for the benefit of humanity. Nonetheless, modern critics assert that no amount of good could outweigh the evil the Church has allegedly committed in contrast. Talk is cheap, however. We must look at the evidence. Has the Church really been an irreconcilable force for evil in the world?

BIG QUESTIONS

There are three principal issues repeatedly brought to the table by adversaries of the Catholic Church: religious violence, priest scandals, and ill-treatment of women. But do these objections hold water when their integrity is put to the test? And are they enough to render the Church "no good" in our final analysis?

Now let's be clear: throughout the duration of this piece, I am not seeking in any way to deny or defend the sins of any Catholic individual or group. The chief question I propose is not whether there have been malicious members of the Catholic Church (there obviously have been). The question at hand is whether the Catholic Church as a whole ought to be considered a force for evil.

Let's consider briefly the general assertion that religion is the chief cause of violence in the world. This position, in fact, is not supported by the data. Joe Heschmeyer has shown this quite articulately in his recent article at Strange Notions, Is Religion Responsible For The World's Violence?

Evil members of a Church do not necessarily indicate an evil Church. One must be cautious; because this line of reasoning commits an error in logic called the fallacy of composition. We would not say, "the elephant consists of tiny parts, therefore the elephant is tiny"; and thus, we should not say that the Church is sinister because she has sinister members. The parts do not necessarily define the whole; and in the case of the Catholic Church, the parts justify the whole. As G.K Chesterton writes in The Everlasting Man:

“The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. ”

RECLAIMING THE HOMELAND

Sound historical scholarship has shown—contrary to what modern textbooks might falsely suggest—that the Crusades ought not be considered such a black mark in Catholic Church history. Dr. Diane Moczar summarizes the facts in her historical defense, Seven Lies About Catholic History:

"To recapitulate: the Crusades were a response to unprovoked Muslim aggression against Christian states, as well as a response to the enslavement, killing and persecution of countless followers of Christ. They were not examples of European colonialism or imperialism, which lay far in the future, nor were they intended to convert anybody; they were a military answer to a military attack." (p.73)

Moczar demonstrates that the Crusades were largely just (see CCC 2302-2317) and with far-reaching benefits for the people of Europe. She cites historian Louis Bréhier, who also concludes:

"It would be unjust to condemn out of hand these five centuries of heroism which had such fertile results for the history of Europe and which left behind in the consciences of modern peoples a certain ideal of generosity and a taste for sacrifice on behalf of noble causes....." (from The Crusades: The Victory Of Idealism)

Steven Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, has also clarified the true nature of the Crusades in his footnote-laden treatise, The Glory of the Crusades. Weidenkopf's title is bold, but his analysis is fair and evidence based. In his scholarly assessment of the Crusades he carefully notes:

"To recognize the glory of the Crusades means not to whitewash what was ignoble about them, but to call attention to the import in the life of the Church." (p.14)

Moczar likewise recognizes that not all things regarding the Crusades are to be "glorified." Nonetheless, both Moczar and Weidenkopf decisively demonstrate in their research that, by and large, the Catholic Church's participation in the Crusades ought not be considered evil nor unjust.

HANDLING HERETICS

The real story of the Inquisition is—like the Crusades—not congruent with what one finds in today's error-ridden history textbooks.

Statistics regarding the total number of Inquisition-related deaths have been shamefully embellished by antagonists of the Church, with some asserting numbers in the millions. Though the precise numbers are foggy, recent scholarship has put the number of deaths at just a few thousand over several centuries.

Modern research by historical experts, such as Henry Kamen, Benzion Netanyahu and Edward M. Peters, have demonstrated that the Inquisition was not nearly as harsh or cruel as popularly suggested. Overturning traditional views, they have shown that the Church courts were often both patient and fair in their treatment of heretics. In fact, Church officials were so reasonable in the Inquisition process that heretics in the secular courts (heresy was also a political concern) would blaspheme with hope that they might be transferred to the more merciful Church inquisitors.

This is not to deny, however, that the actions of some Christians were unjust. Moczar concludes:

"Were there cruel inquisitors in some places? Of course. Were methods of interrogation distasteful to modern sensibilities? Sure... [But] given its formidable task of guarding the purity of the Faith in Christian souls, however, the overall record of the Inquisition in dealing with heresy is not only defensible but admirable." (p. 102)

CELIBACY ISN'T THE PROBLEM

This is not a defense of the guilty. It is a defense of the unjustly accused and stigmatized. The data is clear—celibate Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than clergy from any another denomination, or even teachers and other secular adult leadership. As Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has stated:

“We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this [abuse] or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else." (Pat Wingert, “Mean Men,” Newsweek, April 8, 2010)

Professor of psychology, Dr. Thomas Plante, agrees with Allen:

"Catholic clergy aren’t more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general." ("Do the Right Thing", psychologytoday.com, March 24, 2010)

Celibacy is not the problem—and Dr. Chris Kaczor has made this decisively clear. He summarizes the evidence with this statement:

"The evidence is substantial and confirmed by psychologists, researchers, and insurance companies: Priestly celibacy is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children." ("Celibacy Isn't The Problem", This Rock, vol. 21, 5)

In his vastly informative book, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, Dr. Kaczor's research conclusively disarms the celibacy-leads-to-pedophilia myth and puts it to rest once and for all.

Indeed, Catholic clergy should be held to a higher standard—the highest standard in fact—but it is unreasonable to condemn the whole priesthood because of the sins of an ultra-minority. There is simply no good reason to fear Catholic clergy any more than other religious leaders, teachers or the general population. I say without hesitation (and as a dad) that Catholic priests, by and large, are among the most trustworthy citizens of our society today. And the data agrees.

"SHE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN"

Finally, is the Church's view on women really immoral? Let's begin with the fiery issue of "female ordination": Why aren't women allowed to serve as priests in the Church? Is this not a violation of gender equality?

Properly understood, this is a matter of the Church's incapability to ordain women due to what a Catholic priest is. It is the nature of the priesthood that makes female ordination an impossibility. These key facts may help to underline this point:

I) Jesus called twelve apostles, all of whom were men (Mk 3:14-19; Lk 6:12-16)

II) The twelve apostles ordained men only to succeed them (1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9)

III) These men were given a special gift and authority to serve in persona Christi or "in the person of Christ" (see 2 Cor 2:10; John 20:21-23)

IV) Christ was a man; therefore those who serve "in his person" must also be men.

Therefore a female Catholic priest is about as possible as a male mother. The nature of the Catholic priesthood renders female ordination impossible, just as male mothers are an impossibility because of the nature of motherhood. Indeed, male-only ordination is discriminatory; but this is not a matter of preference but of deference to the "nature of things"; for it is the nature of nature to discriminate.

St. John Paul the Great understood this with profound clarity:

"The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and...this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).

What was Jesus' attitude toward women? Once again, we turn to the words of St. John Paul the Great:

"When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love." (Letter to Women, 3)

Like her Founder, the Catholic Church reveres 'woman' and attributes to her the highest dignity. The mother of Christ, for example, has been widely revered by Catholics from the earliest centuries of Christianity as the mother of all Christians (Jn 19:26-27). No person in history—except perhaps Christ Himself—has received more love and honour than Mary. The Church has also named four female Doctors of the Church—Sts. Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux and Hildegard of Bingen—and recognized them for their extraordinary influence on the life of the universal Christian Church.

And is it not true that women largely tend to avoid places where they are unfairly discriminated against and patronized? If the Catholic Church really treated women unjustly, would we not expect a female aversion to the Church? Surely. But this is not what we find.

Notre Dame theologian, Catherine Lacugna, states:

85% of those responsible for altar preparation are women. Over 80% of the CCD (religious formation) teachers and sponsors of the catechumenate are women. Over 75% of adult Bible study leaders or participants are women. Over 70% of those who are active in parish renewal and spiritual growth are women, and over 80% of those who join prayer groups are women. Nearly 60% of those involved with youth groups and recreational activities are women. (Catholic Women As Ministers And Theologians, 240)

Women are not afraid of the Church. They are attracted to it. Why? Because she fights for the beauty and dignity of femininity as no other institution on earth does.

Referring to the words of his saintly predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI said these words in praise of women:

"As my venerable and dear Predecessor John Paul II wrote in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem: "The Church gives thanks for each and every woman.... The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius' which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations." (General Audience, February 14, 2007)

FINAL THOUGHTS

In the final analysis, the Catholic Church is unquestionably a force for good in the world—indeed a force for greatness. She always has been; and because the gates of hell can never prevail against her, she always will be. We have Christ's promise.

Yes, the Church has proven herself to be the lifeline of our civilization—and without her—humanity will fail to thrive. As the great defender of the Church, Hilaire Belloc, concluded in Survivals And New Arrivals:

"If the influence of the Church declines, civilization will decline with it... Our civilization is as much a product of the Catholic Church as the vine is the product of a particular climate. Take the vine to another climate and it will die."

May God continue to bless His Church for goodness' sake.

[HarleyD]

The Catholic Church is no more a “force for good” than the nation of Israel was. And we know how that turned out. Only God is good and how He chooses to use events.

You may recall that during the time of Habakkuk, God raised up the Chaldean, a vicious and savage people, to deal with the Israelites. Would you say the Chaldean were a force for good?

God uses events to execute His will and perfect plan. That includes the Catholic Church, Joel Osteen, and ISIS. I wouldn't try to say one was "good" while the other "bad"-at least from God's perspective. The real question is whether they are following God's will as revealed through His word-not whether they are "a force".

[ealgeone]

Homosexuality, in and of itself is not sinful....acting on the urges is, and it is so for everyone, not just clergy.

The Word says whaaaaaaat?

Jesus said if you look upon another woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery.

The thoughts are sinful as well as the action. It's a further illustration as to why you can't be "good" enough to get into Heaven.

[impimp]

Luther is 100% in the naughty list, but I wanted to show you someone who is a respected protestant who accepts the Real Presence.

[FourtySeven]

For this reason (for the objection ealgeone posts) I believe it is better to describe a person in such a state as “one with same sex attraction” rather than a “homosexual” or “homosexuality” in general.

The former term (same sex attraction) is one proposed by the founder of the apostolate “Courage” ( http://couragerc.org/courage/ ) to more accurately treat the condition for what it is, and the human being with it. Terms like “gay” or “lesbian” or even “homosexual” in general tend to label a person based on their sexual orientation or disordered state.

The founder of the apostolate argues that those terms actually dehumanize a person because they seek to create one’s identity based on a sexual preference. We are human beings, our dignity isn’t found in what type of sexual act we prefer. Our dignity is God given.

Regardless it’s correct to say someone with same sex attraction (or “homosexual tendencies” if one prefers) doesn’t sin by just having those attractions or tendencies any more than a “heterosexual person” does simply by having an attraction to the opposite sex. It’s only when either person acts on such desires (either by entertaining such notions in the mind or actually committing them) does sin occur.

Otherwise we ( men) who don’t have same sex attraction sin every time we notice a pretty woman walking down the street. An “attraction” isn’t a sin; it’s only a sin to then start fantasizing about others in a sexual way (and/or to act on such fantasies of course).

[ealgeone]

Luther is 100% in the naughty list, but I wanted to show you someone who is a respected protestant who accepts the Real Presence.

You do realize Luther was catholic......right?

Go back and read all of John 6 in context.

[impimp]

At one time he was a Catholic priest, but then he became a heretic and then finally an apostate. At least that is what I think the record clearly shows.

[RnMomof7]

Still think it is fake magic?

yep it is Hocus Pocus ..that cracker is still a cracker.. it is a fake magic show that has the audience convinced that it is real

"..do this in memory of me.”

The this was changing the passover from a remembrance of the Jews escaping slavery ( a type of Christ) to a remembrance of its fulfillment in Christ ...

John 6 also deals with the passover ...as Jesus and the Jewish crowd were on its way to the passover ..

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

If you are going to copy/paste from elsewhere, PROVIDE A LINK!

www.catholicbible101.com/theeucharist.htm

to be superfluous, for again -- that person asked nothing, made no inquiry.

To say the Eucharist is not biblical, is an inquiry in my mind that needed an answer. Just because you don't believe the answer, doesn't mean Catholics are wrong, we have a reasoned faith and my answer stands as a reason to believe in the Eucharist.

It's time that some Catholics around here began to LISTEN, instead of knee-jerk reflexively LECTURE.

Why do I need to listen to you and just who is doing the lecturing? Listen to yourself, you sound like the liberals.

If you notice all these attacks against the Catholic church are from sola scripture reasoned faiths. The point is you don't want to listen to our reasoned points because it is not in the bible, so you say. If we bring up a scripture you say, that's not what it means and point to some commentary somewhere to prove your point. Well, lets have a honest debate about sola scripture. If you truly believed in bible only, you would not have foot notes, commentary or anything else, because everything is supposed to be revealed to the individual by the Holy Spirit. If you then read footnotes and commentary you have put your interpretation in someone else's hand and therefore not necessarily a true interpretation. You then lose your sola scripture stance. Catholic's believe the Holy Spirit works through the church to help us come to understand what scripture means. I'll take 2000 years of deep thought and meditation on the scriptures by those who know and understand much more then I do.

[impimp]

Lets pretend that I am too dumb to read/understand John 6. Because we are pretending this how about we interpret John 6 the way 95% of literate people have for the past 2000 years - i.e. the Real Presence exists.

[RnMomof7]

If one believes he is saved or damned by his works , then one comforts oneself with the idea that "I am not as bad as my neighbor"

The Bible tells us "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That is the inspired word of God . It does not say that some have fallen short and some are "close"

May I quote James to you?

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

So a liar is also a murderer in Gods eyes.

No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works.

The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The key word here is faith.. Faith PRODUCES WORKS..works do not produce faith ... Being saved by works only produces doubt... have I done enough? been good enough

James is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.

This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.

The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

[RnMomof7]

Well, the Bible tells us all generations will call Mary blessed.

That word is blessed not bless-ed

She was blessed by God to bear the savior of Israel.. an honor desired by every Jewish girl

[RnMomof7]

Just wondering if all those scriptures have been infallibly defined as you use them or if it is simply YOPI of the scripture? Could you provide the documentation of the infallible rendering of those citations by the magisterium ??? Cause I suspect that is simply one mans opinion and if that is so...it has no more weight than my reading of them

Also would like the source of the work

[RnMomof7]

58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

So how many times do you need eat it to "live forever"

[RnMomof7]

You didn't read my post. It is all biblical!!

All your own personal opinion on the scripture.. worth no more than the protestant reading...

[RnMomof7]

Sorry Charlie...No sacrifice there...It was a blessing...A celebration...No type of a Catholic mass any where near the event...But nice try tho...

Bingo

[ealgeone]

Lets pretend that I am too dumb to read/understand John 6. Because we are pretending this how about we interpret John 6 the way 95% of literate people have for the past 2000 years - i.e. the Real Presence exists.

Well for starters, you're stat of 95% is questionable....maybe if you meant that to be catholics that would be more accurate.

In this chapter Jesus sets the stage for believing in Him in v27-29.

In v33 He notes He is the bread which has come down from Heaven....in v34 the Jews tell Him to "always give us this bread", to which he replies: "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

He goes on to repeat this the need for belief in Him in v40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

The Jews still grumble and Jesus again notes in v47-51 that one acquires the Bread of Life by belief in Him. "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48“I am the bread of life. 49“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Everywhere in the NT one comes to Christ through belief in Him.

Jesus has equated the eating and drinking with belief.

There is nothing in the text that remotely suggests the bread and wine "transform" into flesh and blood. If so, the catholic would be able to actually taste the flesh and blood if they want to hold to a literal translation.

Have you actually tasted the flesh and blood during the Eucharist?

Again, the drinking/eating of blood was prohibited and Jesus would not have them break the very Law He came to fulfill.

Let's also recall who the author of this text is....John. The very one who wrote John 3:16.

John uses several vivid descriptions of Jesus to illustrate the principles of Heaven in his gospel. These are things the people of the time would relate to.

John notes He is the door of the sheep. Is He a literal door with framing and studs with door knobs that we walk through? Of course not.

John also notes He is the Good Shepherd and that we are sheep. To take the catholic position on this....are you a sheep that walks around on four legs and goes baaaa....baaaa?

When Jesus said He was the bread of life....was He an actual literal physical loaf of bread that had been prepared in an oven and was sliced for consumption? Of course not.

This is why I say you must read John 6 in context. If you do so with an open mind you will see that one comes to Christ through faith.

Peter acknowledged this when Jesus asked the 12 if they wanted to go away also in John 6:68-69:

Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

[impimp]

If He was speaking figuratively then why did John 6:66 take place? People don’t usually leave when someone speak figuratively.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Catholic believe this. Faith without works is dead! We do not believe "once saved always saved." You can lose your salvation. Just because I say I believe in Christ, doesn't make it so unless I prove to him I do. My love and forgiveness of others are works. My dedication to Christ is a work. Praying is a work. Helping those in need is a work. It is not just about how much money you give a charity or how much you helped your neighbor, it is your heart that he wants and that my friend is a work. It is not easy to love, pray and forgive my enemy, but I have to if I want enter into Heaven. I think you misunderstand what we call works and what you call works.

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

All your own personal opinion on the scripture.. worth no more than the protestant reading...

Where exactly do you get your interpretation?

[RnMomof7]

Lets pretend that I am too dumb to read/understand John 6. Because we are pretending this how about we interpret John 6 the way 95% of literate people have for the past 2000 years - i.e. the Real Presence exists.

Augustines NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.