Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good?

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?

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. ”

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.

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)

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)

"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.

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:

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.

"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.

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)

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."

Why do I need to listen to you and just who is doing the lecturing?

I am a Christian, and I know the Lord, that's why you should at least listen long enough to understand what I'm saying, instead of apparently dismissing it out of hand.

For myself, this is not just some academic exercise where I'm merely relying upon opinions of others, although I am well enough apprised of opinions of others in this matter to understand those opinions, including what seems to be presently circulating among the RCC in this regard, what used to be written of about this, and what the basic theological implications are, for what differences there are...

Listen to yourself, you sound like the liberals.

SAME TO YOU!

If you notice all these attacks against the Catholic church are from sola scripture reasoned faiths.

Did you not just claim in other comment on this thread, that the argument (the apologetic) which you presented was "all scriptural"???

And I touched upon biblical foundation reasons for viewing the thanksgiving meal in ways other than carnal, corporeal flesh sort of view. I even supplied links to dictionary definitions of the words I was using, as I used those. Was that not enough?

If myself having tried to get you to think about this issue, is "an attack against the Catholic faith" then it deserves to be attacked.

Or at least -- honestly questioned & then explored/examined, which I did take pains to do, narrowly, and to precise aspect of one issue (communion bread, transubstantiation, etc.) in particular, getting quite specific about differences.

If what I presented to you, from such a closely related Christian perspective as was my own basis, is "an attack on the Catholic faith" in your world -- then I must ask -- what type & color panties do the men wear there -- for they must all be sissified, prissy pansies if mere talking about it is "attack".

You argue like an emotional liberal...(go ahead, Salvation, sic the moderator on me --- or at least try, but first --- scroll up and see that I'm just returning the ill-favor right back to where it came from!).

Perhaps I moved too fast, covered too much theological ground? Am I speaking over your head? (Polly want a cracker?)

The point is you don't want to listen to our reasoned points because it is not in the bible, so you say.

Now you are mind-reading, for I myself said no such thing, as far as this particular conversation goes -- while you are still not addressing the central issue.

Yet this is the way it is just_about_every_single_time I attempt to communicate with a FRoman. *They* can't step out of the cocoon, it seems. Except to stick the head out and try to bite whoever it is that knocks on the doors, unless one comes to them hat-in-hand, like some beggar...(even then the results are most often entirely underwhelming -- which is why I gave up on trying to "be nice" to those who don't stinking care --- to be honest!)

I DID "listen" to the so-called "reasoned points" and showed you how a few of those were not so well reasoned, after all. Can't YOU READ?

Well, lets have a honest debate about sola scripture.

What followed from there on from you, was not anything like approaching honest debate in regards to the principle of "sola scriptura", but it WAS and is what is termed "moving the goal posts", or else a "dragging it off into the bushes", changing the focus away from the previously "reasoned points" which I did address -- but which you have not lifted one tiny pinky finger to touch upon, other than to have initially brought to these pages copy/paste parroting of argumentation assembled by others, from elsewhere...

I've seen the whole schmear (of the entire set of RC apologetic) thousands of times, right here on these pages. Day in, day out, it rarely changes...

Now--- address the issue -- answer/address the questions which I raised previously. No more little games.

Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood) JUST AS WE OTHERWISE KNOW OF THAT ---

Does some other meaning better fit the evidence?

Catholic's believe the Holy Spirit works through the church to help us come to understand what scripture means.

Do you recall the context in which I referred to;

were spirit and life

NOTHING

What does that mean, to you? ANYthing?

What could Jesus have been driving at in regards to John 6:61-62, also? Must I need publish it all again in hopes that it will eventually be considered in any way other than 'Polly want a cracker, squaawk' type of gathering of noises, as in a 'I'll just repeat what I think the RC church believes' sort of thing...

Be honest here with the actual & central-most issues raised...answer honestly. Corporeal flesh, Christ "present" in the bread in that way, yes, or no. That would be a good place to start.

No more boilerplate RC apologetic parroting. Try going back and answering what I originally put to you.

Or else be just yet another Roman Catholic failure (failure to communicate, failure to engage, failure to DO ANYTHING BUT LECTURE!). Well that, and putting the onus entirely upon others whenever the going gets anything like a little bit tough, coupled with response composed mainly of some sort of personal attack, attack, attack upon the person and/or else "faith" of the messenger, instead of open and honest discussion of whatever issue it is at hand. You know, the typical FRoman Catholic FReeRepublic religion forum type of response. After many years of it --- I stay angry at those sort of cheap & shallow forum debate tactics.

I'll take 2000 years of deep thought and meditation on the scriptures by those who know and understand much more then I do.

You are aware that there are more than a few so-called "early church fathers" who wrote of "the body & blood" as that pertained to the thanksgiving & memorial, breaking of the bread -- to signify spiritual truth, rather than have been from the earliest beginnings thare have been anything like the doctrine of transubstantiation which can result in an understanding that Christ's "presence" be literal flesh & blood corporeal presence, don't you?

In light of such, there is plenty of room to consider/contemplate that many early church writers --- when they wrote of "the body & blood" of Christ & Eucharist (though they did not always use that precise term "eucharist", particularly from earliest centuries) could be well enough thought to have been speaking of both figurative & spiritual reality, rather than have been speaking of a corporeal flesh "presence"?

Yet this latter, this corporeal, human flesh & blood type of thinking, when taken from the Cross itself (and His life here on earth, which He truly gave) and applied to bread of remembrance is strangely literal from the likes of those who refuse to take "call no man father" for it's most plain and direct literal meaning. I guess that's asking too much, for to see it plainly (and where most all of the Church went wrong, from fairly early on) is just too much for some to consider, being that their own faith is not in God EXCEPT for how their own church describes Him, and spiritual truths to be.

I don't have that particular problem, for I know Him much more directly, then merely and only second hand, as it were...

2000 years of *thinking* about it, huh?

Well, guess what?

The thinking has not always been the same for those 2000 years.

AND ---

You never addressed the issues...

GO BACK.

Read what I initially wrote to you, and LISTEN. At least TRY to understand what it is I am driving at.

Otherwise, it's fully as if the argument was judged, before hearing it. Proverbs 18:13

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.