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."

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

Besides, ealgeone didn't ask or make inquiry, which renders the remainder of the statement after the portion which admits that you "found" what follows;

I found this and thought this might be of some use in your inquiry.

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

I think most of us here have seen ALL the Roman Catholic arguments.

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

More boilerplate explanations, at this point, serve no one well.

If one is aiming at merely others, the so-called "lurkers" alone, hoping to provide LECTURE to those persons, doing so at expense of actual discussion & conversation, then how could that not be seen as just so much lop-sided lecturing & hectoring conducted at the expense of the one to whom the note is addressed?

This sort of thing is poor argumentation;

It is no coincidence that His first public miracle took place at a wedding, where He changed one substance into another, thus prefiguring the transubstantiation of the wine into blood at the Last Supper.

Jesus turned one substance into another -- water into being actual wine. And the people remarked that it was better than what they had been drinking, but which had "failed".

Does the wine one drinks at "Eucharist" ceremony taste like blood?

Yes, or no. Answer the question, in your own mind.

The answer is no, isn't it?

Were they all literally drinking blood at the Last Supper?

If not -- then where, oh where is the transformation of "substance" comparable to the transformation of water into wine?

It's simply not there...for the wine they were drinking remained wine.

Anachronistic application of Aristotelian substance and accident arguments cannot apply there (those were not a part of Hebrew religious consciousness, for one thing) if those include some conceptualization of "real and actual" (but invisible!) transformation of "substance" leaving "accident" to remain.

That cannot apply at the same time one drags in comparison of water being truly (and simply!) transformed into wine, for it is not as if those of that wedding party remarked that "hey, it looks like water, still smells like water...but what a fine wine it is!".

Where is the transforming of "substance" in accounts of the Last Supper, save for in the minds of Roman Catholics who project that specialized interpretations onto the texts? It's not there in Luke, the scripture itself argues against anachronistic, backwards imposition/application of theological developments (slight and subtle, but significant changes) which arose over centuries among the RCC, in this regard...

Perhaps you'd care to try your hand at defining the word substance?

I suggest that you do so, although I already know of the various usages, and how the Grecian philosophical applications became intertwined & part of Roman Catholic descriptions of communion remembrances & RC church theological descriptions & ceremony...with it beginning perhaps with borrowing from Alexandrian church usages of the philosophical conceptualizations of substance and essence used by Athanasius in his own efforts of description of the relationship each of the three 'persons' of the Trinity shared with one another.

At the Last Supper, in Matthew 26, Jesus held up the bread and said – “This IS my Body”. Notice He didn’t say –“This represents my Body”, or “This is a symbol of my Body”.

He didn't HAVE TO say "this is a symbol" for it would be well enough understood that at least in one sense, Jesus was speaking symbolically, while He was speaking also in context of Hebrew religious sensibilities/understanding in regards to the Passover, which they had been observing/celebrating, for only a couple of thousand years, by that time...

Just as thousands were filled with just five loaves, Jesus feeds millions of believers throughout the centuries with his Eucharistic flesh.

The root of the term "Eucharist" can be understood in today's English as "thanksgiving".

Thanksgiving...flesh.

And just what is this "flesh" composed of for us, in our own observance of this Passover sacrifice which was made for us, even bodily so by this one we know of as --- Jesus?

Is it the same EXACT form of "flesh" that was Jesus's own physical and corporeal body, when He dwelt among us here on earth in the form of a man?

OR---

is it more like this "Real Presence" the same form He was in BEFORE He came to earth, to be born of the virgin?

John 6:61-62

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

I will note here again that the term "Real Presence" capitalized as such is thought to have arisen among so-called 'Protestants', when those persons were struggling to best define and speak of just how the Lord is (and can be found) truly present in what many 'Protestants' term the Lord's Supper, or else Holy Communion --- with Him understood to be present by spirit rather than by way of corporeal, human "flesh".

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

You absolutely must address the substance of the above questions -- or else this conversation will go nowhere, & fast. (think I'm tough customer now? just try to ignore the substance of my arguments here regarding "substance", and the questions regarding the same, and this note would look like a love letter in comparison to how I will likely reply to yet more parroting of cut & past RC apologetic.)

In the Old Testament, Exodus 24:8, Moses sealed the Covenant by sprinkling the Israelites with REAL BLOOD, not symbolic blood, and Jesus also sealed the New Covenant with REAL BLOOD, not symbolic blood.

Jesus gave His own "real blood" on the Cross.

This do in remembrance of me, He said.

Examine again if you will Luke 22, bearing in mind to fullest extent possible the Hebrew context in which Christ being the bread and blood of the New Covenant was spoken of.

Let us first examine Luke 22:17-18.

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Notice that He said "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine...". He did not say "I will no longer drink of MY OWN BLOOD".

So much for "transubstantiation".

It was not happening THERE. The wine remained wine (NOT TRANSUBSTANTIATED!) while in comparison, the water referenced previously did not remain as it was...yet was transformed into being actual wine...

Can you see now why I said that one part in particular of RC apologetic which you copied from elsewhere was "poor argumentation"? The wine remained wine, with the comparison to the water being turned to wine not applying in that first and intial instance of Jesus Christ HIMSELF presiding over the Passover meal (!). Yet we're supposed to accept this sort of argument (such as you have brought to these pages) as having validity? Rome is full of ITSELF, instead of the the actual & objective truth, as it continually attempts to browbeat any and all within earshot that it does.

Thank GOD that nowadays, *they* can't sic the powers of State upon a person for daring to disagree with their own wild & exaggerated claims they make for themselves.

It is obvious enough that Jesus was speaking figuratively as for the physical, material 'substance' of both the bread and the wine intangibly being His own body.

Yet by spirit, He can be known to ourselves when partaking of communion, tangibly [see listed definition #1] discernible, but only by spirit John 6:63;

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

That is more powerful than the usual RCC apologetic quoted from your wall-of-text copy/past which attempts to assert that He was not speaking figuratively of the Hebrew Passover bread & wine.

Yet still, He can be discerned as present, as BEING as it were, the bread and the wine, in spirit & in truth, far beyond mere 'sacramental truth' of religious & theological conceptualizations.

I have encountered Him in that way while partaking of communion (among other "ways" I have encountered the Spirit of the Lord, including having Him be present within myself at all times, regardless of my own lack of fully measuring up to Him in comparison, and/or being fully aligned with Him), yet encounter Him there not at the hand of some so-called (and hireling) "priest", of the Church of Rome.

That I am able to meet with the Lord in that way, that He (at times, noticeably, discernibly) comes in and supps with me, and I with Him (as it is written, Revelation 3:20, as your copy/paste presentation included mention of) disproves the contention of a few of your co-religionists who maintain that this can occur only among "Catholics".

Yet if one were to listen to the words of the more bigoted of [Roman] Catholics --- they say that such cannot be, because it (the Lord's Supper) was not presided over by one of their own 'priests" -- as if the Spirit of the Lord would bypass a true believer for reason that He did not get the permission of Roman Catholic priesthood to visit and commune with the faithful, wherever those may be found.

What are he and yourself, in this context arguing for? Is it for corporeal, physical human flesh & blood presence?

If so, then that is blasphemous theological error which the Church of Rome owns, lock, stock & barrel.

Can you hear me now?

This same or similar conversation has been going on for centuries...(I could provide links to old books which delve into this subject from Anglican perspective, but never mind that, for the moment).

Do you have any idea of just how damaging to the wider, truly universal (catholic) church, the wording and hard-headed stubbornness of the Church of Rome's descriptions (since the Council of Trent) of what they refer to among themselves as 'Eucharist' has been?

It has set the stage for widespread disbelief, and needlessly so, with this coming about for reason of the RCC's own overweening need for control of all descriptive language and all 'thought', much more than for reason of preaching the Gospel of Christ.

One the one side there are [Roman] Catholic seemingly arguing for corporeal "presence", yet are so ignorant in their own extensive parroting of the theological terminology it makes one wonder if *they* (many? or seemingly *most* of them) have ever truly been born again/born from above -- AT ALL.

While presently, on the other hand, seeming to be receding into history (to an extent) are those Anglicans and others (including more than a few so-called "pentecostal" types) who bear personal witness of His presence & ministering to them individually & corporately, in the partaking of that thanksgiving, memorial meal, and that presence being what men such as Calvin termed "pneumatic" (spiritual) presence...and the Lutherans, leaning upon Luther, who himself leaned upon and borrowed language from millennia previous Church Council to then speak of Christ being present (by way of His spirit) as "con-substantial" with the bread of thanksgiving.

Yet Rome, in those days, condemned such descriptions, anathematizing those who would speak of that part of religious ceremony & observance -- BECAUSE --- they (Rome) were not in control of it, thus their own power over people & society was challenged.

For long (and dark) centuries Rome lorded it over anyone and everyone they could. Those days are gone, never again to return, my FRiend.

Face the facts.

The bishopric of Rome has been all but entirely passed on to others, for those others to carry.

Rome can have a small portion (and spread thin) but cannot rule and run roughshod over others, EVER AGAIN, no matter how strenuously they try to reach for that...

Luke 22:24-27

24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

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.

THIS...

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”