Morality of the Catholic Church

[Mike Cl]

The Catholic Church has always held that it is moral and is, in fact, the keeper of morality.  Jesus is supposed to have taught and demonstrated just what that is--but the Catholic Church, with its infallible pope, gets to define exactly what it was that Jesus taught.  And they insist that that does not change since morality is objective--it is the same as when Jesus taught, to 10 yrs later, to 100 yrs later, to 1000 yrs later, to now.  Never changing always the same; and any organization that has an infallible leader should have no problem maintaining  that objective morality.  So, let's take a look at how objective and moral the wonderful institution is. 

I'll start off with this offering about the Inquisition with a brief snippet from wiki:

The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Husites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges.[1] The term Medieval Inquisition covers these courts up through the 14th century.

In the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded in response to the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries,[2] resulting in the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. Those two kingdoms in particular operated inquisitorial courts throughout their respective empires (Spanish and Portuguese) in the Americas (resulting in the Peruvian Inquisition and Mexican Inquisition), Asia, and Africa.[3] One particular focus of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions was the issue of Jewish anusim and Muslim converts to Catholicism, partly because these minority groups were more numerous in Spain and Portugal than in many other parts of Europe, and partly because they were often considered suspect due to the assumption that they had secretly reverted to their previous religions.

Except within the Papal States, the institution of the Inquisition was abolished in the early 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and after the Spanish American wars of independence in the Americas. The institution survived as part of the Roman Curia, but in 1904 was given the new name of "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office". In 1965 it became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[4]

This, of course, lead to the Burning Times created by this infallible institution.  Burning witches is moral?  It must be, since the pope is infallible.  And not only witches fell to the flames; other stripes of Catholic did--anybody and everybody deemed a heretic was fair game.  And of course, the property of such could be rightfully confiscated by this wonderful institution.  Nothing more moral than killing your opposition and taking their wealth.  I wonder where Jesus taught about that????

And I'm sure many, many more acts could be added to this list.

[Baruch]

Not the keeper of morality.  That has never been true.  They are the backbone of the W Roman Empire.  Like a certain former country now named something else (Germany) ... they are neither holy, nor roman nor an empire.

[reasonist]

The pope must be infallible; he has a direct line to his friend in the clouds....

The RCC and Pope Paul V decreed that "the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about it's axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to holy scripture"

How many people had to die excruciating deaths for the next 200 years or so because of this stupid 'decree'?
So much about divine infallibility.

[Randy Carson]

The pope must be infallible; he has a direct line to his friend in the clouds....

The RCC and Pope Paul V decreed that "the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about it's axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to holy scripture"

How many people had to die excruciating deaths for the next 200 years or so because of this stupid 'decree'?
So much about divine infallibility.

You are in error because you do not have an adequate understanding of the doctrine of infallibility.

Not everything the Pope says is considered to be infallible, and Paul V's decree does not meet the criteria necessary for infallibility.

[Unbeliever]

The pope must be infallible; he has a direct line to his friend in the clouds....

I don't see how any pope, as the successor of Peter, can have any line to God:

Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times. Jesus said that anyone who denies him will be denied by God.

So God denies Peter (and presumably those who claim to be his successors) 3 times more than most.

[Randy Carson]

I don't see how any pope, as the successor of Peter, can have any line to God:

Peter denied knowing Jesus 3 times. Jesus said that anyone who denies him will be denied by God.

So God denies Peter (and presumably those who claim to be his successors) 3 times more than most.

Read John 21.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+21&version=NIV

[widdershins]

The infallibility of the pope comes and goes with circumstance.  To know whether the pope is infallible in a given circumstance is actually a lot easier than it sounds at first.  You have to ask yourself, "Would infallibility in this case make the church look stupid?"  If the answer is yes then the pope is never infallible in that case.  In any case he may still be infallible for as long as the answer to that question is yes.

[SGOS]

The Pope is infallible, except when he's not.

[Baruch]

The Pope is infallible, except when he's not.

And Randy isn't an apologist, he is a sophist.  He is more of an atheist than I am.

[Mr.Obvious]

Well, I just learned what the word sophist means.
Learn something everyday. Thanks Baruch!

[stromboli]

https://youtu.be/r544ZRSbKw0

[stromboli]

Sophist or sophisticate
One's a loser and one is great
One a half ass vacuous twit
the other wears cool clothes and shit

Ones got arguments that flunk
the other Calvin Dior in his trunk
One got arguments don't go well
the other is fucking impeccable

One can quote from ol' Shakespeare
the other can't tell Scotch from beer
Sophist? Nah, you're screwed mate
you'll never be a sophisticate.