September 17th, 2011 - Freddie-714102 said:
What about the option that the Church was wrong and reversed itself? the notion that societal norms changed it is the invitation to the notion that societal norms are supposed to instruct the church somehow. makes me want to puke. and frankly, looking at the choices offered, it's obvious that this poll is a veiled shot at the church.
March 26th, 2008 - Gerald-283546 said:
Although I am not a historian, I do have a view based upon some reading on the subject and Faith. In the US, our view of the Inquisition is colored by generations of Protestant bigotry.
First one must distinguish between the Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was heavily politicised and used by political rulers for political ends. Torture was applied and the Church in Rome tried to stop it with limited success. (No surprise to us now who see how powerless Rome is to stop even religious abuses by bishops and seminaries in places like for example the USA.)
The Roman Inquisition was set up to combat Heresey. As I understand it, heresy is not disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Men are free and may hold whatever opinion they choose. Heresy is holding and teaching an opinion different from the Church and claiming that it is the opinion of the Church. Saying that the Church teaches X when the Church does not teach X is heresy. Or, saying that Christianity teaches Y when Divine Revelation, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching say it does not teach Y would be heresey. So, for example, Martin Luther was a heretic. The Gautama Buddha, even of he should live today, is not.
No organization can tolerate that kind of lie. It is corrosive, like sulphuric acid, and will destroy a faith or philosophy from the inside, like a cancer. You can disagree with a Faith, but if you try to pervert the Faith by saying it means X when it means Y, you are bearing false witness. So, the Inquisiion is there to tell people who are claiming to be Catholic but teaching in error, that you cannot teach that AS CATHOLIC.
Of course, this was a little more complicated in a world where nearly everyone was at least nominally Catholic. It is difficult to imagine the stress to conform from the perspective of our pluralistic world.
The Roman Inquisition really still exists today, although after Vatican II the name was changed to a more touchy-feely one, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is this organization that, quite rightly I believe, told Kung and others that thy could not teach AS CATHOLIC the heretical and modernist doctrines they were teaching. I wish that more so called Catholic College Theology faculties were called on the mat by our current Inquisition (not tortured of course!!).
So, yes. we need an Inquisition, we have one, it functions more or less to some extent, but it should never become politicised, as happend in Spain.
February 18th, 2008 - Gregory-121459 said:
Anyone who asks this question knows almost nothing about the Church, what she is, why she was established, what her purpose is. Really pathetic. The questions presupposes that the church is only a humanistic, power mad, group of old men bent on ruling the world through socialist philosophies, of which, I might add, the Church is totally against. There are books written that accuse the church of killing 40-50 million people, there is only one problem. There were only 20 million people in Europe at the time. The only reason someone would believe this is a anti-Catholic stuff is vitriol, founded in nothing more that emotionalism. The facts are as twisted as the Twisted sisters. Funny, it is said that smart people believe dumb things, and the smartest people believe the most stupid things. Mark, are you a PHD? God bless ya brother, but you have serious issues, and maybe some time in front of the Blessed Sacrament will cure you! Peace.
Come on man, get real.