Calvin Murder

[Radagast]

"Although Calvin insisted with the rest that Servetus must die, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning, but the Council rejected the suggestion"
Michael Servetus Burned for Heresy

Oh, a pro-Servetus website! How reliable!

 

[jamesbond007]

yeah, I saw that, written by someone who is trying to justify what the Bible does not, and argues from a biased perspective.

"Although Calvin insisted with the rest that Servetus must die, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning, but the Council rejected the suggestion"
Michael Servetus Burned for Heresy

It is hard to believe all this happened, but it was different times. Today, we would agree the Bible does not justify this, but God did show his wrath. If we had Servetus on this forum, then he would be raked over the coals. While it is a sad part of history on the part of all Christians, there is a reason why Servetus was sought out based on what the Bible says. Could he have gotten a less severe punishment for those times? What would that be?

 

[Alpha.Omega]

It is hard to believe all this happened, but it was different times. Today, we would agree the Bible does not justify this, but God did show his wrath. If we had Servetus on this forum, then he would be raked over the coals. While it is a sad part of history on the part of all Christians, there is a reason why Servetus was sought out based on what the Bible says. Could he have gotten a less severe punishment for those times? What would that be?

the Bible clearly teaches us to "LOVE our enemies" (Matthew 5:44) and to "BLESS those that persecute you" (Romans 12:14), and "BLESS those who curse you, PRAY for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:28). When His Disciples asked Jesus to call fire from heaven to destroy His opponents, Jesus replied, "But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55)

 

[jamesbond007]

the Bible clearly teaches us to "LOVE our enemies" (Matthew 5:44) and to "BLESS those that persecute you" (Romans 12:14), and "BLESS those who curse you, PRAY for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:28). When His Disciples asked Jesus to call fire from heaven to destroy His opponents, Jesus replied, "But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55)

So you would have stood up for Servetus like that at his trial? The Bible teaches us about the Trinity. The latter was what was in question. Calvin wasn't the one responsible. Servetus was.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

So you would have stood up for Servetus like that at his trial? The Bible teaches us about the Trinity. The latter was what was in question. Calvin wasn't the one responsible. Servetus was.

do we murder those who teach or believe rank heresy?

 

[Archivist]

Calvin Murder

Someone murdered Calvin? His tiger friend Hobbes must have been terribly upset.

I would bet that his classmate and neighbor Susie Derkins committed the murder.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, try a Google search for Calvin and Hobbes. It was an American comic strip.

 

[Vicomte13]

It's not very meaningful either to sit here in 21st century North America and pontificate about what historical personalities - focusing uniquely on them and not on their times also - 'should have done'.

It is very meaningful, because it shows us how men get tangled up in the politics and passions of their times, and ending up committing heinous evil that he should have known not to commit given Jesus' clear and explicit two-thousand year old directions.

And that can instruct us now, today, in the passions of our own times over things such as infanticide, abortion, war, slavery, segregation, freedoms of speech, police violence and abuse, prison policies - everything. There is very little new under the sun. All of the past generations have dealt with almost all of these issues before. Jesus gave us a clear and unambiguous set of hard stops as to where we as individuals, whether private, uniformed or crowned, may never go.

The problems of the world are intractable, and human beings are stubborn. Most will not obey without the threat of loss, and the threat of loss can only be backed up by the ultimate threat of violence. So, then, the question becomes "Can man be rightly ruled by the threat of violence?"

And the answer to that from Jesus is that if you actually resort to the violence and kill people, and never repent it and seek forgiveness from God, he is going to judge you without mercy and throw you into the Lake of Fire at final judgment.

So yes, in the present tense we BETTER understand the sins of Justinian and Cauvin and the Popes and the police and rulers past and present, and the Apostle Paul also - he was an evil killer. PAUL repented, and was saved by Jesus. Did Justinian, Cauvin, or the Popes ever repent? Did they ever admit that they willfully overrode the law of Jesus in their own anger at being disregarded, and murdered men in order to cow other men into submission? Did they ever admit they were murderous worms, the worst of all sinners? Paul did, and for the very reasons stated: he pursued Christians unto death. Paul was a vicious disgusting wretch of a man, before his conversion, and there was no particular reason why people who had lost friends and relatives to him as a marauder should have ever trusted him again. After all, in our day the priests in Eastern European confessionals were KGB spies.

We know that Paul got right with God, so we can listen to him. But he had to repent or he was headed to the Lake of Fire.

HE repented. I don't really care if Cauvin did or didn't.

But Cauvin matters today because he is a "type" of ruler. See the enraged cops beating mentally disabled people to death because of their "non-compliance"? What do WE think of that? What do we do about it?

What about the murder of babies in the womb?

What about Middle Eastern wars?

The same frustrating issues face every generation, and the temptation to reach for the sword is great. It is highly instructive to look at the catastrophic moral failures and disasters wrought by the great leaders of historical Christianity.

And yes, they were governed by the same moral code we are, from the same source: Jesus.

This is the problem. Cauvin wasn't some King. He stood as the spiritual leader and teacher. It is absolutely correct to judge his moral code, because it is the SAME AS OURS - because both he and we are bound by Jesus.

There were people in his day who would never do what he did. There are people in our age that would justify it and do it. Looking at the moral issues and the questions of power and violence is a separating of the sheep and goats, exactly as Jesus will do at the end. By looking at it, if we are on the borderline, as many of us our, we can be encouraged to be good sheep, and not give ourselves over to rage in our frustration that the world sucks as bad as it does, and become goats.

What Cauvin did is relevant to today, and both he and you and I will be judged by EXACTLY THE SAME STANDARD - the one that Jesus, the master of all of us, set a millennium and a half BEFORE Cauvin.

To drive the point home even more fully: people TODAY hang their Christian religion on what Cauvin wrote, as a teenager, in a second-rate provincial French law school. Cauvin's first Institutes were written when he was a teenager. He revised and extended them, but the first edition was published by a teenager. People are basing their concepts of God himself, in the 20th Century, on the ideas in the head of a 19 year old second-rate law student, who went on to be an aggressive Christian Taliban.

Who Cauvin was, when he wrote what we wrote, and what he went on to do under the emprise of his own thoughts, are all a very strong warning THIS IS THE WRONG TRACK. The only way to realize that is to know the history.

Follow Cauvin's approach today, and if you get in charge of anything you're likely to end up in front of a war crimes tribunal.

Which MEANS that there is something wrong with his Christian theology, and people should not be following it. That's EXACTLY the implications of it.

Similarly, the fact that the Catholic Church BURNT ALIVE a messenger of God means that the supreme claims of infallibility and imperfection have to be taken with a shaker of salt. No, dear, you're not imperfect. You've been really terribly imperfect. If you hadn't reformed yourself you would really be an enemy of mankind, and our ancestors were right to decapitate your power and reduce you to a private religious institution, because when you were in charge, you were a dragon who did immense evil.

As a nice old lady without a sword, the Church is quite creditable, but the Church that burnt Joan of Arc, after official trial, in Rouen, was a violent and direct enemy of God, at least in that place and that time. Which means that she lost the ability to claim the she is without error for ALL TIME everafter. The same is true of Cauvin. BECAUSE he was in power, and executed people for heresy, his theology is fundamentally flawed. If you're killing people in the name of Christ, your theology is bad and you are to be disregarded, for all time.

Paul is the least of the apostles BECAUSE he was a killer. He is an example of the great fruit born from a repentant soul. Did Cauvin EVER publicly repent? The Catholic Church in that age did not. In OUR age it has repented many of the crimes of the past, though it still impossibly asserts that it is nevertheless without error or stain - by creating a mystic Church that abides somewhere else, wholly detached from humanity. That's a nice story, and if we need to believe that, fine, but we cannot justify the burning of Joan of Arc, or anybody, and the fact that it happened so often MEANS that no pronouncement of any religious leaders can be accepted as infallible on its face. Rather, the SUBSTANCE of the pronouncement has to be examined.

And when it comes to directing the killing of people, nothing is simpler: the man and the institution ordering it are wrong, and evil, and not to be obeyed in the order, or emulated as a role model. Jesus promises to throw them into the flames at final judgment too, so all we can do is urge such people to REPENT.

To do that, we have to admit they were wrong.
And yeah, the wrongs of the past matter today. If they didn't, then all of Christendom could unite as one and feed the poor without all of this duplication of administrative expense in multiple clergies.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think it is a mistake to judge persons in history according to our standards. Let me be clear, I do not approve of the state prosecuting anyone for heresy. However, capital punishment for heresy was the norm in this time period in both protestant and catholic lands. The idea there would be the sort of religious liberty or freedom of belief is a long way off and really doesn't start to take hold until after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. Servetus was also an obnoxious boar of a man who didn't help his case by showing up not only in Geneva but attended a sermon given by Calvin himself.

Yep, I agree.

Servetus was a renegade outlaw, an escaped convict...and considered a spiritual threat to Christians anywhere he took refuge.

A short quote from Wikipedia on Servetus:

"As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government, in an attempt to find some plausible excuse to disregard this legal reality, had consulted other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zürich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen). They universally favoured his condemnation and suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.[33] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms.[34] Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. The party called the "Libertines", who were generally opposed to anything and everything John Calvin supported, were in this case strongly in favour of the execution of Servetus at the stake (while Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead). In fact, the council that condemned Servetus was presided over by Ami Perrin (a Libertine) who ultimately on 24 October sentenced Servetus to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.[35] Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt, knowing that burning at the stake was the only legal recourse.[36] This plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burnt alive—atop a pyre of his own books—at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva."

Even those strongly opposed to Calvin were in favor of the execution. I only wish the Councils of Geneva had shipped him back to Vienne where he escaped prison. However, it would have sent a message to other heretics to those who cared not for the souls of men desiring to follow in the footsteps of Servetus. Somewhere I read that (at least) one such person was detoured from following in the footsteps of Servetus after the execution of Servetus.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calvin prosecuted the case. He made the arguments to the court that resulted in Servetus' conviction.

Not true, the following is how it went down...

"The moment approached when he must appear before the tribunal, assembled, according to custom, at the gates of the Town House, from the balcony of which a Syndic read to criminals the fatal sentence. It was on the 27th October 1553, towards eleven o’clock before noon, that the condemned saw the Lord Lieutenant enter the prison in quest of him, accompanied by the Secretary of Justice. The prisoner was addressed in the customary words: “Come with me, to hear the good pleasure of my Lords.” Servetus obeying, follows the magistrates. On leaving the bishops’ palace, he comes accompanied by Farel, to the feet of the judges, to hear the Lord Syndic Darlod pronounce the sentence of condemnation.

The considerations and motives of this decree imply, we must repeat, that in the eyes of the Council of Geneva the heresy of Servetus was less a crime in itself than by its consequences; and that they wished to punish him, not for a mere error in opinion, but to put Christendom beyond the risk of a harvest of troubles, of which they declared him the obstinate “sower.” The simple belief of a heretic sufficed to cause him to be cast into the flames, by the tribunals charged to execute the sentences of the Roman Inquisition—it was against the propagation of heresy that Geneva prepared its piles. We do not here seek to excuse—we only establish a difference. As to what remains, here are the words of the sentence, such as Servetus, downcast, defeated, and horror-struck, heard it proceed from the lips of the magistrate—we have not courage to analyze its contents, when we think of the anguish which the reading of it must have occasioned to the unhappy man:—

“The Process prepared and conducted before us, most redoubtable Lord Syndics, judges in causes criminal in this city, at the suit and instance of our Lord Lieutenant of this said city, in said causes pursuer;

“Against Michael Servetus of Villeneuve, in the kingdom of Arragon, in Spain.

“The which has, in the first place, been accused of having, about twenty-three or twenty-four years ago, caused to be printed at Haguenau, in Germany, a book against the holy and undivided Trinity, containing many great blasphemies against it, highly scandalous to the Churches of said Germany—which book he spontaneously confessed to have caused to be printed, notwithstanding of remonstrances and corrections of his false opinions made to him by the learned evangelical doctors of said Germany.

• “Item—and which book has been by the doctors of those Churches of Germany refuted as full of heresy, and the said Servetus obliged to flee from said Germany because of said book:
• “Item—and notwithstanding of that, the said Servetus has persevered in his false errors, infecting with them as many as he could:
• “Item—and not content with that, for the better spreading and diffusing of his said poison and heresy, in a little time from that, he caused clandestinely to be printed another book at Vienne in Dauphiné, full of said heresies, horrible, and execrable blasphemies against the Holy Trinity, against the Son of God, against the baptism of little infants, and many other holy passages and principles of the Christian religion.
• “Item—he has spontaneously confessed that in this book he calls those who believe in the Trinity, Tritheists* and Atheists:
• “Item—and that he calls the Trinity a devil, and a monster with three heads:
• “Item—and contrary to the true foundation of the Christian religion, and detestably blaspheming against the Son of God, he has said that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God from all eternity, but only from his incarnation:
• “Item—and contrary to what Scripture says, that Jesus Christ was the Son of David according to the flesh—he unhappily denies it, saying that he has been created of the substance of God the Father, having received three elements from him, and only one from the Virgin. In which he wickedly tries to abolish the true and entire humanity of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the supreme consolation of the poor human race:
• “Item—and that the baptism of little infants is only an invention of the devil and of witchcraft:
• “Item—and many other points and articles, and execrable blasphemies with which the said book is all stuffed, hugely scandalous, and against the honour and majesty of God, of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit, which is a cruel and horrible murder, perdition, and ruin of many poor souls, being betrayed by the above mentioned perfidious and detestable doctrine—a thing shocking to be related:
• “Item—and which Servetus, full of malice, has entitled his book, thus directed against God, and the holy evangelical doctrine, Christianismi Restitutio—that is, the Restoration of Christianity; and that for the better seducing and deceiving the poor ignorants, and for more easily infecting with his unhappy and wretched poison the readers of his said book, under the shade of sound doctrine:
• “Item—and, besides the book above mentioned, assailing our faith also by letters, and taking pains to infect it with his poison, he has voluntarily confessed and acknowledged to have written letters to one of the ministers of this city, in which, among other horrible and enormous blasphemies against our holy evangelical religion, he says our Gospel is without faith, and without God, and that for a god we have a Cerberus with three heads:
• “Item—and yet more, he has voluntarily confessed that at the above named place of Vienne, he was imprisoned on account of that wicked and abominable book and opinions; which prison he treacherously broke, and escaped:
• “Item—and the said Servetus has not only directed his doctrine against the true Christian religion, but like an arrogant introducer of heresies, against the Papistry and others, so that at Vienne he was even burnt in effigy, with five bales of his said books:
• “Item—and notwithstanding of all that, being here detained in the prison of this city, he has not ceased maliciously to persist in his said vile and detestable errors, endeavouring to maintain them with injuries and calumnies against all true Christians, and faithful holders of the pure, immaculate Christian religion, calling them Tritheists, Atheists, Sorcerers, in spite of the remonstrances long ago made to him in Germany, as has been said, and in contempt of reproofs, imprisonments, and corrections given to him elsewhere, as well as here; as is more largely and at length set forth in his trial:

“And we, the Syndics, Judges in causes criminal of this city, having considered the Process prepared and conducted before us, at the instance of our Lieutenant, pursuer in said causes, against thee, M. Servetus of Villeneuve, in the kingdom of Arragon in Spain, by which, and thy voluntary confessions put into our hands, and many times repeated, and thy books produced before us, it is plain and apparent to us that thou, Servetus, hast for a long time put forth false and clearly heretical doctrine; and here, by putting aside all remonstrances and corrections, with a malicious and perverse obstinacy, thou hast sown and promulgated it even to the publishing of printed books against God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in brief, against the true principles of the Christian religion; by that, thou hast endeavoured to cause schism and trouble in the Church of God by which men’s souls might be ruined and destroyed,—a thing horrible and shocking, scandalous and infectious, and hast had no shame nor horror boldly to assail the Divine Majesty and the Holy Trinity, and hast also taken pains and been obstinately employed in infesting the world with thy heresies and offensive heretical poison—cause and crime of grievous and detestable heresy, and meriting severe bodily chastisement. For these and other just reasons us hereto moving, desiring to purge the Church of God of such infection, and to cut off from it such a corrupt member—having well consulted with our fellow-citizens,* and having invoked the name of God to guide to right judgment, sitting on the tribunal in the place of our ancestors—having God, and his Holy Scriptures before our eyes, saying in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by this our definitive sentence, which we give here in writing, we condemn thee, M. Servetus, to be bound, and led to the place of Champel, there to be fastened to a stake, and burned alive, with thy book, as well written by thy hand as printed, even till thy body be reduced to ashes, and thus wilt thou finish thy days, to furnish an example to others who might wish to commit the like.

“And by you, our Lieutenant, we command our present sentence to be put in execution.”

From the book Calvin and Servetus by Rev Tweedie

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"If Calvin had the authority, Servetus would have been beheaded, rather than burned"

It is time that the Calvinists stopped making excuses for this despicable act of John Calvin, and admit that his judgement and heart in this matter is NOT Christ-like in any way, and distance themselves from this event. So, you suppose MURDER by beheading is acceptable to the Lord, but by burning is not? "Thou sall NOT MURDER" is a Command for ANY form of this high crime. Also, stop trying to justify this by Calvin by using other examples from history. It does NOT work with the Lord.

There is nothing to make excuse for brother, John Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva, had little to do with it, except for telling the man to stay away and trying to convert the man to Christianity.

Nevermind that Servetus had escaped imprisionment, nevermind that he was wanted for civil crimes. Nevermind he was a criminal on the run knowing he had nowhere to seek refuge. Oh but Calvin committed the sin of being a "snitch", he ratted out Servetus, but not exactly, Servetus was foolish enough to pursue Calvin like a dog after a bone, he would not leave Calvin alone nor the good citizens of Geneva.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

If Servetus had rendered unto Ceaser, he never would have escaped prison in Vienne. Had he subjected to the authorities in Geneva, he would not have been executed.

1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

I am just waiting for the apologies and big sloppy kisses!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

lol

I missed the humor, Calvin tried to convert him to Christianity through a series of letters and giving him a copy of his Institutes, but Servetus more or less threw it back in his face out of hatred for the doctrine of the Trinity and Christians through heretical writings with intent to lead souls astray from the eternal Son of God. Where is the humor? Protestants should have undergone a similar process with Joseph Smith and the Russelites. What a different world it would be, but men these days care more about bodies than souls.

 

[A_Thinker]

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.

Were the Germans under the Nazis so subject to their leadership ... or should they have been committed to obey God rather than men, as did the apostles ?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

We're the Germans under the Nazis so subject to their leadership ... or should they have been committed to obey God rather than men, as did the apostles ?

non sequitur, comparing the Nazis to the Christian leaders in Geneva, to all the Christians involved in Servetus condemnation....Michael Servetus Patron Saint of all heretics, the Luther of heretics. Personally, I agree with the Catholics in Vienne, I agree with Luther, I agree with the Swiss Reformed cantons, and all the other council including the Libertines which were no fans of Calvin. It wasn't some haphazard hasty decision, many were consulted beforehand, efforts were made to try and convert Servetus, but the heretic would not recant nor be quiet nor stop stirring up discord and strife. Servetus received the sentence of a false prophet.

 

[TuxAme]

John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. The Pope opposed him and him arrested. The Roman Catholics used a Latin Bible and were opposed to common people being able to read the scriptures for fear they might misinterpret them. There was nothing to stop the Roman Catholics from misinterpreting scripture as they killed thousands of people who objected to their claim to be the only acceptable authority on the scriptures.

As our president loves to say so much:

Wrong.

 

[Vicomte13]

Servetus received the sentence of a false prophet.

Do you, therefore, uphold the sentence of Servetus to be burnt to death?

Do you uphold capital punishment for heresy?

Do you uphold capital punishment for witchcraft?

 

[Vicomte13]

I will take the last word.

A Christianity that burns people at the stake for anything, that practices capital punishment for heresy or witchcraft, is a Christianity that has become an active agent of the Devil, is evil, and must be rejected by all people of God until it repents, ceases its crimes, publicly admits that it has committed evil in the name of God, and provides the means by which it will not lapse into such evil in the future.

Unrepentant, murderous Christianity is a worse evil than no religion at all.
Indeed, that is WHY Europe became markedly secular in the Age of Reason that followed the nonsense we are discussing. People rejected THAT. Rightly.

Christian Taliban are Taliban, same as any other. Equally as evil. Serving the same Satan. To be rejected by all good people of whatever faith or lack of faith.

 

[W2L]

I follow no church or teacher. I have been greatly blessed. God gave me His Spirit as my teacher.

 

[Mountainmike]

John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. The Pope opposed him and him arrested. The Roman Catholics used a Latin Bible and were opposed to common people being able to read the scriptures for fear they might misinterpret them. There was nothing to stop the Roman Catholics from misinterpreting scripture as they killed thousands of people who objected to their claim to be the only acceptable authority on the scriptures.

You mean Jesus appointed authority (which is the claim) when he gave the apostolic successors and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which in first century speak MEANS rule with authority on doctrine - which is why the "foundation of truth is the church" and you are told to stay true to "tradition we taught you" which as Iraneus points out is the teaching of succession bishops who preserve and pass on true doctrine and follow the church at Rome . And its a good job they did have authority - exercised in council. Without it you would not have a new testament or creed.

But what has that to do with the thread?

The point I made was that Calvins shocking act needs to be viewed in the context of the time. Tyndale got himself executed by speaking out against Henry 8th morality in his book. A dreadful sign of the times., of which Calvins act was no worse (or better) than similar acts It could never end well - accusing someone who routinely butchered his opponents - And in context of Calvins act, Henry and his daughter murdered english martyr catholics.

And it reflects badly on all involved - the tens of thousands of catholics murdered in england and ireland similar- even worse were the catholic purges in france which led to the building of the sacre couer in reparation. Protestants have a "convenient" memory when it comes to how brutal they were.

 

[W2L]

You mean Jesus appointed authority when he gave the apostolic successors and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which in first century speak means rule with authority on doctrine - which is why the "foundation of truth is the church" and you are told to stay true to "tradition we taught you" which as Iraneus points out is the teaching of succession bishops who follow the chuch at Rome on doctrine.

But what has that to do with the thread?

The point I made was that Calvins shocking act needs to be viewed in the context of the time. Tyndale got himself executed by speaking out against Henry 8th morality in his book. A dreadful sign of the times., of which Calvins act was no worse (or better) than similar acts
It could never end well - accusing someone who routinely butchered his opponents - including the english martyr catholics. It was a dreadfi; sign of the times.

And it reflects badly on all involved - the tens of thousands of catholics murdered in england and ireland similar- even worse were the catholic purges in france which led to the building of the sacre couer in reparation. Protestants have a "convenient" memory when it comes to how brutal they were.

Are the catholics guilty of any such crimes?

 

[Mountainmike]

Are the catholics guilty of any such crimes?

John Paul II apologised for victims of the inquisition and other heinous acts.

I can only point out the obvious: all churches and their hierarchy are made of people. People do wicked things.
It is why our Lord came .