Who Was The Worst Pope??.......

[Martinius]

So, again, why did folks stay in the RC church? Please answer the question, rather than attack me, or just simply say you don't have an answer.

They don't all stay. Many have left, some have stopped going to church, some have stopped contributing to the church. Others stay with their parish, their faith community, but have distanced themselves from the hierarchy who have so often failed them. Yet others remain. It is a complex issue. My thought and observation is that for many Catholics their "church" is beyond the visible, beyond buildings and bishops. Their faith is directed toward God through Christ. All the corruption and evil they see in the earthly organization is not really representative of the true church, which exists in a realm beyond brick and mortar, beyond flesh and blood.

The Catholic Church does not permit pedophile priests in its midst. It does not support pedophilia.

The second statement is true, the Church does not "support" pedophilia or abusive priests. But unfortunately, for too long the Church has permitted abusive priests to continue in its midst. That has been too well documented to be denied, and is the biggest issue surrounding this ongoing problem (ongoing in the sense that the Church has yet to fully admit to all of their sins in this matter and take systematic action to correct and prevent them).

It's sad when a minister takes advantage of their position but the percentage in the Catholic Church are not really any higher then they are among Protestant ministers. It's a human problem in general and isn't something unique to the Catholic Church.

The problem of the abuse of authority and power in taking advantage of others is not unique to any church or culture (that I am aware of). But I don't think that first statement is supportable. Even if the percentage of abusers in the various churches is the same (I think the data shows somewhat higher percentages for Catholics) there are other factors. In Protestant churches, from the reports I have read, most of the reported instances of abuse are with vulnerable adults, usually female. When abuse becomes known, the minister or other church worker involved is quickly removed. The abusers are not pawned off on another church. When criminal abuse occurs (such as with minors), it is usually reported to the police.

We know that the coverup of abuse in the Catholic church is systemic, something that is just not possible with most Protestant faiths, since authority and decision making is usually held locally. We also know that many abusers were simply moved to other parishes, or other dioceses. We also know that the bishops and others in charge did not usually report criminal abuse to civil authorities; they handled it "internally". We also know that little credence and respect was given to the victims and their families; the documentation shows that often the victims (or their parents) were made to feel guilty for accusing "good old Fr. Smith" of such behavior.

The result of all this is to "allow" the perpetrator the opportunity to continue their abuse, so that even if the percentage of abusers was similar, the number of incidents per abuser would logically be much higher in the Catholic church. The great ongoing questions have been: "Why did the Church not stop the abuse and the abusers when they knew about it?"
"Why did the Church protect the priests but not the victims (and even worse, the future victims that never had to become victims)?" That is the very great sin of the Catholic hierarchy.

This is getting far afield from the original question. But the more recent question is a good one. It would be interesting to read more than just defensive responses and excuses, but personal responses to the question of "Why do you remain?" My question would be somewhat different: "Why don't you demand real and constructive change?"

 

[Standing Up]

You're the one stating that which is not true. You claimed the Catholic Church harbors and supports pedophiles. That is not true. Certain people within the Church harbored pedophile priests, although their reason in doing so was either to protect the reputation of the Church or because they thought the pedophile was cured.

It's not like they were doing it as some sort of human sex trafficking conspiracy. That's what you are heavily implying/saying directly in your statements. The sex scandal is obviously not good, but to claim that the Catholic Church, as a whole, somehow officially or unofficially "supported" it is libelous.

No, not saying or implying that at all. I'm simply wondering why folks stay with the Roman Catholic Church given what they know about the issue. For example, if the place I attended had a pedophile priest, we'd turn him over to the police; we'd cast him out, as Paul had commanded. If, however, the people in church didn't do that, I would leave that group and report it to the police, shaking the dust from the feet.

Maybe that's another answer is that some feel the church has its own standards, its own police force, and so don't want to involve the civil authorities.

So, as the poster above pointed out, many have left. Others have said they stay because everywhere else is corrupt too. Maybe some stay not wanting to involve the police. Any other reasons?

PS As to the OP, I'd say Sixtus I or Callistus. Just to be clear, however, we're all sinners. Some are called to feed the sheep, however, and their standard is higher. A bishop must be ... Not all are teachers ...

 

[LinuxUser]

Yet others remain. It is a complex issue. My thought and observation is that for many Catholics their "church" is beyond the visible, beyond buildings and bishops. Their faith is directed toward God through Christ. All the corruption and evil they see in the earthly organization is not really representative of the true church, which exists in a realm beyond brick and mortar, beyond flesh and blood.

This is your answer standing.

 

[garysibio]

Standing Up is probably best handled by putting him on your ignore list. Deprive him of an audience.

 

[Martinius]

Standing Up is probably best handled by putting him on your ignore list. Deprive him of an audience.

That sounds too much like what many bishops did over the past four decades. They have since learned that trying to ignore an issue just makes it that much worse later (at least we hope they have learned that lesson). Standing Up has asked a legitimate question in a straightforward manner, one that many Catholics have likely asked each other and themselves. His comments have been no more outrageous or extreme than what I have heard from several Catholics and other commentators. This situation has touched a very raw nerve in many people.

Getting back to his question, in addition to my previous response as to why people stay in the Church, I think if one were to ask most Catholics that question they would say:

"This is our church, our faith; there is no other place we can go."

 

[garysibio]

That sounds too much like what many bishops did over the past four decades. They have since learned that trying to ignore an issue just makes it that much worse later (at least we hope they have learned that lesson). Standing Up has asked a legitimate question in a straightforward manner, one that many Catholics have likely asked each other and themselves. His comments have been no more outrageous or extreme than what I have heard from several Catholics and other commentators. This situation has touched a very raw nerve in many people.

Getting back to his question, in addition to my previous response as to why people stay in the Church, I think if one were to ask most Catholics that question they would say:

"This is our church, our faith; there is no other place we can go."

You can only go so far when someone is unwilling to listen. Standing Up has proven himself, as far as I am concerned, to have an anti-Catholic agenda. That's fine if you combine that with a willingness to listen to the responses you get. He is not looking to discuss; he thinks he is going to prove to us that we all belong to the harlot of Babylon. Frankly, I just don't have the time to waste on people like that. I'd rather spend my time talking to someone who, even if they don't end up agreeing with me, at least gives me the impression they listened to what I said.

 

[Rick Otto]

*eyes rolling* Somebody's been reading too much Jack Chick.

You can never read enough Jack Chick! lol

 

[Rick Otto]

The Catholic Church does not permit pedophile priests in its midst. It does not support pedophilia.

Drop the bigotry and come up with a real argument.

Face the real facts.

Standing Up has proven himself, as far as I am concerned, to have an anti-Catholic agenda.

It shouldn't be a problem or make any difference, least of all to RCs, after all, Roman Catholicism is itself "Anti-Protestant" as it has proven over centuries.
Of course He's anti-Catholic or he would BE catholic. We are to discuss exactly that, not shut discussion down with shrill accusations of a person being "anti-me".

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While there were popes who had kids with various women, sexually deviant behavior, politically idiotic moves, turning a blind eye to suffering and immorality, and politically unsavvy popes, my vote is for Honorius, the monothelite pope....the one pope that definitely pokes a thousand holes in the notion of papal infallibility....

 

[Standing Up]

While there were popes who had kids with various women, sexually deviant behavior, politically idiotic moves, turning a blind eye to suffering and immorality, and politically unsavvy popes, my vote is for Honorius, the monothelite pope....the one pope that definitely pokes a thousand holes in the notion of papal infallibility....

He would be the worst pope, how? Oh, worst from a Roman Catholic POV.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Interview the children who were molested and then come back here with this non-sense you speak of.

Emotional rhetoric does not change reality, and using an appeal to emotion about a current situation to discard historical facts is fallacious and poor scholarship.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Do you think you are wise? Do you think you are intelligent?

You are blinded and I feel sorry for you, I pray that God opens your eyes.

Ah, right. "Everyone who disagrees with me is blind." That's even worse than discarding history because of the actions of people in the present.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

No, that isn't how argumentation works. You have to actually prove your claims first.

If Rome had to prove its foundation claim,(Petrine ), we wouldn't be discussing the matter!

 

[garysibio]

While there were popes who had kids with various women, sexually deviant behavior, politically idiotic moves, turning a blind eye to suffering and immorality, and politically unsavvy popes, my vote is for Honorius, the monothelite pope....the one pope that definitely pokes a thousand holes in the notion of papal infallibility....

Only if you don't understand papal infallibility. Honorius was wrong but he never established his error as a belief binding on all (Catholic) believers. Therefore he wasn't making an infallible declaration.

I really don't have a problem with people disagreeing with what the church teaches but, before one goes about trying to prove error on the part of the Catholic Church, it would be very nice if they had a clue about what the it teaches. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[garysibio]

If Rome had to prove its foundation claim,(Petrine ), we wouldn't be discussing the matter!

What would you consider sufficient evidence?

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by godisthebestever

Do you think you are wise? Do you think you are intelligent?

You are blinded and I feel sorry for you, I pray that God opens your eyes.
​

Ah, right. "Everyone who disagrees with me is blind." That's even worse than discarding history because of the actions of people in the present.

Dude, if that avatar is a picture of you, opening your eyes may make things worse.

 

[Rick Otto]

Only if you don't understand papal infallibility. Honorius was wrong but he never established his error as a belief binding on all (Catholic) believers. Therefore he wasn't making an infallible declaration.

I really don't have a problem with people disagreeing with what the church teaches but, before one goes about trying to prove error on the part of the Catholic Church, it would be very nice if they had a clue about what the it teaches. Is that really too much to ask?

Yes, ultimately it is, because it seems too much to ask of even the majority of its own congregation. That and the huge difference between what it claims it officialy teaches & what it teaches unofficialy & by example being too large for people to get their heads around.
If you don't understand that difference, there isn't much practical difference between truth & error either.

 

[garysibio]

Yes, ultimately it is, because it seems too much to ask of even the majority of its own congregation. That and the huge difference between what it claims it officialy teaches & what it teaches unofficialy & by example being too large for people to get their heads around.
If you don't understand that difference, there isn't much practical difference between truth & error either.

Nonsense. The fact that some people - even a majority - get it wrong does not alter the Church's teachings. I used to be an Evangelical Christian. I went to a church that was part of the Baptist General Conference, a denomination almost identical in belief to the Evangelical Free Church. At one of the annual meetings of the denomination, they released the results of a survey that showed that 75% of the members polled believed in universalism, that eventually everyone would end up in Heaven. This was false doctrine according to the BGC and I would never have claimed that it was that church's teaching. In the RCC you don't have to worry about someone getting the official teachings wrong. They are all well-documented.

 

[Doxology]

Personally I think it has to be either Alexander VI or Benedict IX, Benedict 9th was such a simoniac that he was Pope 3 times buying and selling the papacy as it pleased him it goes without saying that in other areas as well he was a man of loose morals.

In regards to what that website has written about Boniface VIII who while unpopular with people like me who have lost faith in an authoritarian papacy(which tyope of papacy he certainly embodied) nevertheless probably was not morally as bad as your list says he was .... for example he proably did not kill his predecessor the hermit Pope st. Celestine V though he may have encouraged his resignation ... Boniface VII has been greatly slandered throughout history oweing to the efforts of his enemy Philip IV the King of France with whom he quarreled.

 

[Standing Up]

Only if you don't understand papal infallibility. Honorius was wrong but he never established his error as a belief binding on all (Catholic) believers. Therefore he wasn't making an infallible declaration.

I really don't have a problem with people disagreeing with what the church teaches but, before one goes about trying to prove error on the part of the Catholic Church, it would be very nice if they had a clue about what the it teaches. Is that really too much to ask?

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library