With All Due Respect
It has been asked why I have the attitude I do toward the Papacy. I could go on and on and on in response, but I could also shorten it down and just give you a couple of goodies as an answer. Let me introduce you to a few of the respect-worthy holders of the papal throne.
John XII, seated on Peter's throne from 955 to 964 was the issue of an incestuous union between Pope Sergio III and his 13-year-old daughter. When little Johnny grew up, he felt the need for a mistress himself. Whom did he select for the honour? His own mother.
In 1095 Pope Urban II exhorted the Franks to butcher their way through the Muslim world, beginning five centuries of warfare, that may well be part of today's "inexplicable" hatred for the western world expressed by the militants of Islam.
In 1209 Pope INNOCENT III (irreverent emphasis my own) launched the Albigensian Crusade against the Christian Cathars of southern France. Thousands were murdered.
In 1231 Pope Gregory IX gave the Inquisition authority to "deal with" heretics. Thousands more are murdered by the hands of the Papacy. Blood may never have dripped directly from the beringed hands of the pontiff, but those hands were still stained a horrible red.
In 1415 Pope Gregory XII had John Huss, a vocal critic of papal corruption burned at the stake. Although the pope had guaranteed Huss his personal safety, he is quoted as saying, "When dealing with heretics, one is not obligated to keep his word." Now there's a way to make everyone feel safe. Let them know all they have to do is incur papal displeasure and they could end up toasting to a nice crisp. What a great way to guarantee acceptance of everything the papal office does.
In 1415, Pope John XXIII was deposed. That's right, he was kicked out of office. I wonder how many catholics know about this one. Amid accusations of even worse charges having been covered up, he was deposed on charges of piracy, murder, rape sodomy and incest. Now there's a man to look to for spiritual guidance.
In case anyone has stuck with this delightful litany and is readying themselves to protest that all my examples are from days long gone by, let's look a little closer to today.
In 1864, on the 8th of December, Pius IX issued his encyclical "Quanta Cura" and its accompanying "Syllabus of Errors" in which he condemned any and all attempts people might make to think on their own. He reaffirmed his predecessor's declaration that the idea of freedom of thought was "an insanity" and declared that any who preached freedom of thought and of speech were actually promulgating "liberty of perdition". It's a really backward declaration of intent to control public thought and forbid modernity. Some catholics squirm sufficiently at mention of Pius' blathering to try lessening its impact by saying papal infallibility had not yet been declared. Come on, folks. Shit or get off the pot. Do you accept papal authority or not. Do you really just want to reserve for yourself the chance to declare it acceptable only when it's not too embarrassing?
Moving right along, we can turn next to Pius X who issued "Lamentabili" and the encyclical "Pascendi" in 1907, in which he condemned modernism. This time he was speaking from a declared (Vatican council in 1870) position of infallibility. What to do with this one, eh?
On to the 20th century where we meet poor Pius XII, who occupied the seat of Peter from 1939 to 1958. What could this poor soul do to live up to the standards set by his predecessors? What was left that hadn't already been done, and with great style? Well, never one to be defeated by a challenge, pious Pius undertook the actions necessary to gain himself the nickname, "Hitler's Pope". That's right, folks, Pius is the one who made the decision NOT to excommunicate the roman catholic Hitler. Just because he was responsible for the death of millions? Let's not get judgemental here. Maybe Pius felt the papacy had already picked on Germans enough. After all, Martin Luther had been excommunicated for translating the bible into German, so that the faithful could read the words of salvation in their vernacular. How much worse than that could you possibly get? Obviously, Pius regarded Luther as being worse than Hitler.
John Paul, who pattered his little scarlet-slipper-encased feet about the Vatican from 1978 to 2005, has gone a long way to upholding the tradition established by his predecessors of putting the welfare of the lowest of his flock above even his own comfort. Wrapped in his ermine-trimmed, jewel-encrusted robes, he has declared, for instance, that anyone who uses a condom is sinning against mother church and god himself. Never mind that it could mean the difference between life and death, in more ways than one. For those who dwell in the abject poverty of the third world, the use of a condom could mean escaping the scourge of AIDS. It could mean a mother still alive to look after her children instead of little ones orphaned and thrown onto the mercy of a world for the most part cold and uncaring. It could mean one less hungry little mouth starving for food that the family is too poor to provide. I could go on more and more about this idiot, but let me stop here.
Of course, there have been men of decency who sat the throne of the vatican, but they have been too few and too far between. There have, however, been no shortage of animals who sat there, beasts in the guise of men who have demeaned the office beyond repair. Even today, the current Pope continues the tradition, sporting finery and eating meals created by personal chefs while so many of his flock starve out in the cold, cruel world. Perhaps they will feel better knowing that at least the holy father is well fed.
I should respect the office of the Holy See? Why?
John XII, seated on Peter's throne from 955 to 964 was the issue of an incestuous union between Pope Sergio III and his 13-year-old daughter. When little Johnny grew up, he felt the need for a mistress himself. Whom did he select for the honour? His own mother.
In 1095 Pope Urban II exhorted the Franks to butcher their way through the Muslim world, beginning five centuries of warfare, that may well be part of today's "inexplicable" hatred for the western world expressed by the militants of Islam.
In 1209 Pope INNOCENT III (irreverent emphasis my own) launched the Albigensian Crusade against the Christian Cathars of southern France. Thousands were murdered.
In 1231 Pope Gregory IX gave the Inquisition authority to "deal with" heretics. Thousands more are murdered by the hands of the Papacy. Blood may never have dripped directly from the beringed hands of the pontiff, but those hands were still stained a horrible red.
In 1415 Pope Gregory XII had John Huss, a vocal critic of papal corruption burned at the stake. Although the pope had guaranteed Huss his personal safety, he is quoted as saying, "When dealing with heretics, one is not obligated to keep his word." Now there's a way to make everyone feel safe. Let them know all they have to do is incur papal displeasure and they could end up toasting to a nice crisp. What a great way to guarantee acceptance of everything the papal office does.
In 1415, Pope John XXIII was deposed. That's right, he was kicked out of office. I wonder how many catholics know about this one. Amid accusations of even worse charges having been covered up, he was deposed on charges of piracy, murder, rape sodomy and incest. Now there's a man to look to for spiritual guidance.
In case anyone has stuck with this delightful litany and is readying themselves to protest that all my examples are from days long gone by, let's look a little closer to today.
In 1864, on the 8th of December, Pius IX issued his encyclical "Quanta Cura" and its accompanying "Syllabus of Errors" in which he condemned any and all attempts people might make to think on their own. He reaffirmed his predecessor's declaration that the idea of freedom of thought was "an insanity" and declared that any who preached freedom of thought and of speech were actually promulgating "liberty of perdition". It's a really backward declaration of intent to control public thought and forbid modernity. Some catholics squirm sufficiently at mention of Pius' blathering to try lessening its impact by saying papal infallibility had not yet been declared. Come on, folks. Shit or get off the pot. Do you accept papal authority or not. Do you really just want to reserve for yourself the chance to declare it acceptable only when it's not too embarrassing?
Moving right along, we can turn next to Pius X who issued "Lamentabili" and the encyclical "Pascendi" in 1907, in which he condemned modernism. This time he was speaking from a declared (Vatican council in 1870) position of infallibility. What to do with this one, eh?
On to the 20th century where we meet poor Pius XII, who occupied the seat of Peter from 1939 to 1958. What could this poor soul do to live up to the standards set by his predecessors? What was left that hadn't already been done, and with great style? Well, never one to be defeated by a challenge, pious Pius undertook the actions necessary to gain himself the nickname, "Hitler's Pope". That's right, folks, Pius is the one who made the decision NOT to excommunicate the roman catholic Hitler. Just because he was responsible for the death of millions? Let's not get judgemental here. Maybe Pius felt the papacy had already picked on Germans enough. After all, Martin Luther had been excommunicated for translating the bible into German, so that the faithful could read the words of salvation in their vernacular. How much worse than that could you possibly get? Obviously, Pius regarded Luther as being worse than Hitler.
John Paul, who pattered his little scarlet-slipper-encased feet about the Vatican from 1978 to 2005, has gone a long way to upholding the tradition established by his predecessors of putting the welfare of the lowest of his flock above even his own comfort. Wrapped in his ermine-trimmed, jewel-encrusted robes, he has declared, for instance, that anyone who uses a condom is sinning against mother church and god himself. Never mind that it could mean the difference between life and death, in more ways than one. For those who dwell in the abject poverty of the third world, the use of a condom could mean escaping the scourge of AIDS. It could mean a mother still alive to look after her children instead of little ones orphaned and thrown onto the mercy of a world for the most part cold and uncaring. It could mean one less hungry little mouth starving for food that the family is too poor to provide. I could go on more and more about this idiot, but let me stop here.
Of course, there have been men of decency who sat the throne of the vatican, but they have been too few and too far between. There have, however, been no shortage of animals who sat there, beasts in the guise of men who have demeaned the office beyond repair. Even today, the current Pope continues the tradition, sporting finery and eating meals created by personal chefs while so many of his flock starve out in the cold, cruel world. Perhaps they will feel better knowing that at least the holy father is well fed.
I should respect the office of the Holy See? Why?
4 Comments:
More! More!
Right now, I imagine the secret societies of what remains of the knights templar are reforming with a mission to go out into the world and find you!
I enjoyed your post. The church (all of them for that matter -- but especially for the catholic church, as they dominate the world) has for too long gotten away with, literally, murder. If Jesus could see what is being done in his name, I don't think he would weep. I think he would rain down fire and brimstone -- with pinpoint accuracy. The church is nothing more than a vehicle for the few to control the masses. Power doesn't corrupt. The corrupt simply achieve power -- and once there, they wield it deftly, and only to their advantage. The church is worse than a wolf in sheep's clothing. The church is evil.
I think all organized religion is evil.
Is the church evil? More evil than government, business, capitalism, the USA?
Did it ever do any good?
Yup. The church is evil. More evil than the government -- no necessarily more evil than business. The chuch = business. Capitalism is not evil. USA is not evil. The church has only done good when it was to their material gain. The church is accountable to no one -- and certainly not to god -- just maybe some men who wear funny hats.
Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that people of the church are evil. There is a distinction. Just like not all employees of businesses are evil. The organization however ... oh, it's all about power, control and itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home