Lead

Jun 16 11 8:13 AM

Tags : :

Scripture and tradition


Protestants critical of the Catholic Church have questioned its reliance on what is referred to as "Sacred Tradition" (of which Sacred Scripture is a subset) by the Church.

Others countered that the notion of "Sacred Tradition" did not mean custom, but that traditio is that which is handed down from God. Catholics believe that the whole "deposit of faith" (including Sacred Scripture) was given by Christ to the Apostles. Sacred Scripture as a subset of Sacred Tradition must be interpreted in the context of the community founded by Christ.

The Catholic notion of traditio refers to what is passed down, and Catholic reliance is based partly on the Catholic

Church pre-dating the New Testament.[4]

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide


Protestants who have questioned the Catholic Church's reliance on tradition cite the doctrines of sola scriptura (Scripture only) and sola fide (faith only). These scholars have held that the position of the Reformers regarding justification was pronounced as anathema by the Catholic Council of Trent in 1547.[5][6] In fact, the Council of Trent did anathematise numerous Protestant doctrines, and these are considered definitive and irrevocable Catholic teachings.

Some opponents of sola scriptura argued that, rather than being a return to essential Christianity, it was actually an heretical innovation.[clarification needed] For example, the "salvation through faith alone vs. faith and works" controversy depends on how one reads the Epistle of James. Catholics hold the Epistle of James as important. Armstrong has argued that, far from straying from the Bible, Catholicism is biblical and he asserted that Catholic Church is the only Church that is in full conformity with what the Bible clearly teaches.[7]


Protestants have responded that the Bible, including the whole context of the Epistle of James, clearly teaches that: "good works are a result of justification, not a cause".[8] Protestant apologists further state that:

 
It would also be correct to say that Catholics teach salvation by works since in Galatians Paul makes it clear that salvation by faith and works is really a form of salvation by works since salvation does not happen without the works...No Protestants that I am aware of say works don't matter. They do say that works do not have a role in obtaining forgiveness.[8]

Apologists elaborate that according to the verses in the Epistle of James, "we are justified/declared righteous by people when they see the good works we do as a result of our faith and they conclude that our faith is sincere."[9] They conclude:
 
[We] strongly teaches good works, but not as a cause of our forgiveness. We do works not to be forgiven, but because we have been forgiven. St. Paul strongly teaches the importance of good works, but he also clearly says that salvation is by faith, not by works. The Catholic church denies this and teaches that salvation is by faith and works.[10]

Religious exclusiveness - Catholic Church as the one true church


Section 8 of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium stated that "the one Church of Christ which in the Nicene Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic" subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him (the term successor of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope; see Petrine theory). Likewise, Mystici Corporis explicitly states "the Catholic Church... is the Church of Christ".

Protestants have rejected the Catholic doctrine that Christ established "only one Church" and that that one Church is the Catholic Church.[11][citation needed] They also rejected the remark by Pope Benedict XVI that only the Catholic Church could be properly be called "the Church".[12] Pope Benedict issued the papal document Dominus Iesus which stated that Protestant denominations are not churches "in the proper sense."[13] Protestants argued that the Pope is wrong, and that they are churches as well.[14]

Although the Catholic Church establishes, believes and teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,[15] it also believes that the Holy Spirit can work through and make use of other Christian communities and that they contain some "elements of sanctification and truth".[16]

In Lumen Gentium, the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is active in the Christian churches and communities separated from itself and is called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity amongst all Christians.[17] However, Confessional Lutheranism believes that the Catholic Church regards dialogue with other churches and religions as part of its evangelizing mission to lead them to acceptance of Papal authority.[18] Catholics would agree, as ecumenism from a Catholic point of view should naturally lead to the unity found in the Catholic Church.

Opposition to teaching on modern ethical grounds

Proselytism

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to a religion. The Catholic Church is criticised, especially by the Russian Orthodox Church of continuing aggressive proselytism, mainly by the Eastern Catholic branches of the Catholic Church.[19][20] The Church maintains that it "has a duty to evangelize; it is also its inalienable right".[21]

 

Interactions with other religious groups

 
Jewish criticism

Some claim that antisemitism is endorsed by the Vatican.[22] In 1998, Pope John Paul II apologized for past actions by Christians that caused suffering to the Jewish people, calling them "our elder brothers" in the faith.[23]

Critics reply that Pope Benedict XVI was a member of Hitler Youth, a paramilitary organization of the German Nazi Party. However, all German youth at that time were forced to join.


There are also concerns about Pope Benedict's endorsement of the Tridentine Mass. Concern by some groups is now focused on the Good Friday liturgy according to the Tridentine missal, which contains a prayer "For the conversion of the Jews". The prayer then refers to Jewish "blindness" and prays for them to be "delivered from their darkness."[24] After protest, the Catholic Church acted by deleting a reference to their "blindness".[25] However, Jewish leaders are still disappointed about the revision.[26]

 
Islam

In 2006 Muslims objected to Pope Benedict XVI quoting the 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II who wrote "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."[27] The Pope emphasized that he was quoting the emperor, and he neither agreed with nor disagreed with the statement.

There was considerable response to the pope's quote.[28] Islamic political and religious leaders expressed their concerns about his speech.[29] There were protests in much of the Islamic world, including Turkey, the West Bank of the Jordan,[30] Indonesia, Iran, and especially from terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda.[31]

Turkey's ruling party likened the pope to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades, while Malaysian PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that "The Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created".[32]

The Pope responded "In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason"[33]

 

Separation of church and state

 

Main articles: Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities and Separation of church and state


Throughout much of the history of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church has exercised many functions in Catholic countries that are more usually associated with government today. Many functions like education, healthcare, and a judicial system covering religious and some social areas were begun and undertaken by the Church. Certain bishops acted as secular rulers in small states in Italy and the Holy Roman Empire, notably the Papal States, although these were always unusual. The full separation of church and state in Catholic Europe and Latin America was a gradual process that took place over time. The church openly opposed the abuses of Spanish and Portuguese authorities over their colonies during the Age of Reason and took steps to operate outside of these authorities in spite of protests from the various monarchs.[34]

The Catholic Church has tried to influence governments to preserve Sunday as a day of worship, to restrict or, as in Ireland, Italy and Latin America, forbid divorce, abortion and euthanasia. It has also pressured governments to restrict or not to promote the use of contraceptives.

Catholic Social Teaching advocates a living wage, proper work hours and fair treatment of workers.[35] Freedom to practice one's religion is one of the basic human rights the Church has been noted in defending especially in Communist countries around the world.[36]

 

Human sexual behavior and reproductive matters


Some criticize[who?] the Church's teaching on sexual and reproductive matters. The Church teaches the practice of chastity. It interprets this to mean that believers should eschew sexual activity outside of marriage, including masturbation, sodomy and homosexual practices,[37] artificial contraception,[38] as well as procuring or assisting in an abortion.[39]

The official Catholic teaching regards sexuality as "naturally ordered to the good of spouses" as well as the generation of children.[40]

Some criticize[who?] the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms (as a strategy to prevent pregnancy and the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STDs) as counterproductive.[41] The Catholic Church has been criticized for its pro-life efforts in all phases of society. The Church's denial of the use of condoms has provoked criticism especially in countries where AIDS and HIV infections are at epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that countries like Kenya where behavioral changes like abstinence are endorsed instead of condom use, are experiencing greater progress towards controlling the disease than those countries just promoting condoms.[42]

 
Opposition to contraception

The Catholic Church maintains its opposition to artificial means of birth control. Some Catholic Church members and non-members criticize this belief as contributing to overpopulation and poverty.[43]

Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the Church's position in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (Human Life). In this encyclical, the Pope acknowledges the realities of modern life, scientific advances, as well as the questions and challenges these raise. Furthermore, he explains that the purpose of intercourse is both "unitive and procreative", that is to say it strengthens the relationship of the husband and wife as well as offering the chance of creating new life. As such, it is a natural and full expression of our humanity. He writes that contraception "contradicts the will of the Author of life [God]. Hence to use this divine gift [sexual intercourse] while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will."[44]

Supporters of birth control argue that economic growth which allows for a high population density without poverty is a direct function of the availability of birth control, as it leads to smaller families (as is the case in all nations which allow birth control), which in turn have more purchasing power to support themselves and provide their children with education, which is universally recognized as necessary for sustainable growth.

The Church counters this argument stating that "Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."[44]

The Church stands by its doctrines on sexual intercourse as defined by the Natural law: intercourse must at once be both the renewal of the consummation of marriage and open to procreation. If each of these postulates are not met, the act of intercourse is, according to Natural Law, an objective mortal sin. Therefore, since artificial contraception expressly prevents the creation of a new life (and, the Church would argue, removes the sovereignty of God over all of Creation), contraception is unacceptable. The Church sees abstinence as the only objective moral strategy for preventing the transmission of HIV.[45][46]

The Church has been criticized for its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, and STDs. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, has stated that Pope Benedict XVI asked his department to study the question of condom use as part of a broad look at several questions of bioethics.[47] However, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, in an interview reported by Catholic News Agency on May 4, 2006, said that the Church "maintains unmodified the teaching on condoms", and added that the Pope had "not ordered any studies about modifying the prohibition on condom use."[48]

 

Criticism of Catholic prayer and worship

 

Sacrifice of the Mass

Amongst the gravest of criticisms made by non-Catholic Christians of the Catholic Church surround those criticizing the central Catholic worship service: "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", also called Holy Communion. For Catholics it is the centre and summit of Catholic worship and the greatest of the seven sacraments of the Church. Protestants almost universally criticize the idea that the Holy Communion as celebrated in Catholic churches has the nature of a sacrifice; that is, Christ becomes wholly and really present under the forms of bread and wine, and He is offered to God by the Catholic priest for the remission of sins, by means of eating the Host (Christ's body) and drinking the Wine (Christ's blood). This doctrine is strongly reflected in that part of the Pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass called the Offertory, where the Priest offers the bread (the Host or "hostia", meaning "victim") with the following prayer: "Receive...almighty and everlasting God, this spotless Host, which I thine unworthy servant now offer unto thee... for my countless sins, wickedness and neglect; and for all those here present, as also for all the faithful in Christ, both the quick and the dead, that it may set forward their salvation and mine, unto life everlasting. Amen."[49] He likewise offers the wine using similar language.

The German Reformer Martin Luther strongly criticizes this belief: "They [Catholics] made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God...Furthermore, they do not regard Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works...This is the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy."[50] The Church of England, in the Book of Common Prayer, Article of Religion #31, uses similarly strong language: "Wherefore the sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."[51]

Catholics maintain that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice that Christ offered "once for all", not a new or separate one, and that when Catholics participate in the celebration of the Mass, they are actually present at it. The Council of Trent says the Mass is the means "whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit" (Session 22, chapter 1).

 

Saints


Catholics have venerated Mary and other saints for supplication, or requested help of some sort. Prayers to the saints have their origin in the earliest centuries of the Catholic Church. Some Protestant Christians argued that in order for Mary and the saints to actually hear all the prayers directed to them, they would by necessity be required to possess the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, thus allowing them to know all the requests made by either ultimate knowledge or by actually being present with each supplicant simultaneously. Many Protestant churches have not traditionally called on the saints or apostles as intermediaries as do Catholics, citing 1 Tim. 2:5[52] to support this view.
Catholics answer that when they have prayed to a saint they have asked the saint to pray to God for them, not to have the saint do something for them personally. For Catholics, belief in the "Communion of Saints" means that death does not separate believers and requesting prayers of a saint is the same as asking any friend. They also say that Christians have historically believed that only material beings occupy time and space. Spirits, saints and angels do not occupy space nor are they subject to linear time.[53] This, they argue, would suggest that angels and saints do not need to be omnipresent or omnipotent to answer prayers. Apart from all time and space, they participate in the life of God in Heaven, through Theosis.

 

Mariology

For the critics of the traditional role of women in Latin America, see: Marianismo.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, asserted "The issue of Mary remains one of the hottest debates on the Protestant/Catholic divide, and new proposals for Marian doctrines are likely to ignite a theological conflagration. It has been suggested by some Protestant writers that the Catholics worship Mary as a goddess."[54] These suggestions continue to be made in recent times.[citation needed] However, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is a created being, not a goddess, and has always taught that adoration (latria) is due to God alone and not to any created being. Mary is only honoured, as she is the Mother of God— not in the sense that she is the mother of pre-existent Divine Nature, but in the sense that she gave birth to Christ, who is God.

 

Use of Latin

 

Before the reforms from Vatican II in the late 1960s the Catholic Church was best-known outside the church for the Tridentine Mass, said mostly in Latin with a few sentences in Ancient Greek and Hebrew.[55]


Since 1970, the Mass has been celebrated in the local language of where it is celebrated and the Mass in Latin has largely fallen into disuse. The vernacular Mass is also known as the Mass of Pope Paul VI, as he was the Pope who promulgated the vernacular missal. A minority of Roman Catholics however prefer the Mass to be celebrated in Latin, generally arguing that the Latin text is more authentic as regards, and truer to scripture and doctrine than the so-called "New Order" Mass.[56] It should be noted that since 1970 the use of the Latin Mass has been severely restricted, and even declared illegal in some dioceses. However, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI loosened some restrictions on its use with the aim of healing the rift that had come about between advocates of the New Order Mass and those of the Tridentine Mass.[57]

However, during the time of the Reformation, Protestants almost totally rejected the use of Latin as "hocus pocus". The 1662 edition of the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer has a specific article (no. 24 of the Articles of Religion) devoted to the topic. It reads concisely and directly, "It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick [sic] Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded [sic] of the people." This is backed by a statement in the section Concerning the Service of the Church which states: "Whereas Saint Paul would have such language spoken to people in the Church, as they might understand, and have profit by hearing the same; the service in this Church of England these many years hath [sic] been read in Latin to the people, which they understand not; so that they have heard with their ears only, and their heart, spirit, and mind, have not been edified thereby."[58]

The French Catholic Church in the 18th century adapted vernacular missals in some dioceses. In 1794 the Synod of Pistoia, firmly influenced by Jansenism, rejected the use of Latin and demanded the use of the vernacular. In the 19th century the "Old Catholic" anti-primacy movements adopted the vernacular liturgy along with other reforms. In 1962 the encyclical Veterum sapientia of Pope John XXIII instructed priests and seminaries to hold to the all-Latin Mass and to promote studying the Latin language. While the Second Vatican Council for the first time allowed the use of the vernacular in the liturgy of the Mass, it also demanded conservation of the use of Latin and stimulated Latin Gregorian chant. The new, 1970 edition of the reformed Roman Missal allowed for a worldwide use of the vernacular in the Eucharist for the first time.

 

Traditionalist Catholics and sedevacantists


Traditionalist Catholics see the Church's recent efforts at reformed teaching and (liturgical) practice (known as "aggiornamento"), in particular the Second Vatican Council, as not benefitting the advancement of the Church. Some groups,[who?] claiming the Church has betrayed the core values of Catholicism, have rejected some of the decisions of the Holy See that they see harmful to the faith. They have in common the firm adherence to the Tridentine Latin Mass that was used, with some changes, for 400 years prior to 1970.

A numerically minor group, the sedevacantists, have characterized the current Pontiffs of the Catholic Church as heretics. This group claims that the current Pope (as well, perhaps, as some of his immediate predecessors) were not legitimate. Sedeprivationists claim the post-conciliar Popes were still materially Popes, but formally non-Catholics due to formal personal and public heresy.[clarification needed]

Another tiny, extreme group of Vatican II opponents, known as conclavists, have appointed papal replacements: see list of conclavist antipopes. These groups were estimated to comprise not more than a few hundred followers worldwide.
On the other hand, some non-Catholic[who?][dubious ] historians have seen a clear continuity of the teachings of the Church throughout the centuries, a "handing over" (traditio) of "living faith" which according to George Weigel "inspires innovative thinking."

 

Criticism of Catholic organization

 

Papal infallibility

In Catholic theology, Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgated, or declared, to the Church solely on faith or morals.

This doctrine has a long history,[citation needed] but was not defined dogmatically until the First Vatican Council of 1870. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility was one of the channels of the Infallibility of the Church. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope was divinely inspired or that he was specially exempt from liability to sin.

The Old Catholic Churches, organized in the Union of Ultrajectine independent Catholic Churches, resisted Papal infallibility along with the First Vatican Council's dogma of Papal primacy of universal jurisdiction.

 

Clerical celibacy


The Catholic Church's requirement of a vow of celibacy from Latin rite priests (while allowing very limited individual exceptions) is criticized for differing from Christian traditions issuing from the Protestant Reformation, which apply no limitations, and even from the practice of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. While requiring celibacy for bishops and priestmonks and excluding marriage by priests after ordination, the latter churches allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood and diaconate. The Latin rite also permits married men to be ordained as deacons. Some[who?] also claim that mandatory priestly celibacy appeared only in the Middle Ages.
Some[who?] have argued that abolishing the rule of celibacy and opening the priesthood to women would update the Church's image as more relevant to modern society, and would help solve the problem of an insufficiency of candidates for priesthood in Western countries.

Many[who?] contend that maintaining the tradition in the modern age is unrealistic. In July 2006, Bishop Emmanuel Milingo created the organization Married Priests Now!.[59] Responding to Milingo's November 2006 consecration of bishops, the Vatican stated "The value of the choice of priestly celibacy... has been reaffirmed."[60]
In the wake of the clergy sexual abuse scandals, some critics[who?] have charged that priestly celibacy was a contributing factor. (see below)

Protestant apologists further argue that clerical celibacy violates the Biblical teaching in the First Epistle to Timothy:[61]

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."[62]

However, the Church's tradition of celibacy traces its beginnings to both Jesus, who encouraged his apostles to be celibate if they were able to do so,[citation needed] and to St. Paul, who wrote of the advantages celibacy allowed a man in serving the Lord.[63] Thus, from the Church's beginnings, clerical celibacy was "held in high esteem" and is considered a kind of spiritual marriage with Christ, a concept further popularized by the early Christian theologian Origen.[64] About 300, the Synod of Elvira called for clerical celibacy . Clerical celibacy began to be enforced in papal decretals beginning with Pope Siricius (d. 399).[64] In 1074, mandatory celibacy of the clergy became canon law as part of Pope Gregory VII's effort to eliminate several forms of medieval church corruption.[65]
Martin Luther responded in his works "On Monastic Vows":


"If you obey the gospel, you ought to regard celibacy as a matter of free choice...They [Jesus and Paul] glory in faith alone. They praise celibacy not because the chaste are more perfect than others because they are chaste, and not because they do not lust contrary to the command, but because they are free from the cares and tribulation of the flesh which Paul attributes to marriage [1 Corinthians 7:32], and may freely and without hindrance dedicate themselves day and night to the word and faith."[66]

Confessional Lutherans, claiming the Bible as the only authority in all matters of Christian doctrine, criticize the tradition of forced celibacy:


"In 1 Corinthians 7 the apostle Paul discusses the matter of the celibate life versus marriage. 'Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion' (verses 8-9)...The Bible says forbidding marriage and commanding people to abstain from certain foods are doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-4)."[67][61]

Generally, Protestantism claims that celibacy is not a scriptural requirement for the ministry.[68]

 

Women's rights

 
For the critics of the traditional role of women in Latin America, see: Marianismo.

 

Ordination of women


The Catholic Church has always excluded women from the ordained clergy, and so excluded from many of the church decisions. Starting in the late twentieth century this was seen by some[who?] (including some Catholics) as unjust discrimination (at a time when feminist and other movements have advocated equal access for women to traditionally male professions).

As a result of feminism and other social and political movements that have removed barriers to the entry of women into professions that were traditionally male strongholds, in the latter quarter of the twentieth century many women in a handful of countries sought ordination into the Catholic priesthood. The Church is convinced that it is not free to change this practice, which the Church traced back to Jesus himself, and has declared the matter closed for discussion.
The Catholic position (as well as that of the Orthodox and, arguably, other ancient churches), is that this has been the clear teaching of the Church since the time of the Apostles. As the Priest is acting 'in persona Christi' (that is, in the Person of Christ) and Christ took the body of a man, the priest must be a man: "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." Paragraph 1577 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognises herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."[69]
On May 22, 1994, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (on Priestly Ordination) which reaffirmed the traditional position, and concluded:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[70]
Within Catholicism itself, debate on the subject now largely focuses on whether this statement is meant to invoke extraordinary papal infallibility and raise the rule that women cannot be Catholic priests to the level of dogma (thus unchangeable) of the Roman Catholic Church.[citation needed] That disagreement as to the status reached to the heart of the Church. However, its infallibility was asserted by the CDF in its Responsum Ad Dubium on October 28, 1995, when they responded to a Bishop's inquiry with the following:
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published."
Critics[who?] accused some of those attached to the Congregation of trying to make the document sound infallible to try to kill debate, in effect spinning a fallible document as infallible. Such an accusation has been made in the past, notably concerning Pope Paul's encyclical, Humanæ Vitæ.[citation needed]

Those criticisms are based on what some Catholics consider to be a faulty understanding of the doctrine of infallibility. Others say that what is missed by those who make these criticisms is that "what has always been taught" is, according to Catholicism, as infallible as a solemn definition that springs from something which the pope declares to be infallible. That which has always been taught by the Church is a part of its Universal Magisterium, which is as infallible as such solemn definitions as that used to define the Assumption of Mary. Even a layperson is considered to be infallible when he would simply repeat what the church has always taught.[citation needed]

 

Criticism of Catholic actions in history


This section, organized chronologically, covers some of the historical actions for which the Western church and the Catholic Church, have been criticised.

 

Persecution of heresy and heretics

Before the twelfth century, the Great Church[71] gradually suppressed what it saw as heresy usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription, excommunication, anathema, and imprisonment. During this time in history, an accusation of heresy could be construed as treason against lawful civil rule, and therefore punishable by death, though this penalty was not frequently imposed, as this form of punishment had many ecclesiastical opponents.[72][73] Later those convicted of heresy were often handed to the state for execution under state laws.

 

Crusades


The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal threats. Crusades were fought against Muslims, pagan Slavs, Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites and political enemies of the popes.[74] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence.[74]
Elements of the Crusades were criticized by some from the time of their inception in 1095. For example, Roger Bacon felt the Crusades were not effective because, "those who survive, together with their children, are more and more embittered against the Christian faith."[75] In spite of some criticism, the movement was still widely supported in Europe long after the fall of Acre in 1291. From that time forward, the Crusades to recover Jerusalem and the Christian East were largely lost. Later, 18th century rationalists judged the Crusaders harshly. As recently as the 1950s, Sir Steven Runciman published a highly critical account of the Crusades which referred to Holy War as "a sin against the Holy Ghost".[75]

Medieval Europe consisted of a hundreds of small states and principalities. Simultaneously, Europe faced encroachment of Muslim military forces from both the East via the Balkins and the West via Spain and North Africa. The Catholic Church, representing all of Western Christendom, encouraged crusades against Islamic controlled territories in Europe and in the Holy Land from 1095 through 1272 after Islam had conquered most of the Byzantian empire, including the Holy Land.

 

Inquisition


The Inquisitions of Medieval Europe were partially born out of the effort to drive Muslims out of Europe, an effort that was ultimately successful but that did not improve relations between these religions. Later popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI have worked for improved relations between these religions by holding ecumenical discussions and trying to find common ground on certain issues.

During the Inquisition, the governments of Spain (and Italy, and sometimes France) prosecuted those Christians who publicly dissented from key doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Believing that the souls of those deemed to be heretics were in danger of being consigned to hell, the authorities used whatever means they considered necessary to bring about a recantation. Although the Church originally condoned these proceedings, they were difficult to regulate, and abuses eventually caused the Pope to call for an end to them. In spite of (relatively rare) instances of torture and wrongful execution, it was still widely considered in Europe to be the fairest (and most merciful) judicial system in Europe at that time, as evidenced by records of people blaspheming in secular courts intentionally for them to be brought before the Inquisition for a more just and fair trial.[76][77][78]

 

Anti-semitism in medieval Europe


In the Middle Ages, religion played a major role in driving antisemitism. Though not part of Catholic dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, have held the Jewish people collectively responsible for killing Jesus, a belief originated by Melito of Sardis.

As stated in the Boston College Guide to Passion Plays, "Over the course of time, Christians began to accept... that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus’ death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God-killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America."[79]

The Fourth Council of the Lateran, summoned by Pope Innocent III with his papal bull of 19 April 1213, approved ‘Canon 68’. It required Jews and Muslims to wear special dress or badges to enable them to be distinguished from Christians, ideas borrowed from Muslim countries. They were also forbidden to hold any public offices.

 

Reformation


The Protestant Reformation (16th century in Europe) came about in no small part due to abuses of church practices by corrupt clergy in addition to these same theological disputes.[3]

Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church had a uniquely powerful position in the political order of medieval western Europe; its clergymen occupied a privileged location in the social class structure; and, theologically, it claimed to be the only legitimate Christian Church. Because Protestantism emerged from within the Catholic Church, and began as a protest (hence the name ‘protest-ant’) against Catholic worldly practice and religious doctrine, the Papacy and Catholic rulers felt compelled to deal with Protestantism as a dangerous, destabilising influence in politics and society, as well as characterising
Protestants as heretical and schismatic.[citation needed]

Main article: European wars of religion

Within a few decades after the Reformation, governments in most of Europe sought to impose a particular religion, whether Catholicism or a variety of Protestantism, on all the population they ruled. Apart from outright war, members of the "wrong" church were often persecuted or driven into exile. In Catholic countries, the Spanish Inquisition and the Council of Troubles in the Habsburg Netherlands were among the bodies pursuing persecution by judicial means. In France, the French Wars of Religion included numerous massacres, most notoriously the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572. After a long peace following the Edict of Nantes in 1598, Louis XIV reopened the issue in the late 17th century, and the persecution known as the Dragonnades was followed in 1685 by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the expulsion of all French Protestants. Religious refugees from both sides were common in many parts of Europe. The Vatican long remained opposed to the limited religious toleration that gradually became accepted in many parts of Europe.

With the consolidation of Protestantism, the extirpation of 'heretics' became a much broader and more complex enterprise, complicated by the politics of territorial Protestant powers, especially in northern Europe. Persecution of Protestant groups ended only as Europe's rulers tired of fighting each other, despite the objections of the Pope, especially with at the end of the Thirty Years' War.

 

Russia and Eastern Europe


After the end of communism in Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced a resurgence. The recent expansion of the Catholic population in Russia strained the Catholic-Russian Orthodox relationship. Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow has demanded that the Vatican curb "proselytism" by Catholic clerics in Russia and eastern Europe.[80] Catholic officials have replied that their efforts in Russia were not aimed at Orthodox believers, but were reaching out to the vast majority of Russians who are not churchgoers.[80]

According to a Catholic Church CDF document called "Doctrinal Note on some aspects of evangelization", the Church does not see that as proselytism but rather as evangelism, although it's converting Orthodox Christians (at least nominally) to Catholicism.[81]

 

Sexual abuse controversy


In 2002, allegations of priests sexually abusing children were widely reported in the news media. It became clear that the officials of various Catholic dioceses were aware of some of the abusive priests, and shuffled them from parish to parish (sometimes after psychotherapy), in some cases without removing them from contact with children. A survey of the 10 largest U.S. dioceses found 234 priests from a total 25,616 in those dioceses, have had allegations of sexual abuse made against them in the last 50 years. The report does not state how many of these have been proven in court.[82]

Some of these reassignments were egregious, the worst leading to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law from the Boston archdiocese. Victims of such abuse filed lawsuits against a number of dioceses, resulting in multi-million dollar settlements in some cases. Similar allegations of abuse in Ireland led to the publication of the Ferns report in 2005, which stated that appropriate action was not taken in response to the allegations.

In response, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops initiated strict new guidelines for the protection of children and youth in Catholic institutions across the country. The Vatican revisited the issue of homosexuality and a gay subculture within the clergy, because the vast majority of the cases consisted of homosexual men preying on adolescents (over 90% of the sexual abuse victims were teenage boys rather than girls or prepubescents).[83]
 
 
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church


Quasar