With the establishment of a canon, selection of Church literature was no longer a question so here our emphasis shifts from the “Holy Scriptures,” to how the custodians of that material used those Scriptures. Just as the teachings of Christianity influenced the early writers, the philosophy and theological concepts of the compilers affected the final choice of canonical material. For that reason, we should look into the character of those who gave us the New Testament, and consider the fruit they brought forth.

Catholicism makes some strong assertions. They claim to speak the infallible word of their God. They say they're the light to the world, the only fortress against evil, and claim the divine right to judge man. As an individual, one is left with only one option: to decide for or against such assertions. To aid in this decision, we might use one of Catholicism’s own yardsticks, quoted from their own Master:

 

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits… A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruits (Matthew 7:15-17).

 

Throughout the New Testament we are taught that those “good fruits” include righteousness, love, compassion, and life. In contrast, the fruits of evil would be wickedness, hatred, indifference, and death. Therefore, if we look at the Church’s works, we should find a society that is growing both morally and spiritually. An infallible Church, led by an omnipotent and omniscient God, should be able to abolish wickedness and lawlessness, and produce an abundance of good fruit. Is that not so? Life and prosperity should blossom throughout the land! However, perhaps we reach too high; can we settle for simply a better social order? We will give a brief description of the conditions that existed during the reign of Catholicism, and then let the Church present its own testimony.

At about the same time when various councils were coming to an agreement on the canonization of the New Testament, the Western Roman Empire was being overrun by the Huns, Visigoths, and Vandals. There is no definite date for when Rome fell. Apparently it was a gradual disintegration, hastened by invading hordes. The city of Rome was taken in 410 AD by Alaric the Visigoth, and again in 476 by Odacer the Hun—at which time, the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed. The reasons for Rome's fall are still debated, but the results are history. All of Western Europe plunged into the Dark Ages. Many reasons are given including decadence, economics, invasion, and many accuse Christianity. Most likely all of these causes were responsible, but the question we must ask is: “Could the Church have done more to prevent or alleviate the devastation?”

For the answer we must first set the scene and consider the Church’s goals and values. Only then will we be able to judge her actions.

A hundred years after their subjugation, the descendents of the persecuted pagans, who, under Roman Christianity had been forced to a nominal conversion, would have been fully converted Christians. Catholicism was able to institute its values: social, economic, personal and religious lifestyles would have been subject to Church doctrines.

In short, if you didn’t conform and believe the Church’s dictates, life could be very unpleasant—one might even find it hard to survive. Literature considered offensive or contradictory to the Church was forbidden and destroyed once discovered. Education was restricted, as it was deemed beneficial that the masses remain ignorant. All earthly, meaning wicked, human emotions were to be suppressed. All literal, worldly values were to be sacrificed to the spiritual. All expression of free thought brought swift reprisals by the Church. Everything non-Catholic was destroyed and the Church ruled supreme. Following the barbarians’ repeated invasions of their country and the sack of Rome, many of those thinly veneered pagans began to blame the Christian God.

As Western Europe was being ravaged by barbarians during the fifth century, the Eastern Church, or Byzantine Empire, was still experiencing a glorious, but dying, prosperity. Though the Roman Pope still maintained the authority of Peter, Constantinople elected its own patriarchal leaders who contested that authority. When Justinian became Emperor of the Byzantine Empire in 527 AD, the nation experienced resurgence in art, literature, architecture, and the codification of Roman law. But it was short lived. In 542 the bubonic plague swept throughout the empire. In Constantinople alone, over 10,000 people were dying each day. Then, in 558 AD, the second round of the pandemic struck. It is estimated that the plague claimed over one hundred million lives. Entire cities were depopulated and the birth rates were depressed for generations.¹ Although the Byzantine Empire would continue to exist, and at times even thrive well into the fifteenth century, it would not do so as the Roman Empire.

While the plagues devastated the East, it was a “Godsend” to the Western Church which was able to convince the superstitious and gullible populace that the plagues were God’s wrath, poured out upon the East for not obeying the authority of the Pope.² The fearful people rushed madly to the Church.

Under these conditions the Church exhibited either total callousness or ignorance. With the empire leaderless and in ruins, famine rampant, and the plague spreading across the land, how did the Church confront the situation? It declared Justinian a heretic, and condemned Greek and Roman medicine as heresy. While the plague ensured the downfall of the Roman Empire, it strengthened the Roman Church.

According to the Church, sex was associated with sin. Man was born in sin and could only be redeemed by the blood of Christ. To merit the precious sacrifice offered for that sin, man was taught to detest himself and his body. The Church taught there was a spirit within man that left him helpless and unable to resist sin.³ The only escape was through mortification of the flesh by starvation diets, self-flagellation, asceticism, abstinence, and avoiding all care of the body—including bathing. The magnificent Roman bath houses and toilets disappeared and disease became common as hygiene and sanitary conditions worsened. Epidemics were common throughout Europe for hundreds of years. This was the grim picture of Christendom as darkness covered the land.

When we question the works of Catholicism we must look to their leaders, because the common man was nothing more than an uneducated dupe. All knowledge and power lay with the clergy; they were the heart and conscience of the people. When we listen to the claims of Catholicism, we find one basic reason for their existence—to promote the Word of God. We also find one main reason given for that work; that man might be saved. These two goals necessitated, as a third goal, the furtherance of the Church. However, when we read their writings, especially the Catholic Encyclopedia, we find two basic trends, or modes of operation, that belie their stated intentions. First and foremost, we find a hierarchy dedicated to the obtainment of power and wealth. Secondly, we find designed efforts to suppress and control the people.

Throughout Catholic history, we find incidents of good works, in which churches and monasteries cared for the physical and spiritual needs of their parishioners. We find them managing social structures that provided daily, life-sustaining substances: giving to the poor, aiding the homeless and tending for the needs of their parishes in times of famines. And today, Catholic hospitals and universities are ranked among the best in the world. But the price for that aid was astronomical. As it rose to power, the Church passed laws that punished dissenters, exiled resisters and even justified the murder of the unrepentant. The Church denied education and aid to the common man while exacting taxation. It prospered and grew rich and powerful, while the people remained ignorant and poor. To justify such suppressive actions, it declared all outside the Church were outlaws, a menace to Christ’s work, and, enemies of the Church. At this point we must ask ourselves: “Did the educated and intellectual leaders, the popes and bishops, really believe what they were espousing?” And we must answer that in most cases, yes, they did. They were blinded by the noble platitudes that excused their wickedness. But when we find centuries of greed, moral corruption, simony, murder, wars and slaughter we cannot help but believe that many in high leadership positions were aware of the fraud perpetrated upon mankind. When we find their total lack of fear for the hell with which they terrorized the populace, we must assume many did not believe their own gospel.

 

Christianity’s Confrontation with Paganism

 

One of the most obvious facts we find concerning the Church is that the original teachings attributed to Jesus, such as “Blessed are the meek,” “love thy neighbor” and “Blessed are the peacemaker,” were cast aside in favor of the Old Testament Law of retribution. This attitude had a direct impact on the character and growth of the Church.

As I stated in the last chapter, the pre-Nicene Christians detested violence and were moved by an overwhelming sense of love.  However, Christian moral ethics are authoritarian in nature, and where there is authority there are rules and sanctions. In this case, the rules are the commandments of God; the sanctions, the loss of heaven and the torments of hell. For the Christian, rational right and wrong is often obscured by the perceived will of God, so when the pacifist teachings of the early Christians were unable to control the heretical and blasphemous doctrines of dissentients, the Church turned to the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Septuagint, as final authority. In that final authority, the Lord God issued some very explicit and harsh commandments which leave no doubt that He condoned the murder of those who opposed his will. For example:

 

They shall keep their priesthood, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death (Numbers 3:10). The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest. ... even that man shall die (Deuteronomy 17:12).

 

Here was explicit authority from God for the Pope, bishops, or priests to kill any and all dissenters. It was a jealous God that decreed:

 

 He that sacrificeth to any other god save unto Yahweh alone, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 17:2-5). If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go serve other gods, ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; (Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-10; 17:2-7).

 

It was Elijah who murdered, by his God's help, 450 prophets of Baal and 400 priests of Ashtoreth—850 murders to prove the power of Yahweh (I Kings, 18:19). It was Elisha who stood by and watched God-sent bears, which he had invoked, attack 42 small children who had ill-manneredly ridiculed his bald head (II Kings 2:23-24). Throughout the Old Testament, some hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by God outright, and by his priestly agents, simply because they did not know the Hebrew God, or chose not to serve Him.

Even though Christians assert that Jesus fulfilled the harsh Law of God and instituted one of love and kindness, such teachings conflict with actions and statements attributed to their Christ. Was it not Jesus who said he came not to bring peace but a sword? Was it not Jesus who introduced the fires of hell with such statements as: “He that believeth not shall be damned,” (Mark 16:16) “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” (Mathew 25:41) and “He that believeth not the Son… the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36)? Little wonder, then, that the Christians found license to condone their atrocities.

The authors of the New Testament readily accepted old Hebraic values when it suited their purpose, for the writer of Hebrews turned to the Law of Sinai when he wrote: “He that despised Moses’ Law died without mercy… Of how much sorer punishment… shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?” (Hebrews 10:28-29). And many Christians longed for the retributions of John the Revelator; “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God… and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever: and they shall have no rest day or night” (Revelation 14:10-11). To those who would argue that such warnings pointed to the judgment of God, I will say that such might have been true of the pre-Nicene Christians, but the later Church’s extermination of heretics belie such an interpretation.

The rules of engagement were set when Peter, if we accept him as the speaker, set precedence by decreeing: “Every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed” (Acts 3:23). If the Church recognized Peter and the New Testament writers as representatives of their God, then they had no choice but to recognize their teachings; and their teachings advocated the advancement of “God’s will” above all else.

And so, just as the Israelites smote the heathen under the Law of Moses, some sixteen hundred years earlier, so did the Christians smite the heathen of their day. The same service to the same god, based upon the same Law—a Law that Christians declare dead.

Even as the orthodox Church was clawing its way to the top of the heap, it began instilling fear within its adherents. Admonitions to submit to authority were reinforced by the clergy’s limitation of knowledge to the masses, the usurpation of their right to make decisions, and the promotion of superstitions. The fear demanded for God soon permeated everyone, including the clergy. Fear and submission to ecclesiastical and secular authority—those holding power—was also demanded. Superstition breeds fear, and even today the Christian gospel is one of fear: fear of missing heaven, fear of hell, fear of the devil, fear of bringing God’s wrath upon one’s self or a loved one, fear of offending a brother, fear of opposing thought, or simply the fear of omission. Many Christians even tremble at the thought of failing to say grace before each meal—and we are an enlightened society. Imagine the fear and superstition that would have been prevalent in an illiterate and oppressed society, composed of religious fanatics and superstitious pagan converts. Fear was the power of Catholicism. As the laws of Theodosius I and following secular rulers separated the believers from the non-believers, the conversion efforts of the Church became more and more desperate and brutal.

One such terror tactic was the threat of everlasting torment in a fiery hell. When we read of Tertullian taunting the spectators of the theater and circus, we are able to see just how far Christian love had strayed from the Essenes’ determination to pursue “evil” with “goodness". From Tertullian's De Spectaculis; as quoted by Gibbon:

 

These rigid sentiments, which had been unknown to the ancient world, appear to have infused a spirit of bitterness into a system of love and harmony. The ties of blood and friendship were frequently torn asunder by the difference of religious faith; and the Christians, who, in this world, found themselves oppressed by the power of the Pagans, were sometimes seduced by resentment and spiritual pride to delight in the prospect of their future triumph. “You are fond of spectacles,” exclaims the stern Tertullian; “expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgment of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, and fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians, more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dangers.” But the humanity of the reader will permit me to draw a veil over the rest of this infernal description, which the zealous African pursues in a long variety of affected and unfeeling witticisms (Gibbon, Ch. xv, p. 146-7.).

 

Another horror invented by the Church to drive helpless victims into the fold, concerned infant damnation. When the doctrine of exclusive salvation (that unbaptized adults would burn in hell) proved insufficient, the terror was extended to newborn infants, and even to the fetus in its womb! From Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity, chap. 7:

 

 Among the writings of the Fathers there are few which long possessed a greater authority than a short treatise “De Fide,” which is one of the clearest and most forcible extant epitomes of the Patristic faith, and which till the time of Erasmus was generally ascribed to St. Augustine, though it is now known to have been written, in the beginning of the sixth century, by St. Fulgentius. ”Be assured, and doubt not, that not only men who have attained the use of their reason, but also little children who have begun to live in their mothers' womb and have there died, or who, having been just born, have passed away from the world without the sacrament of holy baptism, administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, must be punished by the eternal torture of undying fire; for although they have committed no sin by their own will, they have nevertheless drawn with them the condemnation of original sin, by their carnal conception and nativity.”

 

Quoting W.E.H. Lecky, History of the Rise & Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, Wheless continues with a dismal illustration of the situation:

 

Nothing indeed can be more curious, nothing more deeply pathetic, than the record of the many ways by which the terror-stricken mothers attempted to evade the awful sentence of their Church. Sometimes the baptismal water was sprinkled upon the womb; sometimes the still-born child was baptized, in hopes that the Almighty would antedate the ceremony; sometimes the mother invoked the Holy Spirit to purify by His immediate power the infant that was to be born; sometimes she received the Host or obtained absolution, and applied them to the benefit of her child. For the doctrine of the Church had wrung the mother's heart with an agony that was too poignant for even that submissive age to bear.

 

Frequently, Church doctrines would lead to years of confused debates and decrees as the clergy tried to explain ramifications derived from divine interpretations. The subject of infant baptism was one such topic. The Catholic teaching that all who die without baptism are excluded from the “vision of God” is uncompromising. And those who die in original sin, such as infants, cannot go to heaven. This decree introduced another unsettling question: what happened to the infant’s soul: did it burn in hell? The Church tactfully circumvented the issue. While it was decided the infant must suffer the pain of loss (of not seeing God), they weren’t sure it would suffer the pain of sense. St. Augustine felt sure they would suffer the pain of sense, but it would be the mildest form. Another believed they’d be happy, even though they missed heaven. Other theologians maintained that children could be saved by the act of their parents.⁴ Pope Innocent XI appointed a theological commission to study the problem, but no decision was ever reached. Years later, St. Thomas decided:

 

Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love  (Original Catholic Encyclopedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism).

 

St. Thomas never explained just how such a union was to be achieved and unlike St. Thomas, I’m unable to divine the mind and will of God, so we’ll leave that to the infinite, mysterious workings of the Church. Maybe one day they will present us a logical answer.

We have already mentioned the miraculous conversion of Constantine and shown how the Church prostituted itself to garner his blessings. By ingratiating itself to imperial favor and gaining public popularity, the Church soon dominated the superstitious courts and populace. Thus was formed a mutual needs association that was to grow in power throughout the centuries. The secular rulers needed the Church—and the Church needed secular power to further the cause of Christ.

 

When a Government, for instance, reserves its favors and functions for the adherents of the State religion, the army of civil servants becomes a more powerful body of missionaries than the ordained ministers (http://oce. catholic.com/index.php?title=Heresy).

 

Following the Edict of Milan, Constantine quickly succumbed to the interests of the Christians by passing more and more laws that restricted pagans and favored the Church. Polytheism, divination, soothsaying, and malevolent magic were forbidden while the Christian churches received money and preferential treatment. The Catholic clergy was exempt from civic duties. Sunday was decreed the venerable day of the sun, and, under the law of Constantine, the bishops were given unlimited power as judges and witnesses:

 

Whatever may be settled by a sentence of bishops shall ever be held as sacred and venerable ... All testimony given, even by a single bishop, shall be accepted without hesitation, by every judge, neither shall the testimony of any other witness be heard, when the testimony of a bishop is brought forward by either party! (Const. Sirm. I; 333.).

 

There is no record of any Constantine laws that prescribed persecution, but the same cannot be said for his sons, Constantius and Constans, who were Arians. Through them, the Church began to clamp down on pagan worship. All temples were closed and properties were forfeited. Sacrificing and idolatry were declared capital offenses, punishable by death.⁵

Under Gratian’s and Theodosius’ reigns, it was the apostates, Christians who adopted pagan rites, who felt the disfavor of the Church.⁶ And since many pagans were converted at the point of the sword, there was no shortage of apostasy. Wills of apostate Christians were set aside and the right to bequeath or inherit property was denied. These persecutions became more harsh and continued into the reign of Valentinian. Paganism was openly outlawed. Anyone caught worshiping pagan gods was considered an insurrectionist, guilty of the crime of Laesae Majestatis. The punishment was crucifixion. Ironically, the Christians were using the very same law that convicted Jesus.

They passed laws that abolished pagan holidays and revoked the privileges of pagan priests. And where Constantine, under the Edict of Milan, restored all confiscated property to the Christians, the Catholic Church appropriated the pagan temples for their own use. Anything offensive to the Catholic Church was punished with severity befitting the crime. Pagans had no voice in the courts:

 

... and every sect unfriendly with the Catholics should be driven out of every city in order that they may not be sullied by the contagious presence of criminals. We deny to Jews or pagans the right of pleading a case in court or of serving as soldiers (Const. Sirm. No. 6; 425).

 

The Emperors Justin and Justinian: ... It is our intention to restore the existing laws which affect the rest of the heretics of whatever name they are, (and we label as heretic whoever is not a member of the Catholic Church and of our orthodox and holy faith); likewise the pagans who attempt to introduce the worship of many gods, and the Jews and the Samaritans. ... We forbid any of the above-mentioned persons to aspire to any dignity or to acquire civil or military office or to attain to any rank (Codex Justinian I 5, 12; 527).

 

Apparently, there were anti-pagan laws on the books that weren’t being enforced. Such oversights were corrected when Honorisus and Arcadius ascended to power.

 

The Donatists and other vain heretics and those others who cannot be converted to the worship of the Catholic communion, Jews and Gentiles who are vulgarly known as pagans; ... Let all judges understand, and not fail to carry out all decrees against such persons (Codex Theodocious XVI,. 5, 46; 409).

 

We must concede that civil laws were often harsh and seemingly merciless in ancient times, and it should only be expected that such cruelty would be evident within the government. However, the Catholic Church professes to be a perfect society. Can we find justification for cruel and inhuman acts within such a society?

 

The Inquisitions

 

Today, the mere mention of the word inquisition still conjures up images of torture and flaming deaths instituted during the thirteenth century. However, the inquisition was functioning within the Church long before it acquired notoriety, although not by that title, of course, and not with the same wicked viciousness. As an institutional means to combat heresy the main weapon of choice was the quill. The more lenient practice of written rebuttal to heretical ideas was in general use well into the post-Constantine era. The early Christians loathed those they termed heretics, but their method of dealing with them was totally different from that of the Catholic Church in the later centuries.

 

Though the Apostles were deeply imbued with the conviction that they must transmit the deposit of the Faith to posterity undefiled, and that any teaching at variance with their own, even if proclaimed by an angel of Heaven, would be a culpable offense, yet St. Paul did not, in the case of the heretics Alexander and Hymeneus, go back to the Old Covenant penalties of death or scourging ( Deuteronomy 13:6 sqq. ; 17:1 sqq. ), but deemed exclusion from the communion of the Church sufficient ( 1 Timothy 1:20 ; Titus 3:10 ). In fact to the Christians of the first three centuries it could scarcely have occurred to assume any other attitude towards those who erred in matters of faith (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=  Inquisition).

 

Tertullian stated that, “the natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion.” And Lactantius, a third century rhetorician and apologists writing about 308 AD, argued:

 

Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion (Divine Institutes V:20).

 

Even into later centuries, there were those such as St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom, who deplored the death penalty. However, as the Church’s power increased, the majority opinion slowly began to side with the secular leaders. Even St. Augustine reversed his opinion in latter years.

 

St. Augustine seems to have originated the application of the words “Compel them to enter in,” to religious persecution. Religious liberty he emphatically cursed: 'Quid est enim pejor, mors animae quam libertas erroris? For which is worse, the death of the soul than the liberty of error?' (Epistle clxvi.).

 

One of the most important opinions mentioned here is the right of individual religious freedom, as opposed to the Church's latter stance, which branded that freedom as heresy. If freedom was the attitude of the early Christians, when and how did it change? What was the justification for the inquisitions? Why did the Church feel compelled to suppress this thing called heresy? Today, heresy is an insignificant factor in Christian thought. In fact, here in the U.S., it is so inconsequential the average person seldom considers it a threat to their religion. But that was certainly not the case when the Catholic Church was struggling to maintain her seat of power. Heresy was by its very definition an attack upon Catholicism. Notice, a distinction must be made between Catholicism and Christianity because many, if not most, of those accused of heresy considered themselves Christians. Their offense was not the denial of Jesus Christ, but opposition to Catholic "truth".

 

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ's work of salvation. Her Founder, who foretold the disease, also provided the remedy: He endowed her teaching with infallibility (see CHURCH). The office of teaching belongs to the hierarchy, the ecclesia docens, which, under certain conditions, judges without appeal in matters of faith and morals (see COUNCILS). Infallible decisions can also be given by the pope teaching ex cathedra (see INFALLIBILITY). Each pastor in his parish, each bishop in his diocese, is in duty bound to keep the faith of his flock untainted; to the supreme pastor of all the Churches is given the office of feeding the whole Christian flock. The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heresy).

 

For a man, or an entity, to assume the power and role of God is a foolish and dangerous thing that can only lead to disaster. And by usurping the right to dictate truth, and endowing the pope with the power of infallibility, the Church assumed that role.

But we cannot fairly place the blame upon the Catholic body, nor point to any certain period in history when the Church knowingly chose to become the vile, suppressive organization that it became. The blame must be placed at the feet of Paul. The evil began when Paul claimed the authority to speak for God.

 

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth (I Corinthians 2:12-13).

 

But how could Paul know he had unleashed untold miseries and suffering upon mankind? That certainly wasn't his purpose; he was only trying to save as many people as possible from the terrible wrath of God. It appears that even the indwelling Holy Spirit was blind to the inevitable consequences of those teachings

It started out innocently enough. What harm could there possibly be in asserting that the spirit of God lived within the ecclesiastic body? This could only be considered a blessing, because that spirit would lead men to all divine truths. However, contentions and controversies arose and other sects began making the same, or similar, claims. Something was needed to establish the 'orthodox' truth over all others. A chain of apostolic succession was developed, but still the division wasn't solved; the 'Holy Spirit' was making contradictory revelations to different bishops and Church fathers. At last, it was decided that one man, one Church leader, should be imbued with infallibility—and a supreme pontiff was created.

One would think then, if the divine power of an omnipotent god was orchestrating events, that peace and blessings would come upon mankind. But such an omnipotent god would foreknow the nature of man and one of those givens is that you can't dictate to the human animal. A prime example was set by Henry Ford, when he assured his customers they could have any color of automobile they wanted—as long as it was black. The absurdity of his attempt to control human desires is evident on streets and highways around the world today. The results of the Church's attempt to dictate truth should have been predictable. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln; "You may convince all the people some of the time, part of the people all the time, but you can never convince all the people all the time." The human animal simply will not be dictated to. You cannot tell them what they can do—or what is truth.

But the Catholic Church had made spurious claims which they were forced to defend. For centuries they were able to use the civil authorities to uphold and enforce their dictates; but when, for various reasons, that force proved insufficient, they became desperate and instituted the inquisitions.

When it comes to identifying the inquisition and trying to understand its function, even the Catholic Church seems to have trouble describing it.

 

By this term [inquisition] is usually meant a special ecclesiastical institutional for combating or suppressing heresy. Its characteristic mark seems to be the bestowal on special judges of judicial powers in matters of faith, and this by supreme ecclesiastical authority, not temporal or for individual cases, but as a universal and permanent office. Moderns experience difficulty in understanding this institution, because they have, to no small extent, lost sight of two facts.

 

On the one hand they have ceased to grasp religious belief as something objective, as the gift of God, and therefore outside the realm of free private judgment; on the other they no longer see in the Church a society perfect and sovereign, based substantially on a pure and authentic Revelation, whose first most important duty must naturally be to retain unsullied this original deposit of faith. Before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century these views were still common to all Christians; that orthodoxy should be maintained at any cost seemed self-evident (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Inquisition).

 

Their main intent appears to be justification of their power and existence. They conjure up terms like "supreme ecclesiastical authority," and "society perfect and sovereign," as if they were speaking of something so real and tangible as the earth we stand upon or the water we drink. In fact, opposition to their assertions necessitated the need for suppression. I will allow you to decide if the Church was a gift of God or not later, when we’ve seen this perfect society in operation.

As the Donatists, Gnostics, and other groups grew in strength and numbers, it became obvious that the Christians’ tactics of sacrificing their lives in protest was not working. Even though actions may speak louder than words, volume doesn't necessarily guarantee success. Despite what today’s Christians claim, the non-violent approach to promoting their religion did not work. In the end, the Church had to fight fire with fire. At first, it consisted mostly of restricting literature, but it soon took on the practice of requiring a confession of faith, and finally, demanding that confession on penalty of death.

 

"…Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned" ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus,” lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis") (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heresy).

 

During the Middle Ages the Church guarded the purity and genuineness of her Apostolic doctrine through the institution of the ecclesiastical (and states) Inquisition. ... Following the example of the Apostles, the Church today watches zealously over the purity and integrity of her doctrine, since on this rests her whole system of faith and morals, the whole edifice of Catholic thought, ideals, and life. For this purpose the Church instituted the Index of Prohibited Books, which is intended to deter Catholics from the unauthorized reading of books dangerous to faith or morals, for it is notorious that clever sophistry coated with seductive language may render even gross errors of faith palatable to a guileless and innocent heart (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Toleration).

 

 ... Now, formal heresy was likewise strongly condemned by the Catholic Middle Ages; and so the argument ran: Apostasy and heresy are, as criminal offenses against God, far more serious crimes than high treason, murder, or adultery. ... But, according to Romans xiii, 11, seq., the secular authorities have the right to punish, especially grave crimes, with death; consequently, heretics may be not only excommunicated, but also justly (juste) put to death' (St. Thomas, II-II, Q; xi, a, 3). ... The earliest example of the execution of a heretic was the beheading of the ring leader of the Priscillianists by the usurper Maximum at Trier (385). Even St. Augustine, towards the end of his life, favored State reprisals against the Donatists. ... Influenced by the Roman code, which was rescued from oblivion, Frederick II introduced the penalty of burning for heretics by imperial law of 1224. The popes, especially Gregory IX, favored the execution of this imperial law, in which they saw an effective means for the preservation of the Faith. ... Unfortunately, neither the secular nor the ecclesiastical authorities drew the slightest distinction between dangerous and harmless heretics, seeing forthwith in every (formal) heresy a' contumelia Creatoris,' which the theocratic State was called upon to avenge with the pyre" (Original Catholic Encyclopedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Religious_Toleration).

 

This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake… (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heresy).

 

Catholicism inspired the genocide that reached epic proportions during the thirteenth century, with the introduction of the Holy Inquisition and the unholy slaughter of the Albigenses.

 

The name Albigenses, given them by the Council of Tours (1163) prevailed towards the end of the twelfth century and was for a long time applied to all the heretics of the south of France… The rise and spread of the new doctrine in southern France was favoured by various circumstances, among which may be mentioned: the fascination exercised by the readily-grasped dualistic principle; the remnant of Jewish and Mohammedan doctrinal elements; the wealth, leisure, and imaginative mind of the inhabitants of Languedoc; their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter; the protection of an overwhelming majority of the nobility, and the intimate local blending of national aspirations and religious sentiment (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title= Albigenses).

 

These primitive views on heresy have been faithfully transmitted and acted on by the Church in subsequent ages; there is no break in the tradition from St. Peter to Pius X [1903-1914]. (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index .php?title=Heresy).

 

It should be evident that the Church devised ingenious ruses to avoid all appearance of wrongdoing, in an effort to maintain their pretense of holiness while waging a ceaseless war against heresy. By some stretch of logic, condemning persons of heresy, and transferring them to the secular executioners for the physical act, separated the Holy Church from the deed.

 

The barbarous penal forms of the Middle Ages are to be credited, not to the Church, but to the State (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious _Toleration).

 

This is the stale pretense of the Clergy in all countries, after they have solicited the government to make penal laws against those they call heretics, or schismatics, and prompted the magistrates to a vigorous execution, then to lay all the odium on the civil power; for whom they have no excuse to allege, but that such men suffered, not for religion, but for disobedience to the laws" (Somers Tracts, vol. xii, p. 534; cited by Buckle, Hist. of Civilization in England, i, p. 246.).

 

So, the blame for unimaginable evils was not to be laid at the Church’s altar—that blame rested with the state. Yet, even the Church’s own records put the lie to such assertions. His Holiness Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) was:

 

...very severe towards heretics, who in those times were universally looked upon as traitors and punished accordingly. ... When in 1224 Frederick II ordered that heretics in Lombard should be burnt at the stake, Gregory IX, then Papal Legate, approved and published the imperial law. In 1231 the Pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their ‘due punishment.' This ‘due punishment' was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent. In pursuance of this law a number of Patarini were arrested in Rome in 1231, the obstinate were burned at the stake, the others were imprisoned… It must not be thought, however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times. Up to the time of Gregory IX, the duty of searching out heretics belonged to the bishops in their respective dioceses (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php? title=Pope_Gregory_IX).

 

Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment. Frederick II was of the same opinion; in his Constitution of 1224 he says that heretics convicted by an ecclesiastical court shall, on imperial authority, suffer death by fire (auctoritate nostra ignis iudicio concremandos), and similarly in 1233 "praesentis nostrae legis edicto damnatos mortem pati decernimus." In this way Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull "Ad exstirpanda" (1252) Innocent IV says: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."

 

Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decrials from the imperial constitutions "Commissis nobis" and "Inconsutibilem tunicam". The aforesaid Bull "Ad exstirpanda" remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is so he noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Inquisition).

 

The Catholic Church tried to camouflage the wickedness of their deeds by making it appear that excommunication was only a period of shunning, when, in fact, it was a delayed death sentence. Although a heretic might redeem himself by repenting, anyone who adhered to his principles was doomed to the pyre or a slow agonizing death in prison. Is it any wonder the Church produced so many martyrs?

The position of the Church is clear. Now, imagine the choice offered to the accused. He was guilty until proven innocent and was not allowed to speak in his defense. To the contrary, he was tortured for a confession. Finally, torn and crippled, he was offered “a deal". If he confessed and repented of his crimes (sins), his sentence of death would be commuted to life imprisonment. This alternative was often more horrible than the pyre, because a medieval prison was the true purgatory.

However, one cannot help but admire the loving kindness and merciful concern which the Holy Church exhibited in its effort to bring the errant child back into the tender arms of the blessed faith. After the Holy Inquisitor had racked and broken their bodies, they were handed over to the secular arm for the final execution, the blessed Auto-de-fẻ, where their tortured remains were burned. Even so, the "Church was content with a spiritual sentence on the part of its bishops and was averse to the shedding of blood," so the hated heretics went forth with the merciful prayer that they should be punished as mildly as possible and without the shedding of blood!⁷ Along with the act went a standing decree of indulgences, from the tortures of purgatory, for all the deluded faithful who would please and glorify God, and the priests, by piling the fagots for the consecrated fires.⁸ Like indulgences were given to others for throwing water on the wood, so the flames would burn slower, and allow the writhing wretch more time to make peace with God. Oft-times, the victim was suspended above the flames, like a roasting pig, for the same purpose. In such cases, if repentance was made, they were dragged from the flames partially consumed, only to be cast back into prison where they were allowed to spend the remainder of their agonizing lives contemplating the beauties and sweetness of the blessed Christian religion, crying: “Praise God from whom all blessings flow!”

How could the Holy Church of God sanction such atrocities? How to justify the slaughter of men, women, and children? Apparently, they inherited the job from a god who was incapable of asserting his own will. Read and understand the demented logic whereby the Holy Church usurped the power of their God!

 

Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ ( Luke 22:38 ; Matthew 26:52 ).

 

Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

 

The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

 

This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles  (Bull Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII, Nov. 18, 1302). (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Unam_Sanctam).

 

In belittling the scope of the inquisition, the Church insists that it wasn't instituted until early in the thirteen century.

 

The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being (http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Inquisition).

 

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia the inquisitors were, in most cases, responsible and saintly men, well-qualified to bear the burden of deciding life and death.

 

History shows us how far the inquisitors answered to this ideal. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. No one would deny that the judges of today, despite occasional harsh decisions and the errors of a few, pursue a highly honorable profession. Similarly, the medieval inquisitors should be judged as a whole, and not by individual examples. Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Inquisition).

 

There is no reason to doubt assertions such as these. No matter how barbaric the atrocities committed during this period were, we must remember that the Church, and the civil government, generally speaking, were acting within the bounds of the law. Therefore, most people at that time would have been honest, law-abiding, citizens. And it should be understood that those same people would have been inured to the harsh cruelties common to their age.

But what if we allowed such reasoning in today's courts? You may be able to picture our state and federal judges condoning torture and passing out life sentences for unrepentant backsliders, or consigning freethinkers to the stake; but I can find no moral or legal grounds for such brazen miscarriages of justice.

To better understand just what an inquisition entailed, the Catholic Encyclopedia gives us a detailed, and amazingly candid, description of a typical procedure.

 

Procedure.—This regularly began with a month's "term of grace", proclaimed by the inquisitor whenever he came to a heresy-ridden district. The inhabitants were summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These were then cited before the judges—usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities—and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augsburg fiber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878, pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment: (i) fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess; (ii) more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by a curtailment of food; (iii) visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion; (iv) torture, which will be discussed below.

 

The Witnesses.—When no voluntary admission was made, evidence was adduced. Legally, there had to be at least two witnesses, although conscientious judges rarely contented themselves with that number. The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an "infamous", was worthless before the courts. But in its detestation of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long-established practice, and of accepting a heretic's evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. … There was no personal confrontation of witnesses, neither was there any cross-examination. Witnesses for the defense hardly ever appeared, as they would almost infallibly be suspected of being heretics or favorable to heresy. For the same reason those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and were therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull "Si adversus vos", forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe in them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way."

 

The present writer can find nothing to suggest that the accused were imprisoned during the period of enquiry. It was certainly customary to grant the accused person his freedom until the sermo generalis, were he ever so strongly inculpated through witnesses or confession; he was not yet supposed guilty, though he was compelled to promise under oath always to be ready to come before the inquisitor, and in the end to accept with good grace his sentence, whatever its tenor. The oath was assuredly a terrible weapon in the hands of the medieval judge. If the accused person kept it, the judge was favorably inclined; on the other hand, if the accused violated it, his credit grew worse. Many sects, it was known, repudiated oaths on principle; hence the violation of an oath caused the guilty party easily to incur suspicion of heresy. …

 

Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of May 15, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Clement IV on November 3, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum—i.e., it was not to cause the loss of a limb or imperil life. Torture was to be applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent questioning (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted only when all other expedients were exhausted. …

 

… In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. … The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented—first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation … When Clement V formulated his regulations for the employment of torture, he never imagined that eventually even witnesses would be put on the rack, although not their guilt, but that of the accused, was in question (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Inquisition).

 

In their defense, the Church repeatedly insists that they opposed the secular power's enforcement of the death penalty and often tried to interfere with such executions. They point to incidents where they tempered punishment of the guilty, and try to shift much of the blame to the secular authorities and even the common citizens.

 

…at Goslar, in the Christmas season of 1051, and in 1052, several heretics were hanged because Emperor Henry III wanted to prevent the further spread of "the heretical leprosy". A few years later, in 1076 or 1077, a Catharist was condemned to the stake by the Bishop of Cambrai and his chapter. Other Catharists, in spite of the archbishop's intervention, were given their choice by the magistrates of Milan between doing homage to the Cross and mounting the pyre. By far the greater number chose the latter. In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons kept sundry heretics in durance in his episcopal city. But while he was gone to Beauvais, to ask advice of the bishops assembled there for a synod, the "believing folk, fearing the habitual soft-heartedness of ecclesiastics" (clericalem verens mollitiem), stormed the prison, took the accused outside the town, and burned them. The people disliked what to them was the extreme dilatoriness of the clergy in pursuing heretics. In 1144 Adalbero II of Liege hoped to bring some imprisoned Catharists to better knowledge through the grace of God, but the people, less indulgent, assailed the unhappy creatures, and only with the greatest trouble did the bishop succeed in rescuing some of them from death by fire. A like drama was enacted about the same time at Cologne. While the archbishop and the priests earnestly sought to lead the misguided back into the Church, the latter were violently taken by the mob (a populis nimio zelo abreptis) from the custody of the clergy and burned at the stake…. In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days

 

Hence, the occasional executions of heretics during this period [1050-1150 CE] must be ascribed partly to the arbitrary action of individual rulers, partly to the fanatic outbreaks of the overzealous populace, and in no wise to ecclesiastical law or the ecclesiastical authorities

 

Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of colored crosses, and so on.

 

The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees, exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power. "Cum ecclesia", ran the regular expression, "ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco eundem relinquimus brachio et iudicio sirculari"—i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority. Naturally enough, punishment as a legal sanction is always a hard and painful thing, whether decreed by civil or ecclesiastical justice. There is, however, always an essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical punishment. While chastisement inflicted by secular authority aims chiefly at punishing violation of the law, the Church seeks primarily the correction of the delinquent; indeed his spiritual welfare is frequently so much in view that the element of punishment is almost entirely lost sight of. Commands to hear Holy Mass on Sundays and holidays, to frequent religious services, to abstain from manual labor, to receive Communion at the chief festivals of the year, to forbear from soothsaying and usury, etc., can scarcely be regarded as punishments, though very efficacious as helps towards the fulfillment of Christian duties. …Moreover, the penalties incurred were on numberless occasions remitted, mitigated, or commuted. In the records of the Inquisition we very frequently read that because of old age, sickness, or poverty in the family, the due punishment was materially reduced owing to the inquisitor's sheer pity, or the petition of a good Catholic. Imprisonment for life was altered to a fine, and this to an alms; participation in a crusade was commuted into a pilgrimage, while a distant and costly pilgrimage became a visit to a neighboring shrine or church, and so on. … Imprisonment was not always accounted punishment in the proper sense: it was rather looked on as an opportunity for repentance, a preventive against backsliding or the infection of others. It was known as immuration (from the Latin murus, a wall), or incarceration, and was inflicted for a definite time or for life. Immuration for life was the lot of those who had failed to profit by the aforesaid term of grace, or had perhaps recanted only from fear of death, or had once before abjured heresy (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index.php ?title=Inquisition).

 

Look at the pitiful examples presented as proof of their humanity: they tried to intervene in the hanging of heretics; it was the "believing folk" who were heartless and cruel; most of the punishments were not inhuman, examples being, pilgrimages, lighting candles, the pillory, fines, whipping with rods, or the embarrassment of wearing crosses. They speak of inquisitors inciting fear of death, threats of the stake, food deprivation, denial of legal advice, presumed guilt, and torture—for both the accused and the witness! When one reads these disturbing justifications, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that all these horrible laws and sanctions, all these tortures, discriminations and deaths, were enacted against one crime—heresy. The terrible crime of disagreeing—no, refusing to agree—with the Catholic Church. What were they asking of those they tortured and intimidated? They were demanding that they denounce their own beliefs, stop reasoning for themselves, and accept whatever the Church told them. The crime was not civil rebellion, but opposition to religious tyranny.

When we look at the Church's actions in relation to the era, the civil laws and her stated mission, we must be lenient. As stated, she was simply fighting a deadly poison that threatened her very existence. Therefore, from a legalistic point of view, we can find no condemnation, but the moralistic values come under question, not the legalistic.

Here is the prime example of a theocratic state—the union of church and state. If the Church had restricted its realm of influence to the spiritual concerns of its flock and remained detached from secular matters, would there have been persecutions and executions for differing religious beliefs, or would the secular empires have continued to operate as they had for centuries? Most likely the latter, but there can be no doubt that the hatred of heresy and discrimination against other beliefs was fueled and incited by the Catholic Church.

Though we do not condone such behavior from a secular body today, neither do we look to the state as the embodiment of our God or the curator of knowledge and the guardian of morality. When an organization, or person, claims the embodiment of divine knowledge, we should expect nothing less than perfection from that entity. What the Catholic Church exhibited was just the opposite.

The Church's main excuse for the extreme actions taken was that heresy threatened the existence of the Church. That is not true if their claims of divine sanction are true. With the omnipotent power of God and the Roman Empire behind it, how could heretical lies undo the Church? The fallacy of their reasoning is evident in the Christian world today. Catholicism survives side by side with thousands of "heretical" religions and their following is stronger than ever. So, one might reason: "God must have been with them." If so, then one must also reason that all those centuries of suffering, persecutions and death were ordained of God. I prefer to believe that reason, knowledge, and human kindness were able to break free from a wicked and despotic power.

 

Christian Morals

 

Christian teachings are based upon the Ten Commandments and strict moral values, which the Church asserts, cannot be observed satisfactorily apart from their God. Are there any grounds to substantiate such teachings? We have already seen how readily the Catholic Church imprisoned and slew in the name of their God; could exceptional moral and personal ethics co-exist with such fervent, wicked beliefs? If we compare the moral integrity of another culture, say that of the Greeks, with that of Christianity, what conclusion shall we reach? Did Christians live up to their own standards? Did the Church leaders and fathers live virtuous lives? Was the Christian culture superior to that of the Greeks and Romans? Here we’ll turn to the Church’s own defense, where we will find that, apparently, the advancement of God’s will has nothing to do with human morals or individual values.

The second century epistles make it obvious that sex scandals were common in a number of different churches and the much-lauded agape, or love feast, was all the name implies.

 

In the first century of the Christian era, the Agapetae were virgins who consecrated themselves to God with a vow of chastity and associated with laymen. In the beginning this community of spiritual life and mutual support, which was based on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (ix, 5), was holy and edifying. But later it resulted in abuses and scandals, so that councils of the fourth century forbade it… The Council of Ancyra, in 314, forbade virgins consecrated to God to live thus with men as sisters. This did not correct the practice entirely, for St. Jerome arraigns Syrian monks for living in cities with Christian virgins. The Agapetae are sometimes confounded with the subintroductae, or woman who lived with clerics without marriage, a class against which the third canon of the Council of Nice (325) was directed (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title= Agapetae).

 

Saint Jerome’s denouncement of the subject, conspicuously missing from the Original Encyclopedia, is found in the New Advent:

 

I blush to speak of it, it is so shocking; yet though sad, it is true. How comes this plague of the agapetae to be in the church? Whence come these unwedded wives, these novel concubines, these harlots, so I will call them, though they cling to a single partner? One house holds them and one chamber. They often occupy the same bed, and yet they call us suspicious if we fancy anything amiss. A brother leaves his virgin sister; a virgin, slighting her unmarried brother, seeks a brother in a stranger. Both alike profess to have but one object, to find spiritual consolation from those not of their kin; but their real aim is to indulge in sexual intercourse. It is on such that Solomon in the book of proverbs heaps his scorn (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia- http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001022.htm).  

 

Carnal lusts weren't confined to the cloisters. St. Angilbert, Abbott of Saint-Riquier, who was brought up in the court of Charlemagne:

 

…undoubtedly had an intrigue with Charlemagne's unmarried daughter Bertha, and became by her the father of two children, one of whom was the well-known chronicler Nithard

(http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Angilbert%2C_Saint).

 

A fornicating saint! This presents an interesting situation, and raises a number of questions within my mind. Christians aren’t even supposed to associate with fornicators; how then, could a fornicating bishop perform his office? And, according to I Corinthians 6:9, fornicators will not “inherit the kingdom of God". Does that mean there will be saints in hell? Are saints ever stripped of their sainthood? Or, perhaps, the Pope will step in on the final Day of Judgment and grant them absolution.

Sexual promiscuity wasn’t the only vice that plagued the Church. Problems were rife in the homes, within the clergy, and throughout Christendom. Even from the reign of Constantine there were divisions, intrigue, avarice, and assassinations.

 

The accession of Constantine found the African Church rent by controversies and heresies; Catholics and Donatists contended not only in wordy warfare, but also in a violent and sanguinary way. A law of Constantine (318) deprived the Donatists of their churches, most of which they had taken from the Catholics. They had, however, grown so powerful that even such a measure failed to crush them; so numerous were they that a Donatist Council, held at Carthage, in 327, was attended by 270 bishops. Attempts at reconciliation, suggested by the Emperor Constantius, only widened the breach, and led to armed repression, an ever-growing disquiet, and an enmity that became more and more embittered…. One act of violence followed another and begot new conflicts (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Early_African_Church).

 

On the death of Pope Formosus there began for the papacy a time of the deepest humiliation, such as it has never experienced before or since. After the successor of Formosus, Boniface VI, had ruled only fifteen days, Stephen VI (properly VII), one of the adherents of the party of the Duke of Spoleto, was raised to the Papal Chair. In his blind rage, Stephen not only abused the memory of Formosus but also treated his body with indignity. Stephen was strangled in prison in the summer of 897, and the six following popes (to May, 904) owed their elevation to the struggles of the political parties (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02147a.htm).

 

(Pope Agapetus II) A Roman by birth, elected to the papacy 10 May, 946; he reigned, not ingloriously, for ten years, during what has been termed the period of deepest humiliation for the papacy… He labored incessantly to restore the decadent discipline in churches and cloisters. He succeeded eventually in quieting the disturbances in the metropolitan see of Reims (Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Pope_ Agapetus_II).

 

The Popes Benedict from the fourth to the ninth inclusive belong to the darkest period of papal history. The reigns of several of them were very short, and very little is known about their deeds (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php? title=Popes_ Benedict_I-X).

 

Such periods of “deepest humiliation” were quite recurrent. In 974 AD, Pope Benedict VI was thrown into prison by the anti-pope Boniface VII and strangled—Benedict the VII drove Boniface VII out and tried to check the tide of simony, the practice of buying or selling ecclesiastical preferences—apparently a reoccurring offense.

 

Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. [The two previous popes.] He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter… Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 –Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048) (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title= Popes_Benedict_I-X).

 

Here, we find the Church so divided it cannot find a suitable leader, even with the intervention of a secular ruler. Let us not forget, we are reading the words of a “society perfect and sovereign,” following the divine scheme of apostolic succession! Sex, greed, assassinations; what evil wasn’t the Church capable of? After a thousand years of degradation by popes, prelates and priests, the Church seemed to be at its vilest.

 

For at the time of Gregory's elevation to the papacy the Christian world was in a deplorable condition. During the desolating era of transition—that terrible period of warfare and rapine, violence, and corruption in high places, which followed immediately upon the dissolution of the Carlovingian Empire, a period when society in Europe and all existing institutions seemed doomed to utter destruction and ruin—the Church had not been able to escape from the general debasement. The tenth century, the saddest, perhaps, in Christian annals, is characterized by the vivid remark of Baronius that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the Church. At the time of Leo IX's election in 1049, according to the testimony of St. Bruno, Bishop of Sengi, the whole world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had perished and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to luxury and fornication" (Vita S. Leonis PP. IX in Watterich, Pont. Roman, Vitae, I, 96). St. Peter Damian, the fiercest censor of his age, unrolls a frightful picture of the decay of clerical morality in the lurid pages of his "Liber Gomorrhianus" (Book of Gomorrha). Though allowance must no doubt be made for the writer's exaggerated and rhetorical style—a style common to all moral censors—yet the evidence derived from other sources justifies us in believing that the corruption was widespread. In writing to his venerated friend, Abbot Hugh of Cluny (Jan., 1075), Gregory himself laments the unhappy state of the Church in the following terms: "The Eastern Church has fallen away from the Faith and is now assailed on every side by infidels. Wherever I turn my eyes—to the west, to the north, or to the south—I find everywhere bishops who have obtained their office in an irregular way, whose lives and conversation are strangely at variance with their sacred calling; who go through their duties not for the love of Christ but from motives of worldly gain. There are no longer princes who set God's honour before their own selfish ends, or who allow justice to stand in the way of their ambition. . . .And those among whom I live—Romans, Lombards, and Normans—are, as I have often told them, worse than Jews or Pagans" (Greg. VII, Registr., 1.II, ep. Xlix)(Original Catholic Encyclopedia – http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Pope_Gregory_Vii%2C _Saint).

 

Pope Adrian IV, as papal legate to Scandinavia, “reformed the abuses that had crept into the usages of the clergy,” in Sweden and Norway. When he was elected Pope in 1154 AD, he found himself contending with King William of Sicily and the King of Germany, and Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa.

 

The barons in the Campagna fought with each other and with the Pope and, issuing from their castles, raided the country in every direction, and even robbed the pilgrims on their way to the tombs of the Apostles (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php ?title=Pope_Adrian_IV).

 

The Church wasn’t above assassinating potential competition. Speaking of the newly elected Pope Alexander IV:

 

Matthew of Paris has depicted him as "kind and religious, assiduous in prayer and strict in abstinence, but easily led away by the whispering of flatterers, and inclined to listen to the wicked suggestions of avaricious persons". The "flatterers" and "avaricious persons" referred to were those who induced the new Pontiff to continue Innocent's policy of a war of extermination against the progeny of Frederick II, now reduced to the infant Conradin in Germany and the formidable Manfred in Apulia (Original Catholic Encyclopedia -  http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Pope_Alexander_IV).

 

Apparently the Church offered very lucrative careers. Bribes, graft, and favoritism were the grease that oiled the machinery—and it was a very well-oiled machine. According to Will Durant in The Age of Faith, the basic revenue of the Church was from her own lands:

 

As the property of the Church was inalienable, and, before 1200, was normally free from secular taxations, it grew from century to century. It was not unusual for a cathedral, a monastery, or a nunnery to own several thousand manors, including a dozen towns or even a great city or two. The bishop of Langres owned the whole county; the abbey of St. Martin of Tours ruled over 20,000 serfs; the bishop of Bologna held 2000 manors; so did the abbey of Lorsch; the abbey of Las Huelgas, in Spain, held sixty-four townships. In Castile, about 1200, the Church owned a quarter of the soil; in England a fifth; in Germany a third; in Livonia one half; these, however, are loose and uncertain estimates (Will Durant, The Age of Faith, xxvii, p. 766).

 

Mr. Durant also informs us that every landowner or tenant was expected to leave something to the Church at death. Those who didn’t were suspected of heresy. To encourage such donations, Pope Alexander III, in 1170, decreed that no one could make a valid will except in the presence of a priest. Giving to the Church, under such conditions, was considered the best way to escape the punishment of purgatory. Newly elected bishops were expected to give a fifty percent kick-back of their first year revenue to the pope. The pope was also paid for litigations brought to papal court for dispensations from canon law (such as divorces and estate settlements). Considerable sums came from indulgences and from pilgrims visiting Rome.

 

…Matthew Paris, an English monk, denounced the venality of English and Roman prelates “living daintily on the patrimony of Christ”; Hubert de Romans, head of the Dominican order, wrote of “pardoners corrupting with bribes the prelates of the ecclesiastical courts”; Petrus Cantor, a priest, told of priests who sold Masses or Vespers; Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, declaimed against the papal chancery as bought and sold, and quoted Henry II as boasting that he had the whole college of cardinals in his pay (Will Durant, The Age of Faith,  xxvii, pp. 767-768).

 

Is it any wonder that greed and power were the foremost goals within the clergy? It was a vice that extended all the way up to, and including, many of the popes. Among them his Holiness Sixtus IV:

 

He now turned his attention almost exclusively to Italian politics, and fell more and more under his dominating passion of nepotism, heaping riches and favours on his unworthy relations. In 1478 took place the famous conspiracy of the Pazzi, planned by the pope's nephew—Cardinal Rafael Riario—to overthrow the Medici and bring Florence under the Riarii. The pope was cognizant of the plot, though probably not of the intention
to assassinate, and even had Florence under interdict because it rose in fury against the conspirators and brutal murderers of Giuliano de' Medici. He now entered upon a two years' war with Florence, and encouraged the Venetians to attack Ferrara, which he wished to obtain for his nephew Girolamo Riario (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Sixtus_IV).

 

It included Pope Callistus III:

 

Moreover, it injured the reputation of Callistus III, as it gave more colour to the charges of nepotism which were even then freely leveled against him. He had already raised to the cardinalate two of his nephews, one of whom, the youthful Rodrigo, was later to become Pope Alexander VI; he bestowed upon a third the governorship of the Castle of Sant' Angelo and the title of Duke of Spoleto (http://oce.catholic.com/index. php?title=Pope_Callistus_III).

 

Other Popes tainted with this brush include, Innocent the VII, Paul V, Gregory XI, Boniface IX and an extending list. That nepotism was a common practice is made obvious by the fact that throughout Church history we find numerous statements where efforts were made toward its eradication.

Under Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) the Vatican was referred to as a brothel. The Pope had a number of Vatican mistresses, and six bastards—including Caesar and Lucrezia Borgia. When official protests failed, one of the Pope’s bastards was slain as a warning:

 

A more powerful protest than that of the Cardinal of Sienna reverberated through the world a week later when, on the sixteenth of June, the body of the young Duke was fished out of the Tiber, with the throat cut and many gaping wounds. Historians have laboured in vain to discover who perpetrated the foul deed, but that it was a warning from Heaven to repent, no one felt more keenly than the Pope himself. In the first wild paroxysm of grief he spoke of resigning the tiara (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Alexander_VI).

 

However, after much soul-searching, he changed his mind and spoke of reform. But time and the attention of his mistresses apparently assuaged his grief, and the reform was never initiated.

Such were the moral leaders of Christianity but none of this wickedness and decadence matters. The members’ lack of holiness or spirituality could not be considered a reflection upon the spirit that empowered the Church. To understand, you must read with your own eyes the astounding logic, which not only endowed the Church with unlimited authority, but even denied criticism. I would prefer to condense the following passage, but it is so audacious that I dare not. Instead, I have copied from the Catholic Church’s statement on infallibility and added comments and questions:

 

I. TRUE MEANING OF INFALLIBILITY

 

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:

·         that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;

·         that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;

·         that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that in order to secure this threefold unit, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy – and on them exclusively – the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.
 

From the start, it should be noted that the very basic foundational truths are in error, for we have already proved that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity or the Church. And even if we were to “assume” these four statements to be true, the Catholic Church must admit failure on a miserable scale. To wit, they have never been a “visible and perfect society;” quite the opposite. They were unable to impose “Christ’s” will upon all men. “His” Church is definitely not one “faith, government, and worship". And if the Catholic Church’s example of “plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers,” is what Christ intended, then the whole world had better pray there is another, more merciful, god out there somewhere to come to our aid!

 

And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

 

The question is all about authority, the main subject of contention among the various sects as they struggled for dominance throughout the history of Christianity. According to the Church, the Apostles had the word of Jesus. They were the only ones who could claim exclusive truth. The sect which could establish inherited  descent could claim divine authority.

 

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

 

Here we have an excuse clause: no matter the individual belief, or even the general consensus, and no matter the clergy’s moral character, in the end, the Church’s decree, is infallible.

 

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

 

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

 

Although inspired Scripture was truly considered the word of God, it should be remembered that the Church (man) was privileged to decide what was inspired, as in the canonization of the New Testament.

 

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

 

In case of a divine revelation, who is to authenticate such an occurrence? The Church. Who interprets already revealed truths? The Church. Who interprets Christ’s promises to his Church? The Church. The Church tells us there is a God. The Church defines his word. The Church tells us how that word should be interpreted. The Church decides policy, enforces policy (when able) and speaks for God. The Church, prior to Protestantism and the Reformation—was God.

 

It is well further to explain:

·         That infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error.

·         That it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God’s agents in defining infallibly.

·         That the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
 

Does this seem ambiguous or confusing to you? According to Webster, infallible is defined as: not fallible; not liable to err… incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals. Yet, here we read that infallibility “merely implies exemption from liability to error". Then the statement is contradicted by said that it means, “exemption from the possibility of error". All the double talk simply means the Catholic Church is claiming the right to do whatever it pleases to propagate the gospel throughout the world. If they believe suppression, intimidation, fear, torture, the pyre or the slaughter of women and children furthers the will of God, they feel justified in those actions.

 

If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected (Original Catholic Encyclopedia -  http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility).

 

Just as Tertullian denied the Gnostics the right to argue the Scriptures, so does the Church deny reason. It doesn’t matter if one points to their shortcomings. It doesn’t matter the failings of popes or councils. No reason, no logic can hold sway; the Church acts under divine authority and considers itself beyond question or questioning.

 

II. PROOF OF THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY

 

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that "the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her"; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra "enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals". Even the Vatican Council, it will be seen, only introduces the general dogma of the Church's infallibility as distinct from that of the pope obliquely and indirectly, following in this respect the traditional usage according to which the dogma is assumed as an implicate of ecumenical magisterial authority. Instances of this will be given below and from these it will appear that, though the word infallibility as a technical term hardly occurs at all in the early councils or in the Fathers, the thing signified by it was understood and believed in and acted upon from the beginning… (Original Catholic Encyclopedia - http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility).

 

For proof, the Church turns to “Catholic dogma” and “assumed” teachings that had been accepted “without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation". This last statement is an obvious and easily discerned falsehood. A cursory reading of early Christian history reveals a heatedly contested battle for doctrinal supremacy between various sects, each referring to themselves as Christians. Why was there contention between the orthodox Church and the Gnostic, or the Arians, the Donatists and dozens of other groups? Even in the fourth century, the matter of Catholic power was under debate. What was the issue of the reformation? No matter the subject of contention, each controversy denies an assertion of infallibility.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia article continues by referring to tradition and scriptural evidence as proof of their infallibility. The great fallacy here is that none of their proofs have any basis, apart from faith. The Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or any other religious order, can make equally justifiable claims to a supreme creator being and they can make equally justifiable claims to the holiness of their writings or traditions. Logic dictates that any claim of a supreme being must be proven, simply to differentiate him (her) from false gods.

In the final examination, the Church is all in all; she does as she pleases, then turns to infallibility, inspiration or divine will to justify her actions. As we have seen, she denies any earthly judge.