« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Misinterpreting the Christian Response

By: roetenks (Diary)  |  May 23rd, 2009 at 02:44 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Many “alleged” Christians fail to see typical Christian responses to evil in the world. In the haste to stop the killing of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, thousands of Christians signed up to go and fight. But closely scrutinize who says Christians stood back and watched in silence.

Few mention Pope Pius XXII’s secret actions to transport as many Christians as possible out of Nazi Germany, or the hundreds of Catholics that worked tirelessly to save as many Jews and Christians from death camps, or even Saint Maximilian Kolbe who traded his life for a citizen incarcerated in a death camp.

Those “kangaroo” Christians seem to forget who came up with the Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln{Christian}), or a Congress of mostly Christian Republicans who passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution—mainstays for all Blacks today. The writer remembers Catholic Archbishop Joseph Rummel excommunicating three segregationists (1962) for refusing to integrate church schools in Louisiana.

Starting in 1981, the perfect solution was devised for the oncoming crisis of HIV/AIDS, much of which was transpiring in the Black community. A Nobel laureate couldn’t have come up with a better solution—total fidelity in marriage, and no sex with anyone but your marriage partner. Many ignore that advice.

Shockingly, many have molded “enhanced interrogation techniques” with “torture”. There’s a huge difference–as well as a major definition variance–they don’t want to talk about.

Torture involves extreme physical pain or even death, such as the cutting off of appendages, gouging of eyes, use of shredders to the body, electrical shock—you name it. Blood is usually involved.

But water boarding, only done on 3 prisoners in the US, is probably the most “enhanced” of the techniques. Because of the conditions of the test, there was no pain, no blood, no death—only fear. As a result, hundreds maybe thousands, were saved from certain death from terrorists during the “Second Wave”–an assault intended for a high rise on the West Coast, but thwarted by the information gained from water boarding those three terrorists.

Interestingly, all three terrorists are walking around today with their digits intact, tongues attached, and none the worse physically or mentally.

It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

It’s obvious He would not be happy with those who voted for the candidate who kills because it’s above his “pay grade” to know if they’re alive. Checking the Commandments, killing innocents is against the 5th. Because pro-aborts don’t know for sure life does not exist at conception, they are still willing to risk that it’s not killing.

———————————————————————————————————–

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dave_in_atl

    up until you told me Jesus would support waterboarding. I don’t know why you felt the need to include it in this diary in the first place. You end a diary about christens doing good things in this world by talking about less than good things.

    I personally don’t see the Prince of Peace being pro-waterboarding. although I doubt he was much for any form of violence preaching turn the other cheek and all that.

    I think this diary would be much better if the last 6 paragraphs were left off.. I’d even be willing to recommend it.

    • roetenks

      Dave,

      You need to get certain things right. No where was it said that Jesus would approve waterboarding.

      It’s time to give your brain a little freedom of movement. Under particular circumstances that Jesus could be given, He would approve waterboarding someone that would do no physical harm.

      Putting Jesus in those circumstances would probably never happen. But if He WAS, he would be for saving the lives of all those that would be killed during the Second Wave.

      He would also be for saving the life of every child aborted. Knowing Jesus personally, if He had no other choice, He would always be for the saving of a life–no matter how guilty.

      • engineer4america

        We seem to forget that Jesus cleansed the Temple of the money changers (bank officers, mortgage brokers, stock traders) with a roman equivalent of a cat-o-nine tails. Be assured that there were a number of read backs that night) Was that torture?

        A few weeks ago I saw a truck with a sticker that said no on prop 8 (califronia’s amendment to ban gay marriage) next to it it said “What would Jesus Bomb”.

        My response – read Genesis and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

    • roetenks

      Where did you read that Jesus would support “waterboarding”?? I said He might be involved if there was no torture involved, and lives were saved because of it.

      Jesus being involved was pure speculation. You really need to read columns better tyo get the actual gist.

      Your definition of torture seems to be highly maligned as well. May God truly have mercy on your soul.

      The last six paragraphs were necessary. Too bad you didn’t approve.

    • roetenks

      I said He would suppport waterboarding “in this instance, under these conditions’. You read correctly, don’t you?

      You also seem to ‘assume’ a lot of things to. How has that gotten you through life?

      I think we need to have a nice long talk. You need to understand so much more…

  • roetenks

    an opinion of what would “likely” happen if all the conditions were the same for Jesus. They weren’t that way, and they won’t be, but if they were one can still speculate what Jesus might do under those circumstances.

    Given the same set of conditions, what would you do?

  • realconservative99

    The prince of peace condones torture? Who knew? I guess he was confused with all of the turn-the-other-cheek rhetoric.

    • engineer4america

      Be careful how you interpret this passage. While we were to turn the cheek to insults and deprivations even unto death we were not to do all we could to prevent the death of innocent people.

      • engineer4america

        Above comment should read

        Be careful how interpret this passage. While we were to turn the cheek to insults and deprivations even unto death. Are we not to do all we can to prevent the death of innocent people.

    • superluser

      roetenks, it is likely that I shall end my discussion here.

      I suppose all of this would be easier if there were an explicit statement about waterboarding by the pope, which I acknowledge that there does not seem to be.

      I joined this discussion out of concern that a fellow Catholic might be making use of God’s name to advocate the torture of persons, which is blasphemy. I believed that the Holy Spirit might be able to work through me to turn you from this belief and back to the path of righteousness.

      My intent is not to make you face truths about Christ that may be incompatible with your convictions if that would push you from Christ, but rather as it says in Hebrews, to ensure “that none of you may have an evil and unfaithful heart, so as to forsake the living God. Encourage yourselves daily while it is still `today,’ so that none of you may grow hardened by the deceit of sin.”

      I could have very easily ignored your opinion or dismissed it as I told a third party about a faceless person on the internet, but doing so would be even more hateful, since so doing I would be declaring that I do not care if you get your eternal reward.

      We share a common background, and I hoped that that would help me to convince you.

      It is clear that you are very certain of your position, and that continuing to debate this may simply encourage you to look on me with disfavor rather than to examine your position, which will cause more harm than good.

      I will make one final plea here that you take time to reevaluate your position. From some of your responses, I get the sense that you value certainty and consistency. In some of your arguments (which I apologize for turning this into rather than a cooperative discussion), about infallibility and past excesses by the clergy, it sounds like you are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, who claims only the infallibility in doctrine that he has and has acknowledged the sins committed by clergy in the name of the Church (the Church herself, we must be careful to say, did not commit these sins and is herself indefectible).

      I will probably leave off here. At any rate, I will adjourn my half of the debate. From here, I may (but probably will not) continue a more constructive discussion, but it will be a dialogue of encouragement, not of rebuke. Some years later, we may take up the issue again, but for now, I simply leave you and wish you well on your journey.

      I ask that you would pray for me, and I will keep you in my prayers. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.

      • roetenks

        Even Catholics err all the time. Why do you think we have the sacrament of confession?

        You’re still erring about the definition of ‘torture’. That’s too bad. And it’s not even a Catholic thing.

        It’s unfortunate that you believe that I claim to be more Catholic than the pope. Are you assuming again?

        I’m also glad you admit what exactly what the Church is. I’ve got two columns about the Crusades and the Inquisition that give the true facts. Whether you want to believe truth or not is your call. Just give me your e-mail and I’ll be glad to send them to you.

        I’ve already prayed for your soul, as I have mine. I hope the Holy Spirit does not wait until after your mortal life to see the truth.

        I hope God blesses you despite your faults. He’s blessed me already.

        • superluser

          I am indeed very interested in reading your columns on the crusades and the Inquisition if you would be willing to share them with me. I have sent you a message.

          I will not, however, debate this. It is obvious that we are at an impasse and that we both must move from our current positions before we may move forward.

          Please continue to pray for me, as I will for you.

          • superluser

            You have sent me two of your columns, “Inquisitions Defend Against Radical Islam” and “Black Spot of the Crusades Actually Very Bright.”

            They are both very good articles, and though I think we still disagree, my cursory reading of them suggests that what you have written is accurate, if not necessarily comprehensive.

            You should be commended for your vigorous defense of the faith in those articles, and indeed I thank you.

          • roetenks

            Thank you for your kind words about those two columns. It is important to defend the Faith when necessary, because I am amazed at how many untruths and fallacies are spread daily.

            But I remember God telling Peter, “Upon this Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

            We must remember the fight will be long and difficult, but in the end we know exactly who will be called to be with Him.

  • rtechie

    [Blah Blah Blah. Blam. His other post makes it clear what his real agenda is. Hint: He starts ranting about President Bush.

  • Pingback: Red State: Jesus Would Have Approved Waterboarding | Library Grape

  • redstatebluestate123

    Although it is frequently believed that he was.

    “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
    -Abraham Lincoln

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …which means that he didn’t leave us with a blueprint for government structure and actions.

    As a result, as with the rest of history since the first Pentecost, we need to rely on the Holy Spirit guiding our human wisdom in building on Scriptural foundations and the experience of the ages in determining principles of governance and their applications. And people of good conscience will differ in their interpretations.

    I believe that a stronger case can be made in which waterboarding is at least consistent with the Christian faiith than the case for it being incompatible, but I wouldn’t want to try to guess where Jesus in His earthly body would come down – and more often than not, his answers to debate questions were not to choose one side but to show a different dimension.

    Be careful that you do not try to use God for human ends, which is one of the fundamental sins of the human condition.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    ..and it did shift various ways during his lifetime. Lincoln scholars have not come up with a definitive answer.

    It is thus hazardous to take one quote to define Lincoln’s lifetime views – either to claim him as a fellow-Christian or to view his as outside the faith.

  • roetenks

    Although I was never there to make an exact determination, from almost all writings and quotes from Lincoln, he was Christian. The Emancipation Proclamation was almost proof enough.

    Remember, his profession was being president. From all accounts of his personal staus, he was Christian.

  • roetenks

    Be careful in what you say. Don’t ever assume that God would not be for preserving life. We can be sure He came down for doing just that.

    He didn’t say anything about abortion either, but we can be sure that being put under those circumstances, He would opt for NEVER aborting a baby. Why kill a body for a soul He’s already made?

    In the strict case of only 3 water boardings, and the probability of death of all those from the Second Wave, and the fact that those water boarded were not hurt, and He had to make a decision, my guess is that he would come down FOR life. I would hope you would decide to do the same.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Personally, I hold a pro-life position and view that the EITs were carried out in a matter that does not violate Christian morality. But that’s based on my study of the issues (and intution too).

    My point was to challenge the “if Jesus were here he’d do X” argument, because the situation in 2009 is different than 30 AD (although the condition of the human heart is still the same). It’s perfectly reasonable to identify the historical actions Jesus took and words that Jesus spoke (and certainly Jesus spoke with unique authority) and to apply them to the present situation, but to speculate on what he would say and do were He dwelling among us in the flesh is a bridge too far.

    It just seems a bit too presumptuous. After all, its perilous enough for me to presume what my wife would say about a situation; it’s even more tenuous to speak for the Lord of the Universe. I’ll stay content to deal with the words we have recorded; they’re difficult enough to follow and obey.

  • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

    The EP didn’t set all the slaves free, just the ones in the rebelling states.

  • roetenks

    Everything said in the column is true. I wonder what your point is.

  • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

    “The Emancipation Proclamation was almost proof enough [of Lincoln's Christianity].”

    Would it have been even better proof if he had freed all the slaves?

    My point is that it seems like more political/tactical than a moral action.

  • roetenks

    Vlad,

    Freeing any slave made a huge statement. Back then it was not a particularly popular thing to do. But it was the Christian thing to do.

    Obviously, political/tactical has obviously nothing to do with this action.

  • superluser

    Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

    –Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II

    And for those of you following along, torture is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2297) as “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

  • engineer4america

    He didn’t have to free any other slaves as slavery was already illegal in the other states. The only exception may be Tennessee and Kentucky. In the end the action was adequate to free all slaves.

  • roetenks

    The only item in your quote that even possibly applies is “frighten opponents”. It’s likely that was meant specifically for personal pleasure–not to save someone’s life.

    Time to get a new dictionary…

  • superluser

    Then why is it that the pope stated that these acts are “

  • superluser

    Here’s what Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said about it:

    Torture is the humiliation of a person, whoever that person is. For this reason, the Church does not accept it as valid this means to extract the truth.

    So a Cardinal and a head of one of the councils in the Curia is saying that torture is unacceptable, and defining torture in a way that pretty clearly includes waterboarding.

    I’m having a hard time coming up with any justification that Jesus would be OK with waterboarding.

  • roetenks

    the pope did NOT say that waterboarding is an intrinsic evil

  • superluser

    The pope said that torture is an intrinsic evil.

  • roetenks

    Hey, you got something right! But we know that water boarding is not physical torture by a longshot.

  • roetenks

    You’re right again about torture! But you erred again about defining water boarding which is not torture. Do you like to change definitions all the time like this?

  • kaden

    “Torture involves extreme physical pain or even death, such as the cutting off of appendages, gouging of eyes, use of shredders to the body, electrical shock-you name it. Blood is usually involved.

    But water boarding, only done on 3 prisoners in the US, is probably the most

  • superluser

    If I have changed a definition, I crave pardon, but I fail to see any point where I have changed a definition.

    It is very clear that waterboarding

    - Coerces the human spirit
    - Is a humiliating procedure
    - uses physical violence

    Violence is defined by the Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. thus:

    Physical or psychological force used to compel one to act against one

  • superluser

    kaden, you bring up a good point.

    Note that the definition I cited above, torture is not only conducted through physical violence but also moral violence.

    I would like to know how you can cut off an appendage through moral violence.

  • roetenks

    I see you’ve taken to the changing of definitions of “terrorize”. That’s besides the word “torture”.

    When you get those definitions right, get back to me. Until then, you can wallow in your own beliefs.

  • Finrod

    Jesus took a whip and used it to run the moneychangers out of the Temple.

    You can do a lot more damage to someone with a whip than you ever could using waterboarding.

  • engineer4america

    Would you consider questioning a person over and over and over torture? Isn’t that coercion? Strange that this is coming from the same group that crated the inquisition.

  • roetenks

    You’ll have to let me know how “moral violence” is defined. I have never heard anybody use the term but you.

  • superluser

    If you’re looking to the Inquisition for bad things that the Catholic Church did, you’re only scratching the surface. In the 2000 years that the Church has been around, you can find many and worse examples of things that Catholic clergy did in the name of God.

    The Church Militant (that is, the Church here on Earth) is made of fallible humans, and while some of them have been very good, some have also been very bad. But God has a history of using bad people to good ends.

    Judas was hand-picked by Jesus, but he betrayed Him, and the Church didn’t fall. Peter denied Christ several times–probably the worst sin short of deicide or the sin against the Holy Spirit, and yet he became the first Pope against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. David sent a man to his death so that he could keep committing adultery with his wife. Moses screwed up so royally that God refused to let him into the promised land, but that didn’t stop him from writing Deuteronomy.

    None of this should in any way excuse what has happened before, or is happening now, but I do contend that the Church has seen these evils and tries to make sure that they do not happen again.

    Sadly, we have failed in the past, some are failing now, and while God willing, we will not fail in the future, statistically speaking it is not as likely as we would hope.

    As to asking someone over and over, if you deprive someone of sleep, I’d call that torture.

    Coercion is thus defined:

    In moral and ecclesiastical law, force used by a free and external agent in order to compel someone to perform actions that are against his or her will. It is also called violence. The agent is free when it operates from voluntary choice and is not forced by some element of nature or other inanimate physical force. The agent is external when the pressure to compliance does not arise within the person as in the case of hunger, thirst, or bodily pain.

    When absolute violence is used, the will resists as best it can; therefore, a person is not culpable for whatever is done under such influence. Relative violence is that which can be overcome by greater opposition, but the extra effort is not made or enough resistance is given only externally, while internal consent is actually given. As a result, relative violence diminishes free will and corresponding imputability. (Etym. Latin coercitio, restraint, coercion, chastisement.)

  • roetenks

    No, questioning a person over and over is NOT torture. Didn’t you read the proper definition? You seem to forget why the inquisition actually occurred.

    Give me your e-mail address and I’ll send the actual description, especially of the Spanish Inquisition.

  • roetenks

    Sorry, wrong again. There’s no physical violence in waterboarding. At least not what we’ve done.

    You’ve never undergone waterboarding, so how can you describe it to a “T”?

  • roetenks

    Unfortunately, you’ve made a tremendous number errors in Catholic theology and history. I can get the true history to you if you really desire the truth.

    You’re not Catholic, are you? Read “Lord of History” by Anne W. Carroll. That’ll be a start. Let me know what you think after you read it, and please answer the question if you don’t mind.

    Have a good day!

  • superluser

    I was baptised shortly after I was born, and my confirmation name is Thomas (after Aquinas). I go to mass every week and confession a couple times a month. That makes me a practicing Catholic. How good of a practicing Catholic I am I leave to God to determine.

    I’m not sure where I have made errors in theology or history, but I welcome any corrections you might have. I’m certainly not omniscient and I am still learning, as I plan to do until the day I die.

    As to Lord of History, thanks, but I think I’ll pass on a high school textbook.

    All of this is tangential to the matter at hand, however.

    You assert that our Lord would have waterboarded people to save lives, yet provide no scriptural or ecclesiastical legal basis for this. Counter to this, we have numerous citations in the catechism, papal encyclicals (yes, plural. I left out Gaudium et Spes 27), theological dictionaries and statements by cardinals.

    But even that is tangential. He died so that we could be saved. While He didn’t shy away from harsh truths, it is very difficult to see how waterboarding would make someone more likely to truly convert.

  • superluser

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term. If you don’t have a copy of the catechism, I’d recommend you go out and pick one up. They’re pretty reasonably priced and contain a wealth of information on issues just like this one.

    Alternately, it’s available right on the Vatican website, beside a copy of the New American Bible and the Code of Canon Law.

  • Uma Richie

    superluser — My CotCC was gathering dust. Thank you for prompting me to crack it open.

    (I am being more terse than I’d like to, so please don’t take it as sign of disrespect — Typing with the little ones around is never easy.)

    2297′s definition of torture does not include practices intended to gain lifesaving intelligence information.
    2298 seems to suggest that actions necessary to maintain public order do not fall under torture either. Of course that is a slippery slope that I would hate to be on the receiving end of; however, I am satisfied with the Bush administration’s documented restraint in the use of EITs.

  • superluser

    Mt 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.”

    Jesus was crucified to preserve the public order. It seems clear to me that simply maintaining public order cannot be the only criterion by which an action may be judged to be permissible.

  • roetenks

    I know your problem! You still are one of those that continue to believe water boarding is torture!

    And I thought you wer just rambling…

  • Uma Richie

    the slippery slope caveat in my response. What do you think about my comment on 2297?

  • roetenks

    Bingo!!!

  • eburke

    with facts again. Don’t ya know how frustrating that is for Libs? Where’s your compassion, man?

    Snark: off

  • Slightly_Askew

    I thought he just told the others to leave after turning over their tables. I can’t remember being taught that Jesus ever struck anybody…but it has been a while since Sunday school. Could just be a translation thing.

  • superluser

    I have not asserted that physical force is an inherent evil. If I have said anything that leads you to this misapprehension, I crave pardon. Indeed, righteous wrath may be very well justified or even a good thing.

    Note well that the definition of violence makes several references to removing the victim’s free will. Our Lord did not simply alter the minds of the moneychangers to make them leave of their own imagined volition, though He surely could have done that. No, they had the free will to stay and be beaten.

    By all accounts, waterboarding elicits a panic reaction which does not allow for rational thought and makes the victims’ responses more bestial and less human.

  • Uma Richie

    I know your problem! You still are one of those who do not read very well!

    Let me spell it out for you:
    superluser is making the case that the EITs carried out by the CIA against terrorists violate Catholic teaching. I am saying that he is wrong, to the best of my knowledge based on the information that the Obama administration has made public.

    You use the word “water boarding” very loosely at your own peril of being dragged down sidetrack alley by some troll who wants to compare President Bush to Attila the Hun, but suit yourself.

  • superluser

    Your motives are irrelevant. If your motives for torturing are to gain lifesaving intelligence, that’s every bit as wrong as if you torture to force someone into giving you his property.

    That’s what intrinsic evil means. Indeed, that’s what I quoted Cardinal Renato Martino saying before:

    Torture is the humiliation of a person, whoever that person is. For this reason, the Church does not accept it as valid this means to extract the truth.

  • roetenks

    I have to admit I’m in the same boat you are with Catholicism. But I am highly pro-life, which Obama is not. If you voted for him, which you probably did not, that would not put you in good favvor with God at all.

    I would contend that most of the anti-Catholic history you spewed happened very differently than you believe. You also don’t seem to understand that God has made the pope infallible on grounds of faith and morals

    You also seem to gloss over that waterboarding the our Lord would’ve “likely” done had specific conditions attached. Care to name any that were included? No scriptural references were made because our Lord was not put under those specific conditions. That was pure speculation. I asked that your mind be opened a little wider to allow for those conditions.

    You would not comply. Nobody said anything about converting terrorists. Only saving thousands of lives without any actual torture to anybody else.

    Oh, and one last error by you. “Lord of History” was NOT a high school textbook. That book was tangential to almost everything you brought up.

  • molybdanthan

    Once J.J. Abrams remakes the New Testament. As was the case with the new Star Trek, he’s not a fan of the source material. But the scourging of the money lenders will be shot in HD, so it’ll look great.

  • Uma Richie

    I feel like we are going in a circle here. 2297 appears to define torture. In my opinion, the EITs in dispute do not meet that definition.

    I followed your Cardinal Martino link. It is a news article so it carries less weight than the Catechism. Find me a good encyclical to support your claim, and I’ll be happy to reconsider overnight.

  • superluser

    If any of the history I have cited is in error, I crave pardon and would ask you to identify the historical errors that I have made and I will gladly issue a retraction.

    I would note that the specific infallibility you refer to is “when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church” (or so says the first Vatican Council, which I agree with).

    If the pope said that the best pizza comes from Sicily, that’s not infallible because it’s not concerning faith or morals. If the Pope says that Rome should have a 9AM mass, that’s not infallible because it applies only to Rome. If he says that he personally thinks that people should wear red to Pentecost mass, that’s not infallible because it’s not stated ex cathedra.

    There is also the general infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church as a whole, but that also is expressed through definitions of doctrine.

    Specific actions are not necessarily infallible. On this matter, the church declared during a day for pardon during the 2000 Jubilee “even men of the Church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth.” This was labeled Confession of Sins Committed in the Service of Truth, and was spoken by the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition), Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). If he (under a liturgy approved by John Paul II) states that he believes that men of the Church have gone against the Gospel, it would seem a reasonable thing to believe. I also think that there must have been something wrong with the Inquisition at some point if it endorsed the execution of Saint Joan of Arc.

    I will, however, not cause scandal to the Church by naming more infamous crimes while those who may be enemies of the Church are reading, and I will state that I believe that the Roman Inquisition was by and large a good thing, even during the periods which are cited as being the height of abuse.

    As to conversion, the goal of Jesus during His time on Earth was to give us salvation and bring about the conversion of the heart in each of us. Convincing someone to follow the path of righteousness after using tactics like waterboarding would have been very difficult. That was my point.

    You state that Lord of History is not a high school text. I do apologize and crave pardon for the error. I was confused by the reviews at Amazon.com, which refer to it as a high-school level homeschooling text.

    Likewise, its publisher, TAN books sells a companion workbook that is “For home schooling, private study, Catholic or private schools, parochial schools, or anywhere a true history book is desired.”

  • superluser

    I meant to say those who are enemies of the Church may be reading, rather than those who may be enemies of the Church are reading.

    I did not mean to imply that we are definitely joined by people who may be enemies of the Church, but rather that we may be joined by people who are definitely enemies of the Church.

    I regret the error, and if I have caused offense, I crave pardon.

  • roetenks

    I’m glad you understand the element of infallibility.

    Convincing someone to follow the path of righteaousness was not the point you seemed to be making. Also, Joan of Arc was not stated by the actual Church to be burned at the stake. I don’t see how she could be named by the Church as an honored saint if that was the case.

    I’m also glad you admit the error commited by Amazon. TAN Books seemed to get closest to the truth whn they called the book ‘a true history book’. But I guess you still haven’t read it yet.