What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

None of which addresses the point I made about Hitler's retaliation against innocent people when a priest or bishop preached against Nazism, does it?

Why did you skip over that?

I didn't Randy, my point was that it is a tenant of Catholic Theology that the ends do not justify the means. That's why that ten year old girl who is barred from getting an abortion over in Paraguay who keeps getting threads about her on Catholic Answers at the moment can't get one.

Sure she might be crippled for life, the child is to all accounts probably going to be severely disabled too (of course I hope not) but she must give birth to the child or suffer hell. So long as it dies outside the womb she's in the clear sin wise.

Another. possibly even better example that springs to mind is the self-spite that has occurred in Europe when it comes to child adoption from Catholic centers in Europe. When same sex marriage goes through in a country all the Catholic adoption centers automatically shut down. They admit this is damaging to the children they've got inside, sometimes they even admit the child would be better off with a family than stuck in an institution. Doesn't matter, not committing sin comes before a childs welfare. The Catholic Church in Ireland, Australia and America has actually gone much further and has threatened to shut down all of its hospitals if same sex marriage bills pass. Thankfully in Ireland this apparently was an empty threat but it demonstrates the point; it doesn't matter if we leave an entire country stuck without healthcare, it's more important we don't sin. Screw your wellbeing, avoiding sin trumps all else.

Pius XII sat on the fence the entire war, he was hiding Jews under his floor one moment to appease the allies and sometimes during the very same day was directing Catholics in Eastern states to support Nazi Germany. Lets not forget now that prior to it's devolution the first government that Hitler as chancellor led was a coalition between no other than the Nazis and the Catholic Center! And if that wasn't bad enough, the Catholics held the majority in that unholy alliance!

The Catholic Church wasn't against Hitler, Pius may not have ever got up on the Papal Balcony waving Pom Pom's for Saint Hitler but he sure never directly opposed him. He had a duty to stand up and call out sins as Catholics so eagerly remind us today about almost every topic going and he didn't.

To say it was because he "feared for the lives of the innocent" is naivety at best. Where was his concern for the lives of the innocent when the Croatian Catholics were beating the shit out of the Orthodox Serbs? Where was his opposition to the Nazi's when Cardinal Hudal was openly helping SS and Nazi war criminals escape Berlin after the war? Where was his concern for the Jews when Fr.Joseph Tizo (A Catholic Priest and Hungarian leader) was openly rounding up Jews to send to one of Hitlers concentration camps?

Pius XII was a politician par excellence, but he was possibly the singly most most ineffectual and plain cowardly cleric that has led the Catholic Church in modern times. At least in his 33 day tenure John Paul I actually called sinners out like his job title suggests he should.

Your theology from everywhere from Aquinas to Newman states very, very clearly there is no excuse for tolerating sin nor one for not calling it out and purging it from the earth. Catholics have practiced it in everywhere from Just wars against non believers as they did with the Cathars to adoption today. Except when it's inconvenient for you and would risk later backfire or a drop in donations (Germany has always been the biggest funder of the RC up until the US overtook it, but it still sits at number two even today).

I think it might and for good reason! I'm just a poor, amateur apologist...of no real account to anyone.  

But what I asked is if you might actually develop an APPRECIATION for Catholic theology if you had studied it from OUR side of the divide. Stockholm Syndrome and all that.  

I apologize for that, reading it through a second time I think I phrased the bit about understanding theology rather poorly. Not the kind of tone I intended.  

As for appreciating the Theology...It depends what you mean. I don't hesitate to acknowledge the Catholic Church has one of the richest and deep Theological traditions in Christianity, but by the same token it's had far more resources at it's disposal than the Protestants or Orthodox to manage this level of academia (Although the Greek Orthodox and Coptics really aren't that far off either in sheer quantity, level and breadth of theological training they get). I do suppose I would have to say that though, I did study with a Greek Orthodox institution.

That said I don't agree with the conclusions, the further ahead we go with Catholic Theology I personally see an ever increasing level of autocracy absent in the early church. I also see several elements of Catholic Teaching which even the Roman Catholic Church concedes is based upon false premises (for instance the claim held up until the Lateran concordat with Mussolini that the Pope had a mandate originating from the so called Donation of Constantine to supreme temporal power). It had confessed long before then the document was a forgery, but it was only then it finally relinquished the claim and even then it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been on the verge of bankruptcy (that $92 million dollars was a hell of a lot of money back then after all and they were deep in debt).

I don't think this is a matter of Orthodox bias Randy, I don't believe in their theological claims either (and there are holes in their theology too) but there are just some claims the Catholic Church makes on a doctrinal level that were I a christian I simply couldn't find viable. Your catechisms for instance are infallible right? Empowered by the teaching authority of the church? Then how come many, many works prior to 1870 such as Keelan's catechism explicitly deny Papal Infallibility? Simpsons works on the subject are rather good I think.

When I look at older texts I see lots and lots of whitewashing in Catholic Theology, when a new teaching is revealed or made dogma I see lots of rewriting of history going on. I've no problem with this in principle, all Christians do it to a degree but none so deeply or deny it so fiercely as the Catholic Church.

I think many Catholic theological works are eloquent and make thoughtful reading, but in practice they speak about points that are vague or meaningless to most Catholics and will be rewritten or hidden from view when changes come that make the points raised inconvenient.

Your spirituality in practice I have more respect for, I find the rosary for instance to be a powerful symbol and devotional tool in Catholicism of which derivatives of such as the Anglican Rosary have never achieved the same mass acceptance. Catholicism as a lifestyle and culture is far more profound and visible than Protestantism (or it least it has the potential to be) due to your visible unity in sight if not in practice, after all cafeteria Christianity is a far bigger phenomena in Catholicism than in Orthodoxy. But that's to be expected since the Orthodox Patriarchs simply can't pull an idea out of their ass all on their own and say "God said we're doing this now". I mean...I have no idea how Humanae Vitae even managed to leave the Vatican office, the scriptural backing is non existent and it finds no backing in the Church fathers so it's no surprise most Catholics ignore it. Well, other than the fact it's impossible for most couples to practice.

And looking at this post I can see I've rambled for too long. I'm trying to demonstrate I'm being fair in my assessment Randy, I know most Non-Catholic Theologians are geared towards lashing back at Catholicism (as a response to never ceasing aggressive Catholic apologetic tracts aimed at them 90% of the time) but I'm not trying to convert you, after all I think you're all wrong. Just saying it as I see it.

Thank you for your thoughts.