Even though I tried to place myself in the position of the Pope during this timeframe and have tried to truly understand his reasons for initiating and allowing the selling of indulgences I find no rectification for what he did. But then again it is not surprising that the Catholic Church should allow something like that to happen. Over the years I think this church has become nothing but a simply way of doing business and of gaining power over people and of manipulating them. The church does this by using fear and threatening people that they will go to hell if they do not follow its specific guidelines. The church goes so far as to say that you are born a sinner and that you have to be baptized to cleanse your soul. When confronted with any thoughts, actions or ideals that conflict with its own, the church negatively labels these. It forces its followers to be fearful and close-minded by promising them that they can go to heaven when they die, but the only way to get there is through the church and its rules, and that if they do not follow this their souls will be damned for all eternity. The church takes any opportunity to take control of the people and keep them from thinking by themselves because if they do, the church may loose power; and so it continues to create rules and to adjust its guidelines to reflect its own outlook-it adjusts the meanings and interpretations of the bible according to what will benefit it most. Indeed, the church has a lot of power and influence over people. Just look at the Pope. He is not only of great significance in a religious sense but he is also an important political figure with great influence over people.
-anais-
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Catholic Church
Its goal: to gain more money, more power and more influence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpeg)
7 comments:
The leaders of the church truly preyed on the people's ignorance of the information in the bible. They held a position of near absolute power for so long it's no surprise they would use this to their advantage. When no one else could obtain or read the Latin texts it was very easy to spin translations to their own benefit. Lack of free thought allowed the church to convince people salvation could be bought. The Pope, priests, and other religious figures began to appear fallible as science was developed. If one aspect of the Catholic belief was disproved, it could topple their entire religion like dominoes. However, Luther and his followers were happy with a new interpretation of the bible and methods of salvation rather than flat out rejection of religion.
Kristen Smith
The leaders of the church preyed on the people's ignorance because they could. Prior to Luther and the Reformation, all of the biblical texts were written in Latin. Only those with enough money to be educated could read the texts. Since many people were poor, they could not read the Bible. Since they could not read it, they could not interpret the text themselves. Instead, they had to listen to whatever the church said. Because of this, the church possessed so much power that it could force people to do what it wanted them to do. What did they church want people to do? The answer follows: the church wanted people to donate money (and through the donation one would receive indulgences) so that it could finance some of its projects such as the building of St. Peter's dome in the Vatican. Since it had so much power, it forced people to donate. If people didn't, they would suffer the consequences. Their souls would be damned for all eternity. The threat of this consequence forced people to purchase indulgences to be saved. Someone or some organization that has too much control needed to be stopped and Martin Luther was the one to stop them. He opened up people's eyes and showed them that they do not need a middle-man to practice their faith, but instead that all of the answers should come directly from the source.
I find the original post to be something of the typical anti-catholic stance that anyone can give. To say that its nothing more than a business and its only interest is in manipulating people is quite insulting. The church operates some of the most effective charity organizations in the world, not only in helping people, but in also percent of donations spent. Church goers are not even required to give money unlike some synagogues and churches in which if you don't give 10-15 percent of your income, you can't be a member. I would call that more of a business than anything else
In terms of manipulating people, I would say that the Catholic Church is one of the more lenient in term of people doing what they want. Look at some of the hardcore Protestants in this country(ie Southern Baptist), or Muslims. Some of those followers are truly made to be total zombie-like followers of the faith, no questions asked.
I would also like to say however that the Catholic Church is not perfect, it does have problems which would be expected with such a large institution as it is. It also has made progress since the medieval period. Being Catholic I can say for certain that it is not as draconian as the original post made it out to be, that title can be left for other institutions.
Greg
I can't really say much on the beliefs of the Catholic Church specifically, or for any religion for that matter, because I am not knowledgeable on topics concerning religion. But, what I can say is that I find the posts belonging to Anais and Greg to be very interesting. I think it highlights very well how people think nowadays and also how the Pope and Luther may have argued in the past as well.
The Pope thought that through Ablasshandel, he was doing the right thing because it was raising money to make God a really really nice house! To me, honestly though, that just sounds like a bunch of..for lack of better word, crap. It seems like a 3rd grader would use that same excuse. Luther, on the other hand, argued and said that there is no way that what the Pope was doing was morally right, and that the church and money should not have anything to do with someones' redemption. Now in that scenario, Luther would never agree with the Pope and vice versa. They can criticize each other's beliefs all day, but nobody will be swayed.
This brings me to another thought. The idea of being 'converted' to a religion. From what we have read in our book, it seems as though people were being converted easily and that people were extremely gullible and were willing to do anything that sounded right. I feel that today that isn't the case. I mean, yes there exist some cultures that are extreme and force people to become a certain religion, but I just think in the majority, people believe how they want to believe because they have the choice to do so and they are not swayed or converted by others. We are definitely more educated on everything now, which was obviously a problem in the 1600's since German speakers were given Latin texts to read..which is equivalent to giving our German class an Arabic text to analyze.
It is very easy for believers of one religion to criticize the believers of another. That's kind of the beauty in freedom of religion and speech. Not everybody has to agree that one religion, their own, surpasses all the others.It kind of mirrors the politics and the presidential election year that we have going on now, since everyone has their own, very different opinions on the candidates.
We saw this religious freedom idea in the 16th century when the Peace of Augsburg gave families a grace period to choose which religion they wanted to belong to. Even though this choice was very limited, it was still nevertheless a choice, and could count as one stepping stone to where we are in today's society.
Emela Husic
I, just as Emela, cannot say much about the Catholic religion because of my lack of knowledge on the topic. What I can discuss, is the position that the Pope took during the time of the reformation. At this time the Pope is the ultimate power on earth. He controls all aspects of life. Few people had, prior to this point, questioned the Pope. The Pope is ordained by God and when one questions the Pope one questions God. This backwards logic works when your populace is as uneducated as it was during the Reformation.
I believe that the Pope realized a good situation. Yes, he took advantage of the poor and uneducated, but I cannot say that I would have done any different if in the situation. A sense of Corporate or Societal Responsibility was simply not present during this time. I am sure that the Pope was not the first to take advantage of the lower classes during the time of the Reformation, and he certainly was not the last. I am not saying what he did was right or just by any means, but simply that it is understandable.
In order to relate the idea to today, think of the mortgage crisis that is currently rippling through our economy. These companies took a similar stance and have profited immensely. No, this was not illegal, only immoral. Morality is an idea that is constantly changing. If you were in the situation of the mortgage companies what do you think you would have done? You found a way to make a buck praying on those that are uneducated. No, I would not have done this in today’s world, but what one must understand is that the Pope felt as if there would be no consequences. If I had the power that the Pope did then, and the situation arose, I would find it difficult to turn down the lucrative trade.
-Seth M Graves
All,
I feel as though we are being a bit harsh on the sanction of religion at this point in time. I think that it was necessary that we all stop throwing insults on the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, et al. j
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a prophet throwing stones nor calling anyone more blashphemous or misguided than the next, but I do believe that we are missing on of the main points of Luthers Revolution. While he may not be the urquelle of the reformation, he still exuded bravery in a time of the week. Martin Luther King was not the first Black Civil Rights activist, but it still does not demean his works and contributions.
Thidly, the Church was in power because the people allowed for it to be there. Mind you, many of the laymen (and women) were uneducated, ignorant, and misguided, but duly they still allowed for the church to be there. All hegemonies (the establishments et al)are fortified by the people... look at our own American government.. flawed to the very core and few of us flinch to make a change. It is the same principal, but to sit and further bastardize it as an entity only further reasons its curruption. Mother Theresa used to say, "I'll never go to an anti-War rally, but I'll go to a peace rally anyday."
In order to wrap all of this together, it is simply unfair to say that Martin Luther sold out. He was pious-- he had a thirst for spiritual knowledge. If he would have really not cared about redemption and the work of God, Christians would still be buying their way to heaven.
All,
I feel as though we are being a bit harsh on the sanction of religion at this point in time. I think that it was necessary that we all stop throwing insults on the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, et al. j
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a prophet throwing stones nor calling anyone more blashphemous or misguided than the next, but I do believe that we are missing on of the main points of Luthers Revolution. While he may not be the urquelle of the reformation, he still exuded bravery in a time of the week. Martin Luther King was not the first Black Civil Rights activist, but it still does not demean his works and contributions.
Thidly, the Church was in power because the people allowed for it to be there. Mind you, many of the laymen (and women) were uneducated, ignorant, and misguided, but duly they still allowed for the church to be there. All hegemonies (the establishments et al)are fortified by the people... look at our own American government.. flawed to the very core and few of us flinch to make a change. It is the same principal, but to sit and further bastardize it as an entity only further reasons its curruption. Mother Theresa used to say, "I'll never go to an anti-War rally, but I'll go to a peace rally anyday."
In order to wrap all of this together, it is simply unfair to say that Martin Luther sold out. He was pious-- he had a thirst for spiritual knowledge. If he would have really not cared about redemption and the work of God, Christians would still be buying their way to heaven.
--Eric B'
Post a Comment