Church to apologise to Darwin's family

Originally posted by Conrau K
But who is "they" that burnt Bruno? Surely not the whole Catholic Church? Surely not the priests and nuns who cared for the poor or the ordinary Mass-going peasants; at most you could say that it was an elite group of bishops of a particular time -- certainly not representative of the Catholic Church.

Analogously, would you apply the same standar ...[text shortened]... veness of slavery in 19th century, colonial societies make Britain and France cruel countries?

They are everyone not criticizing the cruelty of the Chatolic church of today, Catholics, non catholics, even Moslems. If a nun caring for a child but think that burning a scientist alive is okay has no credibility if you ask me.

If a child molesting Chatolic priest have amnesty from higher levels of the church, and people cant complain this, because the name of the pope is not known?

Every wrong act commited by any organization is criticizable!
Torture burning, molesting is therefore is criticizable, don't you think?

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Every wrong act commited by any organization is criticizable!
Torture burning, molesting is therefore is criticizable, don't you think?

This gets tiresome. I admit that the killing of Bruno is disgusting. Criticise away! What I disagree with is the suggestion that this means that the Catholic Church is cruel; it only means that some members of the Catholic Church were cruel in the seventeenth century.

And do remember that your first criticism was actually that the Church was afraid of science, a criticism which was also totally false.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This gets tiresome. I admit that the killing of Bruno is disgusting. Criticise away! What I disagree with is the suggestion that this means that the Catholic Church is cruel; it only means that some members of the Catholic Church were cruel in the seventeenth century.

And do remember that your first criticism was actually that the Church was afraid of science, a criticism which was also totally false.

Tiresome or not, this is what I think:

If you think the burning of Bruno is discusting, then you are not a target to criticism. Those who defend the church right to do it is to blame. And as the member of the top in the organization thinks it's alright, then the chuch itself are to criticized.

Isn't it known for a fact that church often enough tend to criticize science? Or is it its members only? A think about the times when the church actually believed the Earth was in the center of universe while science showed by observations otherwise. Same thing with evolution and a lot of other branches in science where observations prove that the bible is wrong (or at least has to be interpreted a lot) in some details.

Now, with the church, I don't meadn the catolic church only, but all priests of any church who are anti-science in its nature.

Originally posted by Conrau K
How does this in any way mean that The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical? The quotes you give show only that the Inquisition office and the Pope believed it to be heretical. That is not a declaration, let alone a declaration of the Church (perhaps you have confused terminology; a declaration of heresy is an ex cathedra teaching i.e. that declares a belief anathema.)

They didn't say "Simon sez" but they were prepared to torture and burn people at the stake if they didn't recant their belief in heliocentrism. That's a sufficient "declaration" for all but the most extremist apologists.

Originally posted by no1marauder
They didn't say "Simon sez" but they were prepared to torture and burn people at the stake if they didn't recant their belief in heliocentrism. That's a sufficient "declaration" for all but the most extremist apologists.

Call it a declaration in the weak sense, but it is not a declaration of heresy by the Church.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Tiresome or not, this is what I think:

If you think the burning of Bruno is discusting, then you are not a target to criticism. Those who defend the church right to do it is to blame. And as the member of the top in the organization thinks it's alright, then the chuch itself are to criticized.

Isn't it known for a fact that church often enough tend ...[text shortened]... dn the catolic church only, but all priests of any church who are anti-science in its nature.

I don't think you are getting it. No one defends the burning of Bruno. I doubt a single Catholic agrees that it is the right thing to do to a person, no matter how heretical. So you cannot say the "Church is cruel" just from the misbehaviour of Catholic clerics some four hundred years ago.

Originally posted by Conrau K
So you cannot say the "Church is cruel" just from the misbehaviour of Catholic clerics some four hundred years ago.

No, not for that alone, there are a lot of other things the Catholic church has don, that is cruel for the victims.

The thing is that the Church are still doing some of it, still denying that they in fact do it, and when they admit it they defend it.

Not only the Chatolic church, but other churches, or 'churches', as well.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, not for that alone, there are a lot of other things the Catholic church has don, that is cruel for the victims.

The thing is that the Church are still doing some of it, still denying that they in fact do it, and when they admit it they defend it.

Not only the Chatolic church, but other churches, or 'churches', as well.

You can't just make such generalisations about such a large oganisation. Would you say that America is a cruel country because some states practice capital punishment?

You need to be more specific about "what they are still doing". As far as I understand, there is no official support for burning heretics in the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
.. So you cannot say the "Church is cruel" just from the misbehaviour of Catholic clerics some four hundred years ago.

Nope .. now they too loving .... 😀

Originally posted by Conrau K
You can't just make such generalisations about such a large oganisation. Would you say that America is a cruel country because some states practice capital punishment?

You need to be more specific about "what they are still doing". As far as I understand, there is no official support for burning heretics in the Catholic Church.

Actually yes, you just CAN make generalisations, and you should, when information is incomplete. Its the only way to communicate quickly. So if you have more information share it.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Actually yes, you just CAN make generalisations, and you should, when information is incomplete. Its the only way to communicate quickly. So if you have more information share it.

Not in this case. You can't just say "These seventeenth century clerics had Bruno burned as a heretic. Therefore, the Catholic Church is cruel." It ignores the fact that capital punishment was condemned by the early church, that some Catholics of the seventeenth century opposed the excesses of Inquisitorial punishment and that popes and bishops have formally apologised in recent years for what happened. Many nuns and priests devote their lives to helping the poor but I surely can't make the generalisation that the Catholic Church is charitable. Double-standards...

It is even more ridiculous to say that the Catholic Church fears science, when Bruno was not actually condemned for his scientific views but because, as a philosopher, he denied central tenets of the Church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Call it a declaration in the weak sense, but it is not a declaration of heresy by the Church.

We never officially declared war on Vietnam, yet we had over 50,000 brave soldiers killed there. Does that mean it wasn't really a war? Great...it was only a war in the "weak sense", like our current invasion and occupation of Iraq. I'm sure that'll make the dead feel a lot better.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Call it a declaration in the weak sense, but it is not a declaration of heresy by the Church.

Galileo was tried and punished for heretical views. If he hadn't recanted, he would have been executed and his property seized and given to the Church.

That doesn't seem "weak" to me and I doubt if it seemed "weak" to Galileo.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Galileo was tried and punished for heretical views. If he hadn't recanted, he would have been executed and his property seized and given to the Church.

That doesn't seem "weak" to me and I doubt if it seemed "weak" to Galileo.

It is weak in the sense that it is not a real declaration in the full sense of the word. A declaration by the Catholic Church against heresy is an infallible teaching promulgated by the Pope and the Communion of Bishops. The condemnation of Galileo was a declaration in the idiomatic sense that it 'sent a message' to Catholics who disobeyed the office of the inquisition; it was not, however, a real declaration.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It is weak in the sense that it is not a real declaration in the full sense of the word. A declaration by the Catholic Church against heresy is an infallible teaching promulgated by the Pope and the Communion of Bishops. The condemnation of Galileo was a declaration in the idiomatic sense that it 'sent a message' to Catholics who disobeyed the office of the inquisition; it was not, however, a real declaration.

But they could still be killed for not obeying this "weak" declaration - right or wrong?