The Vatican, no friend of Liberty
Catholic Priests willingly allied with Nazis
There isn't much argument that until the early sixteenth century the Catholic Church pretty much ruled Europe and that they did it with an iron fist. It was the power behind virtually every government in every country, in Europe you couldn't rule unless you first kissed the pope's ring and agreed to rule as a Catholic Monarch. Oh there were disagreements between the parties from time to time to be sure but from the first day that Constantine converted to Catholicism the pope of the Roman Catholic Church effectively ruled the Western World. In 1513 Martin Luther threw sort of a monkey wrench into the works with that pesky Protestant Reformation stuff but even that didn't really end the dominance of the church because even today the Catholic Church maintains a power structure unlike any other in the modern world. Controlled by a single individual who has more power within the church than any modern leader has in just about any country in the world, the pope's power is absolute and he is considered infallible in matters of faith, in other words, he claims the power of God, totally ridiculous of course but that's what he claims, as far as the pope and his followers are concerned he may as well be God. And let's not ignore those followers, those subjects of the pope who live all over the globe and while most are probably perfectly fine upstanding citizens of their respective countries there are certainly those who consider their first loyalty to be to the Vatican. That would be fine if the Church stuck to preaching their particular brand mindless dogma but they don't, the Catholic Church has been meddling in secular affairs from the very beginning and they have not been especially kind, one might even say they've been pretty damned nasty. That troubles the Skeptic and it ought trouble you as well, if the pope were just this nice little man running a nice little religion that might be one thing, who would care what sort of power he claimed? It wouldn't matter to anyone who wasn't Catholic, if he were just dealing in matters of faith and telling his adherents what to do and how to think about their immortal souls the Skeptic wouldn't care less but that isn't what he does, far from it. No, this little man is different, this little man has embassies all around the world and many of his followers who trust him and believe his claims to be God's representative are in positions of power in governments around the world. People who should be, and in most cases probably are, loyal to their country have a secondary allegiance in their lives, an allegiance to their Catholic faith, a faith that has been very murderous through the centuries. That is why the issue of Jack Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith was so fiercely debated before he was elected, people were fearful that the Vatican would be pulling the strings behind the scenes. And why wouldn't they worry? The Vatican had been doing that exact thing for centuries, JFK assured the country he wouldn't put his Church over country but just the fact that he had to do that validated that there was a problem, no Baptist or Presbyterian ever had to make such claims because there is no one Baptist leader or any other Protestant leader who claims to be God. Kennedy assured the country that he wouldn't be taking orders from the pope and he asserted his strong belief in separation of church and state, all well and good, what he did not say was that the pope wouldn't be attempting to issue orders.
While of course there is no reason whatsoever to exclude Catholics from holding any office, and no one here is saying that, there is however, cause for worry when it comes to the Catholic faith itself because it is very different than any other and that is troubling, not because it's different but because of the very nature of the Catholic faith and the history of Catholic treachery. The issue is that this church isn't used to playing second fiddle to anyone, they boldly claim to be the one and only true church, all others are heretical. They are, as an institution, used to wielding power, in secular as well as spiritual matters, and when an institution holds the sort of power the Vatican held for as long as they held it they don't just give it up willingly, the power might wax and wane but the desire to hold on to it never goes away. And if that power is taken away by circumstances beyond their control you can be damn sure they won't take it lightly, they will fight tooth and nail to get it back, that is human nature and the Catholic Church is nothing but a group of humans, no matter who they claim to represent. This is a very bold group, they claim to be a Christian church but they openly and freely assert they have the power to invent new doctrine, to disagree with the very Bible they helped to assemble, to invent rules for living that Christ Himself preached against so why would anyone think they are just a harmless religion out to harm no one? Even today their behavior shows their arrogance and their total disregard for the laws of the countries where they operate, their priests molest children by the thousands and the church hierarchy helps them to escape punishment and why not? Their leader claims to have the power of Heaven behind him, he can forgive all sins so why would they have to submit to the laws of men? This is a problem for the Skeptic, how can we as a free country deal with that sort of arrogance without discriminating against individual Catholics? How does one deal with a man who believes he can speak for God? It doesn't get any easier when people like presidential candidate Rick Santorum make statements indicating that Jack Kennedy's speech about his religion made him want to vomit because he doesn't believe people should leave their faith out of public policy. Take that along with his statement saying that today's Protestantism is 'gone from the world of Christianity', and the Skeptic wonders exactly what Mr. Santorum's agenda would be if he were elected, would he like to make Roman Catholicism the state religion of the United States? The Skeptic knows it sounds crazy but who really knows what to think when you're dealing with a pope, once a Nazi, of a church that has been nothing trouble from their very inception? Today we are so politically correct it comes across as foolish to even think these thoughts but people worried about that church for hundreds of years and there was good reason for worry, even our founding fathers worried about this as you will see later in this article.
The argument made by Catholics is that in America we can't discriminate against religion, it's against the Constitution but the Skeptic thinks the constitutional argument sort of works against them in another aspect. What other religion has an ambassador appointed to them by the United States government? The Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Mormons? What other religion has an embassy in Washington? It's called an Apostolic Nunciature, but it's the equivalent of an embassy and the answer is no other religion has one but the United States maintains full diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Gee, it's almost like having diplomatic relations with Heaven, isn't it? But to the Skeptic when our government sends an ambassador to a church, one particularly troubling church, it gets very close to the line of establishing a state religion and the relationship ought to be abolished immediately.
Modern Vatican sovereignty was handed to them by one of the twentieth century's leading Fascists, Benito Mussolini, in the Treaty of Lateran, until that time they only had use of the ground where the Vatican stood, they had lost it years before but as noted earlier this church does not quit easily, they wanted that sovereignty back and they got it. That treaty also had the pope pledge neutrality in world affairs but that part of the agreement was broken practically before the ink was dry on the paper. Once they had their sovereignty back they formed alliances with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and others, all ruled, interestingly enough, by Catholic dictators. In fact, in the case of Hitler it was the Catholic Church in the person of Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, known also as Hitler's pope, who gave Hitler a serious boost in his efforts to become the chancellor of Germany and once he was Chancellor they helped him pass the Enabling Act which essentially made him a dictator. All very interesting to the Skeptic.
Today the Vatican has embassies all over the world and the question needs to be asked, why? To protect the interests of Catholics everywhere? Hardly. To aid in the preaching of the gospel to the masses? You don't need embassies for that, most religions have missionaries around the world but no embassies. No, a better reason for maintaining these embassies is they are a very important tool for moving people and information around the world without having to ask permission from anyone, something that is very convenient for any number of activities. Most people have at least a vague notion that the Catholic Church was involved in assisting Nazi war criminals escape justice and helped get them out of Europe but not many probably realize exactly how they did it or the extent of the Vatican's involvement. It was largely because of their diplomatic relationships with other countries, mostly in South America, and their ability to print their own identity paperwork for the escaping criminals, this can only be done by sovereign nations...and the Vatican. But why would a Church involve itself in helping Nazi war criminals? The simple and obvious answer might be that they agreed with the stated goals of the people involved, they certainly helped to put them in power, and wanted to help them avoid punishment. It is interesting that a large number of Nazi leaders were Catholic including Adolf Hitler himself, and of course you can't ignore the fact that the current pope was also a Nazi, not a leader of course but a Nazi nevertheless so it's pretty clear they aren't exactly put off by the swastika. Of course the Vatican officially denies knowing much about all of this but they deny lots of things, they claim it was a work of some of their rogue priests without official approval from the Vatican but it is curious how, throughout history, the Vatican has been on the wrong side of hundreds of historical events. Is that bad luck, bad judgement or is it something else altogether? They've killed hundreds of thousands, some say millions, of people for the horrible crime of not being Catholic. They were suspiciously supportive of the people involved in Abraham Lincoln's assassination, most of whom were Catholic. The Vatican literally extinguished the Cathars, a religious movement that was flourishing in France in the 12th and 13th centuries for no other reason than they weren't Catholic and that they were growing fast, a very real threat to Rome's dominance. It was a Catholic priest, Bartolomeo de las Casas, who first suggested using Africans as slaves in the New World, the Vatican claims he did this because he didn't think the Indian slaves could handle the hard work and he was merely trying to help the Indians. Not much of a defense to favor Indians over Africans but that's what they claimed. A Bishop from Georgia, Benjamin Keiley, is suspected of having over 65,000 children stolen from their parents and placed in Houses of the Good Shepherd. Some of these children were allegedly used by priests as sex slaves. When ordered to allow his own house to be searched the good bishop stated he got his laws from Rome and he was not subject to laws made in America. He refused the search and the matter wasn't pursued.
During the Second World War Catholic priests in Croatia stood by, and in many cases actively participated, as 700,000 people were murdered for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, this was in the 1940s, not the twelfth century, it was practically yesterday. As usual the Vatican claims this was done by local priests without the knowledge of the Vatican but that excuse doesn't wash, it's the same excuse they use for everything, just rogue priests disobeying the Vatican's orders to be kind and charitable to all. Not many dispute the church was responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries but the modern church was supposedly reformed so what does it say about that church when, at the first opportunity to go back in time to their old behavior, they jumped at the chance? Why should we believe for a minute that the church of today wouldn't willingly do the same thing they did during the war if the opportunity presented itself again? How can we know they aren't actively pursuing such an opportunity right now? Certainly the way they are handling their sex scandal couldn't fill anyone with much hope that true change has taken place in Rome or in their hearts. The Skeptic can only go by their behavior, past and present, and there is nothing there, not a single thing that would suggest they have changed in any meaningful way whatsoever. They might point to all the schools they have established and it's true, they have a lot of schools, schools where in addition to math and science they teach the Catholic brand of faith so it's not as if they established these schools as an act of charity. Islam has schools too, not many of us would claim that those schools are a sign that Islam has reformed itself.
So what sort of things could the church be up to these days? Certainly they aren't murdering people anymore, at least not in large numbers, but does that mean they have finally reformed themselves and are now solely concerned with things of a spiritual nature? Sadly, no, we all know about the abuse of children that they have systematically done their damnedest to cover up but as bad as that is it isn't quite at the level of mass murder. No, today they are more subtle, in a world where information can be sent around the globe with the click of a mouse they can no longer operate with any expectation that their actions won't be discovered so they have been forced to change, the old ways of acting up wouldn't work for them anymore. They are forced to be more creative and evidence would suggest they have done just that.
The Skeptic doesn't know how many people know this but there is a theory that the Vatican actually hates America, now hate is a strong word but it applies and the theory makes some sense. The theory goes that an autocratic organization like the Vatican and the United States are antithetical to each other, one demands unquestioned obedience and the other allows freedom of thought and action. America embraces freedom of religion, something the Vatican has never tolerated in any form, remember as far as they're concerned if you aren't Catholic you're a heretic, you are on your way to hell in a handbasket. So, if the theory is valid, what would be a good way to destroy a powerful but heretical country like America? How about you find a way to populate the country with loyal and dedicated Catholics? Good idea but where would one find these good, loyal Catholics? Well, it just so happens there is an entire continent filled to the brim with millions of Catholics and they're quite loyal and largely uneducated, just like the pope likes it, and a good number of them would like to come here anyway. Would those good Catholics break the law to come here simply because the Vatican asked them? Well, just a few decades ago those Catholics took in thousands of murderous Nazis just because the so-called Holy Father asked for a favor so what do you think? Of course the Vatican doesn't come out and openly tell thousands of people to flood over our southern border, no, that would be wrong, but they frequently lecture us that we are the ones in the wrong and that we ought to be more welcoming to the illegal immigrants. Rome only says that they are concerned with the health and safety of these poor immigrants, so what if that encourages them to break the laws of the United States, people are people, there are no borders as far as God is concerned, right? This is how the Vatican operates, they never forget and they are constantly looking for ways to increase their influence, they have no regard for international borders, they only care that they survive to fight another day.
The Skeptic would like someone to point to him to a time in the history of this church when they weren't engaged in murder, torture, political intrigue, sexual misconduct...you name it, you'll have to look very hard because the truth is there is no time when they weren't up to something. Even the sexual misconduct goes back to the beginning, in fact you might say the horrible crimes they are committing today are minor by comparison to the level of sexual crimes they've committed in the past.
There have been several occasions in the past when good people inside the Catholic Church saw what was going on and made attempts to reform it but every single time change was rebuffed and ignored. The great artist Michelangelo was involved with a movement called the Spirituali, it included several church leaders including a few cardinals who saw that the church was extremely corrupt and wanted it to change. Michelangelo's painting The Second Coming of Christ was denounced by a Cardinal Carraffa, a future pope, because, now get this, it focused too much on the relationship of man with Christ and not his relationship with the Church of Rome. Are you starting to see the problem? This is not a religion that focuses on spiritual matters, its focus is and always has been on power, its own power. The Spirituali published a book called The Benefit of Christ's Death, it stated their supreme belief that man was saved by faith alone and not by the church and its sacraments. It should be no surprise that the Vatican immediately banned the book.
In the days before political correctness ruled the land and people were more willing to speak out many of this country's founders expressed their opinion of the Roman Church. The Skeptic doesn't think they were ignorant or intolerant, on the contrary, they were very intelligent, very well read and they spoke their minds. Here are a few examples.
"I have long been decided in opinion that a free government and the Roman Catholic religion can never exist together in any nation or Country." "Liberty and Popery cannot live together." John Adams
"I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits.... Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this Society of Loyola. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum." Thomas Jefferson
If ever any Congregation of Men could merit eternal Perdition on Earth and in Hell, it is the company of Loyola.
− John Adams, writing to Thomas Jefferson, in 1816
Not much doubt how Jefferson and Adams felt about the Vatican and considering the combined intellect of these men wouldn't it be worthwhile to pay their opinions some heed? If the Vatican is truly an above board religion and not some power hungry organization that feels no obligation to follow the laws of any nation state it's hard to imagine these two great minds would have been so willing to express their opinions so forcibly.
There are a lot of websites out there that claim the Roman Catholic Church is the work of the devil or that the pope is the antichrist, the Skeptic can't and won't make judgements like that, he has no way of knowing and to be honest it doesn't interest him that much. The Skeptic is more interested in facts, things that can be proven and facts alone are enough for the Skeptic to say there is something seriously wrong at the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe it was an honest church at one point in time, maybe, but if it was the Skeptic thinks it all changed for the church when they climbed into bed with Constantine. Up until that point in time Christians were persecuted, whether Catholics were true Christians at that point in time is debatable, what isn't debatable is that once they were named the official state religion of the Holy Roman Empire things began to change. Suddenly the pope was the most powerful man in Europe, able to make decisions that men were obligated to follow or die, the pope's word was law and it wasn't long after that point that things went very awry for the church. If they were ever interested in following the preachings of Christ that ended soon after they attained this unbelievable power. No longer did they have to use the Bible as a guide for their faith, the pope was free to make up new doctrine, he was declared infallible, he was God on earth. That's really quite interesting when you think of it, that's how Roman emperors thought of themselves, gods on earth, and now along comes this powerful new position, the pope, why should he think of himself as anything less than a mere emperor? In a very real way the Catholic Church is nothing less than an extension of the Roman Empire with the pope playing the part of Caesar. Romans were an arrogant bloodthirsty people and the Vatican didn't stray far from that model, they claimed to be the only true church, they never hesitated to use violence as a means to an end and they did not tolerate dissent. Call him crazy but the Skeptic is pretty sure that is not what Christ had in mind for His church. Is it even remotely possible that Christ would want any church associated with Him to torture and kill people the way the Catholic Church did for centuries? The Roman Empire also killed and tortured people, they did a lot of that for sport, the Church did it as a means of keeping the faithful in line but is there really any difference? And, doesn't it make sense that in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church that there would have been at least one pope with the courage to admit that things had gone horribly awry? It does unless you assume that they all thought everything was just fine the way it was, by none of them stepping up and stating the obvious it makes them all guilty and complicit in of all of the crimes committed by the church.
The Skeptic knows that he is going to get emails saying he is crazy or anti Catholic or any number of other insults but the Skeptic has never once killed anyone, tortured anyone, molested any children or even aided any criminals in their escape from justice but the Vatican has done all of these things and it ought not be forgotten and just because they aren't currently killing anyone that we know of doesn't mean they should get a pass. How anyone could remain a Catholic once they know the history of that church is a little beyond comprehension to the Skeptic, a religion, or faith, should be about about a person's soul, and about how they live their life and unfortunately the Catholic Church seems to care very little about such things. Their history is filled with pain inflicted on others by the church, they claim to represent God, they claim to have faith in Jesus but when one reads the Bible it's difficult to understand how one pope after another determined that the behavior of the church was acceptable. Jesus preached a doctrine that could not be any further removed from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. He preached love and forgiveness and they preached hatred, they killed, they tortured and they sold forgiveness in the form of Indulgences. It's madness and what makes it worse is these people knew exactly what they were doing, they were really some of the most educated people of their day, sometimes the only educated people, they could read the Bible, something their parishioners couldn't do and they lied about what was in it. What makes this even worse was they did all they could to keep people from learning how to read. And sorry but there's no other way to put it, they lied and they made up silly rituals for reasons known only to them, certainly none of them can be found in the Bible.
Catholics like to say that we owe them a debt of gratitude because they preserved so much knowledge during the dark ages, true enough to some extent, but the real truth of the matter is they were largely responsible for the dark ages, they did not want the common man to be educated. It's no secret the dark ages began shortly after Constantine converted to Catholicism and the pope became the de facto ruler of Europe. And when did the dark ages come to an end? Well it should come as no surprise the the veil of darkness began to lift when serious people like John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, demanded that the Roman Church institute some reforms. Wycliffe was one of the first people to call for translating the Bible into the common language so people could read for themselves what was in there. Okay, this will probably shock you, the movement started by Wycliffe was suppressed by Rome, stunned, aren't you? Unfortunately for the Catholic Church that movement was only the beginning and only led to more calls for reform which Rome also ignored and squashed until they couldn't hold it back any longer and Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation. And one more surprise for you, that's what led to the real end of the dark ages. Secular rulers used the Protestant Reformation to expand their own influence and much of northern Europe became Protestant and wealthy and educated. So much for the Catholic claim to have preserved knowledge, one can only wonder how much further along we'd be in terms of knowledge if the Roman Church wasn't there to stunt the growth of science and learning. For a thousand years we stagnated while Rome killed and tortured the poor uneducated people of Europe, and for what purpose? To maintain earthly, secular power, something Jesus, the founder of Christianity would never have countenanced for a moment, it meant nothing to Him. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world...", that seems simple enough to understand, He was saying that His church should be involved in spiritual matters and not worry about secular issues, the Catholic Church has done the exact opposite.
But maybe we should just forgive and forget the sins of the church? Maybe the Church just made an honest mistake? Well, maybe we should forgive and forget but unfortunately their treachery didn't end with the Reformation, it continues to this day so no, the Skeptic doesn't think forgetting what they've done in the past is a good option.
Look, we live in a modern world with modern problems, the Skeptic knows that, we have to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state or a terrorist, a major cyber attack could come from just about anyplace so why worry about an old and corrupt organization like the Catholic Church? Shouldn't we be more concerned with Islam? Maybe, who knows for sure but can we really afford to let the Vatican continue with their own special brand of mischief? Do we need to worry about every Catholic in a position of power? Of course not, just a quick look at American Catholic politicians, especially on the left, will tell you they are perfectly happy to ignore Catholic dogma for the sake of their careers but all it would take to cause real trouble is a few loyal Catholics willing to do the bidding of the pope. Anyway, it's not possible and not practical and most importantly, not constitutional to discriminate against Catholics but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. What we can do is pay attention to the world around us, pay attention to what the cardinals and bishops of the Roman Church are saying and what the Skeptic hears from them now is a church that encourages people to ignore the laws of the United States. They encourage and aid illegal immigrants to cross the border and enter this country illegally. They even funded an aid station in the desert to help them get across the desert, these are the actions of an organization trying to weaken the country, not the actions of a responsible church. If they wanted to help the poor people of Mexico they might consider financial aid to them, or encouraging them to go through the proper channels to come here but once again they do as they please, adhering to the old line that they are accountable only to God, not the laws of men, and that is why the Vatican ought to be considered an enemy of the United States.
The Catholic Church is a survivor, it's not easy to write this stuff because people tend to forgive the church for it's past but imagine this for a minute. Imagine the Nazis had won the Second World War and a second or third generation of Hitler was ruling the world, would we all just lay down and accept it or would there still be enough people willing to fight them? Would we forgive them for all the murder and torture they inflicted on the Jews and others? One would hope not but the sins of the Nazis are really no worse than the sins of the Catholic Church, hell they were involved with the Nazis but because the church continues to survive we all tend to ignore their history...why, because they claim to represent God. The claim is ridiculous on the face of it, would God sanction any church that murdered people because they chose not to become Catholic, of course not, God reserves the right to punish or not punish, he hardly needs the help of the pope but because the claim to be a Christian church we want to think the best of them.
Jews have been reviled by many people through time but what have they ever done to deserve such a fate? Well, unfortunately the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for this through their doctrine of Translated Responsibility which stated that all Jews bore the responsibility for the death of Christ. It was this doctrine that gave cover to those who would go on to treat Jews in the most despicable ways imaginable and the church didn't change their position on this until the 1960s. And what does the church say about this? They think they should be commended for finally getting around to saying it was wrong, this is the type of arrogance that this church brings to our world.
So why write this article? Will it change anything? In all likelihood no but the Skeptic still wants to be on the record as saying we ought to break all official ties with this church. We ought not to be associated in any way whatsoever with any organization with this sort of history, just mention Hitler in the same breath as someone and people jump all over you but the pope who put him in power and helped many Nazis escape gets a pass. Should we ban the church in America? The Skeptic is with Jefferson on this point, no, we are compelled to accept them because of our Constitution, but we needn't place them above other religions to the point of having diplomatic relations with them. If Nazi Germany was still around we hopefully wouldn't have an ambassador in Berlin and we shouldn't have one at the Vatican.
Finally, in closing, the Skeptic has no interest in seeing the Catholic Church go away any more than he'd like to see Islam go away, it wouldn't bother him if they both disappeared but it's not very likely to happen, however, if they are going to continue to act in ways that are so harmful to the rest of us the Skeptic will have to continue the criticism. People are afraid to criticize Islam out of fear they will be harmed in some way, should people really have to fear a bunch of evil men in silly clothes who pretend that they are men of God? Hardly. And while many people do criticize the Catholic Church it's usually only for the behavior of their priests, isn't it about time someone stepped up and told the damn pope that he ought to not be meddling in the secular affairs of countries? That the Vatican ought to come clean and admit they'd been running a criminal organization for the last two thousand years? The Catholic Church has ruined more lives than it's possible to imagine, that's not an exaggeration, isn't it time that someone called them to account for that? The tyranny they impose on the world will never stop if people don't just drop the political correctness and the politeness and say what everyone knows, that these two religions have caused more pain and suffering in the world than any despot ever did and it needs to stop.
Religion is about your soul, about finding some peace and comfort in a world that isn't peaceful, it should not be the source of most of the trouble and conflict. If you're a member of one of these religions take a moment to reconsider and think about what you're doing.
While of course there is no reason whatsoever to exclude Catholics from holding any office, and no one here is saying that, there is however, cause for worry when it comes to the Catholic faith itself because it is very different than any other and that is troubling, not because it's different but because of the very nature of the Catholic faith and the history of Catholic treachery. The issue is that this church isn't used to playing second fiddle to anyone, they boldly claim to be the one and only true church, all others are heretical. They are, as an institution, used to wielding power, in secular as well as spiritual matters, and when an institution holds the sort of power the Vatican held for as long as they held it they don't just give it up willingly, the power might wax and wane but the desire to hold on to it never goes away. And if that power is taken away by circumstances beyond their control you can be damn sure they won't take it lightly, they will fight tooth and nail to get it back, that is human nature and the Catholic Church is nothing but a group of humans, no matter who they claim to represent. This is a very bold group, they claim to be a Christian church but they openly and freely assert they have the power to invent new doctrine, to disagree with the very Bible they helped to assemble, to invent rules for living that Christ Himself preached against so why would anyone think they are just a harmless religion out to harm no one? Even today their behavior shows their arrogance and their total disregard for the laws of the countries where they operate, their priests molest children by the thousands and the church hierarchy helps them to escape punishment and why not? Their leader claims to have the power of Heaven behind him, he can forgive all sins so why would they have to submit to the laws of men? This is a problem for the Skeptic, how can we as a free country deal with that sort of arrogance without discriminating against individual Catholics? How does one deal with a man who believes he can speak for God? It doesn't get any easier when people like presidential candidate Rick Santorum make statements indicating that Jack Kennedy's speech about his religion made him want to vomit because he doesn't believe people should leave their faith out of public policy. Take that along with his statement saying that today's Protestantism is 'gone from the world of Christianity', and the Skeptic wonders exactly what Mr. Santorum's agenda would be if he were elected, would he like to make Roman Catholicism the state religion of the United States? The Skeptic knows it sounds crazy but who really knows what to think when you're dealing with a pope, once a Nazi, of a church that has been nothing trouble from their very inception? Today we are so politically correct it comes across as foolish to even think these thoughts but people worried about that church for hundreds of years and there was good reason for worry, even our founding fathers worried about this as you will see later in this article.
The argument made by Catholics is that in America we can't discriminate against religion, it's against the Constitution but the Skeptic thinks the constitutional argument sort of works against them in another aspect. What other religion has an ambassador appointed to them by the United States government? The Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Mormons? What other religion has an embassy in Washington? It's called an Apostolic Nunciature, but it's the equivalent of an embassy and the answer is no other religion has one but the United States maintains full diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Gee, it's almost like having diplomatic relations with Heaven, isn't it? But to the Skeptic when our government sends an ambassador to a church, one particularly troubling church, it gets very close to the line of establishing a state religion and the relationship ought to be abolished immediately.
Modern Vatican sovereignty was handed to them by one of the twentieth century's leading Fascists, Benito Mussolini, in the Treaty of Lateran, until that time they only had use of the ground where the Vatican stood, they had lost it years before but as noted earlier this church does not quit easily, they wanted that sovereignty back and they got it. That treaty also had the pope pledge neutrality in world affairs but that part of the agreement was broken practically before the ink was dry on the paper. Once they had their sovereignty back they formed alliances with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and others, all ruled, interestingly enough, by Catholic dictators. In fact, in the case of Hitler it was the Catholic Church in the person of Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, known also as Hitler's pope, who gave Hitler a serious boost in his efforts to become the chancellor of Germany and once he was Chancellor they helped him pass the Enabling Act which essentially made him a dictator. All very interesting to the Skeptic.
Today the Vatican has embassies all over the world and the question needs to be asked, why? To protect the interests of Catholics everywhere? Hardly. To aid in the preaching of the gospel to the masses? You don't need embassies for that, most religions have missionaries around the world but no embassies. No, a better reason for maintaining these embassies is they are a very important tool for moving people and information around the world without having to ask permission from anyone, something that is very convenient for any number of activities. Most people have at least a vague notion that the Catholic Church was involved in assisting Nazi war criminals escape justice and helped get them out of Europe but not many probably realize exactly how they did it or the extent of the Vatican's involvement. It was largely because of their diplomatic relationships with other countries, mostly in South America, and their ability to print their own identity paperwork for the escaping criminals, this can only be done by sovereign nations...and the Vatican. But why would a Church involve itself in helping Nazi war criminals? The simple and obvious answer might be that they agreed with the stated goals of the people involved, they certainly helped to put them in power, and wanted to help them avoid punishment. It is interesting that a large number of Nazi leaders were Catholic including Adolf Hitler himself, and of course you can't ignore the fact that the current pope was also a Nazi, not a leader of course but a Nazi nevertheless so it's pretty clear they aren't exactly put off by the swastika. Of course the Vatican officially denies knowing much about all of this but they deny lots of things, they claim it was a work of some of their rogue priests without official approval from the Vatican but it is curious how, throughout history, the Vatican has been on the wrong side of hundreds of historical events. Is that bad luck, bad judgement or is it something else altogether? They've killed hundreds of thousands, some say millions, of people for the horrible crime of not being Catholic. They were suspiciously supportive of the people involved in Abraham Lincoln's assassination, most of whom were Catholic. The Vatican literally extinguished the Cathars, a religious movement that was flourishing in France in the 12th and 13th centuries for no other reason than they weren't Catholic and that they were growing fast, a very real threat to Rome's dominance. It was a Catholic priest, Bartolomeo de las Casas, who first suggested using Africans as slaves in the New World, the Vatican claims he did this because he didn't think the Indian slaves could handle the hard work and he was merely trying to help the Indians. Not much of a defense to favor Indians over Africans but that's what they claimed. A Bishop from Georgia, Benjamin Keiley, is suspected of having over 65,000 children stolen from their parents and placed in Houses of the Good Shepherd. Some of these children were allegedly used by priests as sex slaves. When ordered to allow his own house to be searched the good bishop stated he got his laws from Rome and he was not subject to laws made in America. He refused the search and the matter wasn't pursued.
During the Second World War Catholic priests in Croatia stood by, and in many cases actively participated, as 700,000 people were murdered for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, this was in the 1940s, not the twelfth century, it was practically yesterday. As usual the Vatican claims this was done by local priests without the knowledge of the Vatican but that excuse doesn't wash, it's the same excuse they use for everything, just rogue priests disobeying the Vatican's orders to be kind and charitable to all. Not many dispute the church was responsible for millions of deaths over the centuries but the modern church was supposedly reformed so what does it say about that church when, at the first opportunity to go back in time to their old behavior, they jumped at the chance? Why should we believe for a minute that the church of today wouldn't willingly do the same thing they did during the war if the opportunity presented itself again? How can we know they aren't actively pursuing such an opportunity right now? Certainly the way they are handling their sex scandal couldn't fill anyone with much hope that true change has taken place in Rome or in their hearts. The Skeptic can only go by their behavior, past and present, and there is nothing there, not a single thing that would suggest they have changed in any meaningful way whatsoever. They might point to all the schools they have established and it's true, they have a lot of schools, schools where in addition to math and science they teach the Catholic brand of faith so it's not as if they established these schools as an act of charity. Islam has schools too, not many of us would claim that those schools are a sign that Islam has reformed itself.
So what sort of things could the church be up to these days? Certainly they aren't murdering people anymore, at least not in large numbers, but does that mean they have finally reformed themselves and are now solely concerned with things of a spiritual nature? Sadly, no, we all know about the abuse of children that they have systematically done their damnedest to cover up but as bad as that is it isn't quite at the level of mass murder. No, today they are more subtle, in a world where information can be sent around the globe with the click of a mouse they can no longer operate with any expectation that their actions won't be discovered so they have been forced to change, the old ways of acting up wouldn't work for them anymore. They are forced to be more creative and evidence would suggest they have done just that.
The Skeptic doesn't know how many people know this but there is a theory that the Vatican actually hates America, now hate is a strong word but it applies and the theory makes some sense. The theory goes that an autocratic organization like the Vatican and the United States are antithetical to each other, one demands unquestioned obedience and the other allows freedom of thought and action. America embraces freedom of religion, something the Vatican has never tolerated in any form, remember as far as they're concerned if you aren't Catholic you're a heretic, you are on your way to hell in a handbasket. So, if the theory is valid, what would be a good way to destroy a powerful but heretical country like America? How about you find a way to populate the country with loyal and dedicated Catholics? Good idea but where would one find these good, loyal Catholics? Well, it just so happens there is an entire continent filled to the brim with millions of Catholics and they're quite loyal and largely uneducated, just like the pope likes it, and a good number of them would like to come here anyway. Would those good Catholics break the law to come here simply because the Vatican asked them? Well, just a few decades ago those Catholics took in thousands of murderous Nazis just because the so-called Holy Father asked for a favor so what do you think? Of course the Vatican doesn't come out and openly tell thousands of people to flood over our southern border, no, that would be wrong, but they frequently lecture us that we are the ones in the wrong and that we ought to be more welcoming to the illegal immigrants. Rome only says that they are concerned with the health and safety of these poor immigrants, so what if that encourages them to break the laws of the United States, people are people, there are no borders as far as God is concerned, right? This is how the Vatican operates, they never forget and they are constantly looking for ways to increase their influence, they have no regard for international borders, they only care that they survive to fight another day.
The Skeptic would like someone to point to him to a time in the history of this church when they weren't engaged in murder, torture, political intrigue, sexual misconduct...you name it, you'll have to look very hard because the truth is there is no time when they weren't up to something. Even the sexual misconduct goes back to the beginning, in fact you might say the horrible crimes they are committing today are minor by comparison to the level of sexual crimes they've committed in the past.
There have been several occasions in the past when good people inside the Catholic Church saw what was going on and made attempts to reform it but every single time change was rebuffed and ignored. The great artist Michelangelo was involved with a movement called the Spirituali, it included several church leaders including a few cardinals who saw that the church was extremely corrupt and wanted it to change. Michelangelo's painting The Second Coming of Christ was denounced by a Cardinal Carraffa, a future pope, because, now get this, it focused too much on the relationship of man with Christ and not his relationship with the Church of Rome. Are you starting to see the problem? This is not a religion that focuses on spiritual matters, its focus is and always has been on power, its own power. The Spirituali published a book called The Benefit of Christ's Death, it stated their supreme belief that man was saved by faith alone and not by the church and its sacraments. It should be no surprise that the Vatican immediately banned the book.
In the days before political correctness ruled the land and people were more willing to speak out many of this country's founders expressed their opinion of the Roman Church. The Skeptic doesn't think they were ignorant or intolerant, on the contrary, they were very intelligent, very well read and they spoke their minds. Here are a few examples.
"I have long been decided in opinion that a free government and the Roman Catholic religion can never exist together in any nation or Country." "Liberty and Popery cannot live together." John Adams
"I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits.... Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this Society of Loyola. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum." Thomas Jefferson
If ever any Congregation of Men could merit eternal Perdition on Earth and in Hell, it is the company of Loyola.
− John Adams, writing to Thomas Jefferson, in 1816
Not much doubt how Jefferson and Adams felt about the Vatican and considering the combined intellect of these men wouldn't it be worthwhile to pay their opinions some heed? If the Vatican is truly an above board religion and not some power hungry organization that feels no obligation to follow the laws of any nation state it's hard to imagine these two great minds would have been so willing to express their opinions so forcibly.
There are a lot of websites out there that claim the Roman Catholic Church is the work of the devil or that the pope is the antichrist, the Skeptic can't and won't make judgements like that, he has no way of knowing and to be honest it doesn't interest him that much. The Skeptic is more interested in facts, things that can be proven and facts alone are enough for the Skeptic to say there is something seriously wrong at the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe it was an honest church at one point in time, maybe, but if it was the Skeptic thinks it all changed for the church when they climbed into bed with Constantine. Up until that point in time Christians were persecuted, whether Catholics were true Christians at that point in time is debatable, what isn't debatable is that once they were named the official state religion of the Holy Roman Empire things began to change. Suddenly the pope was the most powerful man in Europe, able to make decisions that men were obligated to follow or die, the pope's word was law and it wasn't long after that point that things went very awry for the church. If they were ever interested in following the preachings of Christ that ended soon after they attained this unbelievable power. No longer did they have to use the Bible as a guide for their faith, the pope was free to make up new doctrine, he was declared infallible, he was God on earth. That's really quite interesting when you think of it, that's how Roman emperors thought of themselves, gods on earth, and now along comes this powerful new position, the pope, why should he think of himself as anything less than a mere emperor? In a very real way the Catholic Church is nothing less than an extension of the Roman Empire with the pope playing the part of Caesar. Romans were an arrogant bloodthirsty people and the Vatican didn't stray far from that model, they claimed to be the only true church, they never hesitated to use violence as a means to an end and they did not tolerate dissent. Call him crazy but the Skeptic is pretty sure that is not what Christ had in mind for His church. Is it even remotely possible that Christ would want any church associated with Him to torture and kill people the way the Catholic Church did for centuries? The Roman Empire also killed and tortured people, they did a lot of that for sport, the Church did it as a means of keeping the faithful in line but is there really any difference? And, doesn't it make sense that in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church that there would have been at least one pope with the courage to admit that things had gone horribly awry? It does unless you assume that they all thought everything was just fine the way it was, by none of them stepping up and stating the obvious it makes them all guilty and complicit in of all of the crimes committed by the church.
The Skeptic knows that he is going to get emails saying he is crazy or anti Catholic or any number of other insults but the Skeptic has never once killed anyone, tortured anyone, molested any children or even aided any criminals in their escape from justice but the Vatican has done all of these things and it ought not be forgotten and just because they aren't currently killing anyone that we know of doesn't mean they should get a pass. How anyone could remain a Catholic once they know the history of that church is a little beyond comprehension to the Skeptic, a religion, or faith, should be about about a person's soul, and about how they live their life and unfortunately the Catholic Church seems to care very little about such things. Their history is filled with pain inflicted on others by the church, they claim to represent God, they claim to have faith in Jesus but when one reads the Bible it's difficult to understand how one pope after another determined that the behavior of the church was acceptable. Jesus preached a doctrine that could not be any further removed from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. He preached love and forgiveness and they preached hatred, they killed, they tortured and they sold forgiveness in the form of Indulgences. It's madness and what makes it worse is these people knew exactly what they were doing, they were really some of the most educated people of their day, sometimes the only educated people, they could read the Bible, something their parishioners couldn't do and they lied about what was in it. What makes this even worse was they did all they could to keep people from learning how to read. And sorry but there's no other way to put it, they lied and they made up silly rituals for reasons known only to them, certainly none of them can be found in the Bible.
Catholics like to say that we owe them a debt of gratitude because they preserved so much knowledge during the dark ages, true enough to some extent, but the real truth of the matter is they were largely responsible for the dark ages, they did not want the common man to be educated. It's no secret the dark ages began shortly after Constantine converted to Catholicism and the pope became the de facto ruler of Europe. And when did the dark ages come to an end? Well it should come as no surprise the the veil of darkness began to lift when serious people like John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, demanded that the Roman Church institute some reforms. Wycliffe was one of the first people to call for translating the Bible into the common language so people could read for themselves what was in there. Okay, this will probably shock you, the movement started by Wycliffe was suppressed by Rome, stunned, aren't you? Unfortunately for the Catholic Church that movement was only the beginning and only led to more calls for reform which Rome also ignored and squashed until they couldn't hold it back any longer and Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation. And one more surprise for you, that's what led to the real end of the dark ages. Secular rulers used the Protestant Reformation to expand their own influence and much of northern Europe became Protestant and wealthy and educated. So much for the Catholic claim to have preserved knowledge, one can only wonder how much further along we'd be in terms of knowledge if the Roman Church wasn't there to stunt the growth of science and learning. For a thousand years we stagnated while Rome killed and tortured the poor uneducated people of Europe, and for what purpose? To maintain earthly, secular power, something Jesus, the founder of Christianity would never have countenanced for a moment, it meant nothing to Him. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world...", that seems simple enough to understand, He was saying that His church should be involved in spiritual matters and not worry about secular issues, the Catholic Church has done the exact opposite.
But maybe we should just forgive and forget the sins of the church? Maybe the Church just made an honest mistake? Well, maybe we should forgive and forget but unfortunately their treachery didn't end with the Reformation, it continues to this day so no, the Skeptic doesn't think forgetting what they've done in the past is a good option.
Look, we live in a modern world with modern problems, the Skeptic knows that, we have to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state or a terrorist, a major cyber attack could come from just about anyplace so why worry about an old and corrupt organization like the Catholic Church? Shouldn't we be more concerned with Islam? Maybe, who knows for sure but can we really afford to let the Vatican continue with their own special brand of mischief? Do we need to worry about every Catholic in a position of power? Of course not, just a quick look at American Catholic politicians, especially on the left, will tell you they are perfectly happy to ignore Catholic dogma for the sake of their careers but all it would take to cause real trouble is a few loyal Catholics willing to do the bidding of the pope. Anyway, it's not possible and not practical and most importantly, not constitutional to discriminate against Catholics but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. What we can do is pay attention to the world around us, pay attention to what the cardinals and bishops of the Roman Church are saying and what the Skeptic hears from them now is a church that encourages people to ignore the laws of the United States. They encourage and aid illegal immigrants to cross the border and enter this country illegally. They even funded an aid station in the desert to help them get across the desert, these are the actions of an organization trying to weaken the country, not the actions of a responsible church. If they wanted to help the poor people of Mexico they might consider financial aid to them, or encouraging them to go through the proper channels to come here but once again they do as they please, adhering to the old line that they are accountable only to God, not the laws of men, and that is why the Vatican ought to be considered an enemy of the United States.
The Catholic Church is a survivor, it's not easy to write this stuff because people tend to forgive the church for it's past but imagine this for a minute. Imagine the Nazis had won the Second World War and a second or third generation of Hitler was ruling the world, would we all just lay down and accept it or would there still be enough people willing to fight them? Would we forgive them for all the murder and torture they inflicted on the Jews and others? One would hope not but the sins of the Nazis are really no worse than the sins of the Catholic Church, hell they were involved with the Nazis but because the church continues to survive we all tend to ignore their history...why, because they claim to represent God. The claim is ridiculous on the face of it, would God sanction any church that murdered people because they chose not to become Catholic, of course not, God reserves the right to punish or not punish, he hardly needs the help of the pope but because the claim to be a Christian church we want to think the best of them.
Jews have been reviled by many people through time but what have they ever done to deserve such a fate? Well, unfortunately the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for this through their doctrine of Translated Responsibility which stated that all Jews bore the responsibility for the death of Christ. It was this doctrine that gave cover to those who would go on to treat Jews in the most despicable ways imaginable and the church didn't change their position on this until the 1960s. And what does the church say about this? They think they should be commended for finally getting around to saying it was wrong, this is the type of arrogance that this church brings to our world.
So why write this article? Will it change anything? In all likelihood no but the Skeptic still wants to be on the record as saying we ought to break all official ties with this church. We ought not to be associated in any way whatsoever with any organization with this sort of history, just mention Hitler in the same breath as someone and people jump all over you but the pope who put him in power and helped many Nazis escape gets a pass. Should we ban the church in America? The Skeptic is with Jefferson on this point, no, we are compelled to accept them because of our Constitution, but we needn't place them above other religions to the point of having diplomatic relations with them. If Nazi Germany was still around we hopefully wouldn't have an ambassador in Berlin and we shouldn't have one at the Vatican.
Finally, in closing, the Skeptic has no interest in seeing the Catholic Church go away any more than he'd like to see Islam go away, it wouldn't bother him if they both disappeared but it's not very likely to happen, however, if they are going to continue to act in ways that are so harmful to the rest of us the Skeptic will have to continue the criticism. People are afraid to criticize Islam out of fear they will be harmed in some way, should people really have to fear a bunch of evil men in silly clothes who pretend that they are men of God? Hardly. And while many people do criticize the Catholic Church it's usually only for the behavior of their priests, isn't it about time someone stepped up and told the damn pope that he ought to not be meddling in the secular affairs of countries? That the Vatican ought to come clean and admit they'd been running a criminal organization for the last two thousand years? The Catholic Church has ruined more lives than it's possible to imagine, that's not an exaggeration, isn't it time that someone called them to account for that? The tyranny they impose on the world will never stop if people don't just drop the political correctness and the politeness and say what everyone knows, that these two religions have caused more pain and suffering in the world than any despot ever did and it needs to stop.
Religion is about your soul, about finding some peace and comfort in a world that isn't peaceful, it should not be the source of most of the trouble and conflict. If you're a member of one of these religions take a moment to reconsider and think about what you're doing.
|