Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
You need to put the "selling" of Papal Indulgences in its historical European context though.
During the Dark Ages, if someone committed a crime against another
person, the custom was to pay an amount of money to the wronged party or
their family as restitution. This was called the "Weregeld" or "man
money." It is the basis of our tort law system in the English speaking
world, and that's why people sue doctors for malpractice, or when they
get beat up by cops, or when they get food poisoning at a restaurant. If
the money wasn't paid, a bloodfeud would develop, and one group of
kinsmen would fight another group of kinsmen.
The Papacy applied this concept to Indulgences. A sin is a crime against
God. So the Papacy asked people to pay for Indulgences to absolve them
of all their sin. It sounds terrible to Modern ears, Church + Selling
+Money, but that was the normal legal custom and practice in Medieval
Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, or just shorlty thereafter.
Of course, nobody ever points this out. Not in high school texbooks, or college courses, or the History channel, or PBS.
But that's all you hear about: The Catholic Church sold Indulgences during the Middle Ages, therefore it was corrupt.
As I have shown, selling of the Indulgence was in complete sinc with normal legal practices of the time.
Now there were abuses of the Indulgences. The Indulgence couldn't be
sold to get a deceased person out of Purgatory, but it was. This is what
Luther was complaining about.
There was a good Catholic Answers Indulgences program with Dr. Angelino
D'Ambrosio a few years back on Catholic Answers. Go to Catholic.com to
the Radio Archive. Every Catholic should listen to it.
Mar 23, '07, 2:40 pm
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
I read the article. I think Coulter's analogy was a poor choice for a
person who is so highly educated (She has a law degree from the
University of Michigan, and I believe was the editor-in-chief of its Law
Review Journal, the top honor a law student can obtain academically
besides valedictorian).
I've only read a few of her columns, and none of her books, because the
quality of her writing and arguments are so poor. It abounds in
name-calling, tasteless jokes, almost no logic, ad hominum attacks, and
this article is another example of it. Frankly, if I were her (which I'm
not), I'd be embarrassed to write such drivel. But, she gets a big fat
paycheck and is paid millions for books and thousands as a speaker, so
hey, why not?
I think the analogy was in bad taste. I mean, why did she pick the
Catholic Church? She could have picked Islam, for example, or even
various Protestant denominations. There was no freedom of religion in
Queen Elizabeth's England. Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and Thomas Cramer
(an Anglican Bishop) all whipped, tortured, and killed Catholics. John
Calvin had the Renaissance intellectual Michael Servetus who denied
Christ's Divinity, a heretic, executed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1553.
There was no freedom of thought in Calvin's Switzerland. I know the
Calvinists or the Luthern's killed Zwingli (father of the Anabaptsists)
in a religious battle. William Penn I believe was imprisoned because
Quakers were whipped and beaten in England, and that why Pennsylvania
was founded.
Why don't I know all the ins and outs of it? Because in American public
schools they skip the Middle Ages and start with the Reformation, and
tell you the Catholic Church was corrupt because it sold Indulgences and
made money off of it, and Luther was good. But as I noted in an above
post, Indulgence payments were in sinc with the European legal practices
of the time. Of course, this is never mentioned. It was the abuse of
the practice, i.e. selling Indulgences for deceased people's souls that
Luther was complaining about.
Of course in the American public schools they skip the Protestant sins.
They tell you about Bloody Mary Tudor, and Queen Elizabeth looks like a
saint. They tell you that Henry VIII chopped his wives' heads off, but
they don't mention the Catholic persecutions under Henry, Elizabeth, and
Thomas Cromwell.
So my point is that you can find instances of heretic burnings (Christ
was crucified for being a heretic) and inquisition type tactics used in
all religions, not just Catholicism.
It's always Catholicism that is given as the example because we live in a
Protestant (liberal Protestant) United States. Coulter didn't pick
Islam or Anglicanism, because everyone likes to dump on the Catholic
Church in America. It's the easy target, and accepted as such. If
Coulter picked the others there would be such an uproar she would lose
her status as pundit.
I think the analogy does not belong in anyone's writing today because we
live in a pluralistic democracy. Catholic soldiers are dying in Iraq,
and they don't need to read this type of rubbish.
|
Apr 7, '07, 11:18 am
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
I don't know what everyone finds so great about Ann Coulter. She is a
bad writer (and I mean stylistically). This column is another example of
her poor writing ability. It is full of bad jokes, mean-spirited
personal attacks (although I could care less about Al Gore), and, as
were all discussing, a tasteless analogy involving the Catholic Church. I
have read a few of her columns. They are all written in a similar
manner, relying more on casting aspersions rather than using logic and
reason to promote her arguments.
A columnist like Ann Coulter cannot be allowed to make false,
generalized statements about other people's faiths. Ann Coulter is a
syndicated columnist, is highly educated, and a professional writer.
Columnists have the pinnacle position in the newspaper world. A writer
of this importance has a duty and responsibility to tell her readers a
truth. To not tell the truth is to tell a lie. I wouldn't casually sluff
this off and say "oh, she really didn't mean it." As a professional
writer, Ann Coulter chose her words and had them printed, for millions
of people to read.
It was not necessary for her to mention the Catholic Church in her
column. She could have simply said "the democrats' pollution policy
resembles the corrupt practices of some religions in the past." By not
identifying the specific church and refering to "religions," she would
have offended a lot less people, and there would have been less need for
Catholics to complain. She didn't need to mention the Catholic Church
to make her point.
Finally, I think your all sorely mistaken in claiming that the sale of indulgences during the Renaissance was intrinsically a wrong or a corrupt church practice.
If you read my first post in this thread, you'll see that the sale of
indulgences was in complete agreement with European legal practices of
the time. Catholic Answer guest Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio did a great
Catholic Answers program on Indulgences a few years back and mentioned
this. Go to the Catholic Answers' Radio Archive and listen to it. Your all seriously misinformed.
You need to put the "selling" of Papal Indulgences in its historical European context.
During the Dark Ages, if someone committed a crime against another
person, the custom was to pay an amount of money to the wrong party or
their family as restitution. This was called the " Weregeld" or "man
money." It is the basis of our tort law system in the English speaking
world, and that's why people sue doctors for malpractice, or when they
get beat up by cops, or when they get food poisoning at a restaurant. If
the money wasn't paid, a bloodfeud would develop, and one group of
kinsmen would fight another group of kinsmen.
The Papacy applied this concept to Indulgences. A sin is a crime against
God. So the Papacy asked people to pay for Indulgences as restitution
to God so they could avoid the spiritual punishment awaiting them in
Purgatory. It sounds terrible to Modern ears, Church + Selling + Money,
but the concept was in sinc with the legal customs and practices in
Medieval Europe.
Of course, nobody ever points this out. Not in public school textbooks, or college courses, or the History channel, or PBS.
Now, there were abuses of the Indulgences. The Indulgence couldn't be
sold to get a deceased person out of Purgatory, but it was. This is what
Luther was complaining about.
And this is the entire point. It is not that the selling of
Indulgences was corrupt in itself, but the abuse of selling them, i.e.,
selling them for deceased persons. Once your dead, you couldn't get an
indulgence.
This is the common misperception among most people about Indulgences:
that the sale of an indulgence in itself was corrupt. This is simply not
the case.
Is it possible that your all wrong about this? History is told by those
in control of the society. In America, the Protestants (until recently)
controlled the society. That is why the Mormons had to get rid of
polygamy, because it didn't comport to Protestant morality.
Do you think the truth of Indulgences would be explained in 19th century
Protestantized public school? Ask yourself why is medieval history
completely skipped in public schools? And why does the study of history
in public schools begin with Luther's Reformation. And we all know the
history we were taught in classrooms was full of historical
inaccuracies.
These are the real questions you should be asking. Think critically. It
sounds like you all were brainwashed by the American public school
system or your state college History 101 class. You need to get the Catholic truth from Catholic Answers, and not let Ann Coulter or anyone else do your thinking for you.
|
Apr 7, '07, 12:18 pm
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,148
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist, is
highly educated, and a professional writer. Columnists have the
pinnacle position in the newspaper world. A writer of this importance
has a duty and responsibility to tell her readers a truth. To not tell
the truth is to tell a lie.
|
What relevant truth did she not tell? If you think it was
necessary for her to include a history of indulgences as practiced by
the Catholic Church during the middle ages to make her point then you
missed the point all together.
Quote:
It was not necessary for her to mention the Catholic Church in her
column. She could have simply said "the democrats' pollution policy
resembles the corrupt practices of some religions in the past."
|
Ok lets see if your idea is better than hers. Your statement makes
it seem as though the corrupt practices of "some religions" had
something to do with pollution! Then you force your audience to guess
"which religions" and "what corrupt practices" and "when did this
happen". No I don't think this would work at all. Maybe she isn't as bad
a writer as you thought.
By not identifying which Church or which corrupt practices she is
refering to makes it a meaningless, hollow statement. Utterly useless as
an analogy!
Quote:
You need to put the "selling" of Papal Indulgences in its historical European context.
|
Can you name one legitimate theologian or apologist who would say
that there were no corrupt practices within the Catholic Church in
regards to selling indulgences? Would you say that yourself? Unless you
want to make that claim then you cannot argue with her point in the
column. You can only debate whether or not it was a good idea to use
that as an analogy, but you cannot debate the facts behind her
statement.
You may not like her, you may think she is a bad writer but you cannot say she was factually wrong!
|
Apr 8, '07, 2:26 am
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Click on "This Rock," at top of this page and type in the word
"Indulgence," you will see articles written by James Akin, the Chief
Apologist of Catholic Answers.
The Catholic Church never sold Indulgences.
You will read that the Catholic Church never sold Indulgences; they were granted by the Church when a person gave alms to a charitable project of the Catholic Church.
This goes 100% against all the lies I was taught in "social studies" in
6th Grade in the American Socialist Public School System, and in the
year long "European History" course I took in 11th Grade. "Selling"
Indulgences is all a big fat lie pumped into our brains by the Secular
Humanist Liberals and Protestant Establishment and everyone out there,
including myself, ate it up. The joke's on us Catholics.
You're not going to convince me that Ann Coulter, professional writer,
did any serious research about Catholicism in preparation for her essay.
There are many Catholic websites out there that tell the truth about
Catholicism. We all know that the commercial press in the United States
tells us things about the Catholic Church that just aren't true (e.g.
Headline in Detroit Free Press: Pope Changes Rosary [luminous
mysteries were issued]; Catholics worship relics [a CNN Anchor said this
on TV during the coverage surrounding the late J.P. II's death];
Catholic Church says only Catholics go to Heaven).
When in doubt, check it out. If she had even done basic research on
these websites, she would have found that Indulgences developed in the
period of the Early Church; it did not take "hundreds of years."
Moreover, Indulgences are still very much part of Catholic doctrine
today. Yet Ann Coulter calls it a "corrupt practice of Papal
Indulgences."
However, reasonable people could read between the lines to extrapolate
that she is referring to the abuses that occurred near the time of
Martin Luther's Reformation.
So, it simply is not historically accurate to say that Papal Indulgences
are sold, or that Indulgences are a corrupt Papal practice. No
indulgences were ever sold. It's all a Protestant myth (used also by
secular humanists) about the Catholic Church. However, there were abuses
of Indulgences.
No, I don't want Ann Coulter to write a history of Indulgences.
You're right. One can certainly make this analogy given the popular
understanding of the general population of Indulgences; But should a
professional writer do so? The analogy is historically (as I have shown)
inaccurate and really, in the 21st century, needs to be put to rest.
A professional writer is given a great privilege under the 1st Amendment
to be able to print their ideas. A professional writer in a pluralistic
Constitutional Democracy should never cater to the prejudices of her
general audience. A professional writer should tell the truth and never
offend fellow citizens if it is not necessary to do so. This avoids
rousing hurt feelings and promotes solidarity among all American
citizens, especially in a time of war.
A professional journalist's duty is to inform the public on issues
affecting our democracy, so the citizens can make informed choices and
decisions regarding these issues so we can live in a better democracy.
I guess my point is that we live in a pluralistic Constitutional
Democracy. All citizens contribute to the general welfare of the United
States through working, paying taxes, raising families, serving in the
military, starting businesses. Catholics have contributed a lot to the
United States. Yet, we see how the American media attacks the Catholic
Church in its newspapers, television shows, and movies. We see how a
Catholic priest is chewed out on a so called "conservative" news channel
by one of its leading news personalities without so much as issuing an
apology.
I guarantee Ann Coulter will never make similar statements about Muslims, Jews, Mormons, or Buddhists.
My point is that, no, Martino, she never had to reference the Catholic Church to begin with. It was not necessary, as you are arguing, in order to make her point.
If she had said something like "the democratic pollution solution is
similar to the corrupt practices of some religions," she could have been
referencing any number of religious abuses which have occurred in
various denominations. She could have been talking about Jim Bakker, who
urged his viewers to send in as much cash as possible, so they would be
blessed more; or Benny Hine, the TV faith healer, who asks for money
prior to performing his healing ceremony.
Being subtle. That's acceptable. That's called being diplomatic in a
pluralistic Constitutional Democracy. That is the American ideal. I
don't think Catholic soldiers who are fighting and dying daily in Iraq
for Ann Coulter's liberty to write her columns need to be reading this
type of rubbish and misinformation about the Catholic Church in American
newspapers.
|
Apr 8, '07, 11:04 am
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: January 7, 2005
Posts: 3,031
Religion: Catholic, Latin Rite
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
I guarantee Ann Coulter will never make similar statements about Muslims, Jews, Mormons, or Buddhists.
|
I think I can also guarantee Coulter will never make a similar
statement about Muslims, Jews, Mormons or Buddhists, because it would
seem silly to think they any of those traditions had a past of
indulgences in the Middle Ages. I thought it would be good to throw that
in since the thread has taken a very pedantic turn.
Coulter made a sloppy analogy. Granted I can see where she was going
with it, but it is sloppy. Although, I guess Carbon Off-sets cannot
directly contribute to decreasing carbon dioxide, but does have to go to
a project that will theoretically contribute to decreasing carbon
dioxide. That seems to be a bit like a person cannot pay for an
indulgence, but a payment to a theoretically charitable program. It
seems like the reply as to why the apology was sloppy was as long, if
not longer than Coulter's column. Although maybe I should do word count
-- even better a character count -- before writing that.
When you write that Coulter should not be permitted to write something
like that. Perhaps one blessing that occurred from her writing that, is
that it gives an opportunity to correct people's idea of what happened. I
think you gave an awfully well done apology as to why it was a bad
analogy, and hopefully it was able to clear up some misconceptions of a
few other people. I want to thank you for your work, for that reason.
Please keep up the good work, when the opportunity calls.
|

Apr 8, '07, 10:36 pm
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,148
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Click on "This Rock," at top of this page
and type in the word "Indulgence," you will see articles written by
James Akin, the Chief Apologist of Catholic Answers.
|
Well if nothing else you have motivated me to do more research on the subject.
Quote:
The Catholic Church never sold Indulgences
|
Quote:
You will read that the Catholic Church never sold Indulgences; they were granted by the Church when a person gave alms to a charitable project of the Catholic Church.
|
Ok tell me what the difference is other than one way sounds a heck
of a lot better than the other. It's still a trade off between cash and
indulgence.
Quote:
When in doubt, check it out. If she had even done basic research on
these websites, she would have found that Indulgences developed in the
period of the Early Church; it did not take "hundreds of years."
Moreover, Indulgences are still very much part of Catholic doctrine
today. Yet Ann Coulter calls it a "corrupt practice of Papal
Indulgences."
|
She refers to "corrupt practices such as papal indulgences"
because she has no intention to discuss the "doctrine of indulgences",
only the "corrupt practices" of selling them. That is why she says it
took "hundreds of years" before such practices began. It is irrelevant
when the Church began teaching the existence of indulgences. She is not
concerned with the doctrine.
Quote:
However, reasonable people could read between the lines to extrapolate
that she is referring to the abuses that occurred near the time of
Martin Luther's Reformation.
|
What abuses are you referring to? We all know what she was
referring to but I have no idea what you could be referring to since the
Church "never sold indulgences".
Quote:
Catholics have contributed a lot to the United States. Yet, we see how
the American media attacks the Catholic Church in its newspapers,
television shows, and movies. We see how a Catholic priest is chewed out
on a so called "conservative" news channel by one of its leading news
personalities without so much as issuing an apology.
|
Nobody has documented to bias of the mainstream media in this
country more than Ann Coulter...nobody! She has written 4 bestselling
books largely on this issue. I also challenge you to find a non Catholic
who has defended the Catholic Church against the charges of the
mainstream media more than Ann Coulter.
Quote:
I guarantee Ann Coulter will never make similar statements about Muslims, Jews, Mormons, or Buddhists.
|
Umm...you wanna bet!? You are not familiar with her work are you?
Im not saying to as an insult but it's clear from that statement that
you are not familiar with her work. And you may be the first person to
ever accuse Ann Coulter of being politically correct!
Quote:
My point is that, no, Martino, she never had to reference the Catholic Church to begin with. It was not necessary, as you are arguing, in order to make her point.
If she had said something like "the democratic pollution solution is
similar to the corrupt practices of some religions," she could have been
referencing any number of religious abuses which have occurred in
various denominations. She could have been talking about Jim Bakker, who
urged his viewers to send in as much cash as possible, so they would be
blessed more; or Benny Hine, the TV faith healer, who asks for money
prior to performing his healing ceremony.
Being subtle. That's acceptable.
|
Ok that may be acceptable to you but it is also a very weak
argument. She made a powerful argument and what you are suggesting is
very weak and probably wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny anyway.
I will concede that if there were not widespread abuses involving
indulgences for money then her argument is flawed and she would owe the
Catholic Church an apology but if there were such abuses then you may
owe her one.
|
Apr 8, '07, 10:51 pm
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,148
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
Click on "This Rock," at top of this page
and type in the word "Indulgence," you will see articles written by
James Akin, the Chief Apologist of Catholic Answers.
The Catholic Church never sold Indulgences.
You will read that the Catholic Church never sold Indulgences; they were granted by the Church when a person gave alms to a charitable project of the Catholic Church.
|
Ok I followed your directions to the T and it took me all of about 5 seconds to read this:
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
"The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, " in
1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees
or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences."
Maybe she did a little more research than you thought. The Council of
Trent confirms that there were fees or other financial transactions
associated with the granting of indulgences. Could these possibly be the
"corrupt practices" she was talking about?
|

Apr 9, '07, 1:47 am
|
Regular Member
|
|
Join Date: February 26, 2007
Posts: 1,359
Religion: Byzantine Catholic
|
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
A financial transaction would be a transaction involving finances. There are a lot of financial transactions which have nothing to do with the selling of goods. Donating money to a charitable organization is a financial transaction.
I don't see the specific word "sale" in your quote.
And your quote specifically says "granting of indulgences."
Again, a fee is a term associated with a grants. When you pay for
your Driver's license, the license paper is a symbol that recognizes
that you have been granted / permitted the right to use the roads of the
state you live in. The right to drive is not being sold to you, i.e.,
since you paid $25.00, you don't personally and exclusively own
that right to drive on the roads of your state. It is something that the
state grants to you; and the state has the power to regulate your
driving and take away that right to drive, and your license if need be.
Even though you paid $25.00 for the Driver's license, there is no sale.
It is simply a license, a grant from the state that you're paying for.
The Church had the ultimate power over the Papal Indulgence, and it
couldn't be sold from one person to another.
Also, how do you sell something that is intangible ( i.e., relief from temporal punishment in Purgatory) to a person.
Indulgences were granted by the Church and are a lot like the Driver's
license. If you contributed to the church for a charitable purpose, you
were granted the Indulgence.
A grant of a right and a sale of a good are two completely different things.
Where the propaganda comes in is that the two, though completely
different, resemble each other because money is involved, and a sort of
exchange occurrs. So all the historians who wanted to denigrate the
Catholic Church simply called it a sale when in reality it wasn't a
sale. It was a grant.
I kind of mentioned the fact that there is a lot of misinformation out
there about the Catholic Church in our newspapers, film industry, and on
television. As I get older, I see more and more how the facts have been
distorted by these organizations on a variety of subjects, including
the Catholic Church.
We all know that a lot of things are not mentioned in the history
classes we took, and that some of the things we were taught were not
true. It is very easy to manipulate information on a massive scale,
drown out and exclude the opposition, and have the facts read as whoever
controls the process desires them to.
The Indulgence issue is another example of this.
Look how the U.S. State Department fudged the intelligence about weapons
of mass destruction (W.O.M.D.) and Iraq. This topic of Indulgences are a
lot like that. You can believe the official version of the story from
the Bush Administration which claims they had good intelligence that
Hussein had W.O.M.D.; or you can believe the testimony of people who
worked for the State Department (S.D.) that said V.P. Cheney came over
to the S.D. three times to intimidate intelligence officiers and
Ambassador Joe Wilson who said the Nigerian Uranium mentioned in the
State of the Union address was known by the speech writers who wrote it
to be a bunch of malarky, and that the intelligence books were cooked.
Given the strong historic Anti-Catholicism in the United States, I
wouldn't think it beyond the people who control the textbooks and write
them, who control the schools and universities, to exclude this type of
information from books and schools. Remember, schools control the way
people think. If you want people to think the Catholic Church is a
terrible organization, why not eliminate the grant information and just
say the Catholic Church sold indulgences to people.
Again, you have to think critically, for yourself. Don't let others or
Ann Coulter do your thinking for you. And don't trust 100% what you read
in a lousy newspaper. Oh, did you get Ann Coulter's Torquemator dig
(Torquemator headed the Inquisition in Spain in the 16th century).
However, I am not saying though that abuses surrounding Indulgences did not exist.
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,148
Religion: Roman Catholic
|
Re: Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwyer
However, I am not saying though that abuses surrounding Indulgences did not exist.
|
Ok well I would still like to hear what these abuses may have been!
You made it clear that indulgences were never sold and that it was
prefectly fine for the Church to grant indulgences to those who paid a
fee.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment