Real History Neil Patterson Originally published in Issue VI of Vulgata, April 2002.

I don't believe that I have ever been in a discussion with anyone about my faith without someone bringing up "the horrible things done in the name of Christianity." The usual response to this kind of objection is to backpedal, apologize and talk about how the Church doesn't do that sort of thing anymore.  We must always speak the truth, and it is important not to go to the opposite extreme where we are not willing to admit that any evil has been done in the name of Christ, but if I have the time, I don't like to let anyone get away with attacking the Church unjustly.

Many non-Catholics will grab onto any vague rumour or sound bite of popular history that alleges corruption, hypocrisy or evil in the Church.  Many people know a sea of facts, very few know real history.  A historian can put facts in context and attempt to make some sense out of what went on in the past.  Even if you only have a few pieces of rudimentary, general knowledge, you can still know way more history than someone with volumes of factoids.  Here are the most common events in Church history that will give you trouble.

The Inquisition

Which one?  The Spanish Inquisition was an arm of the Spanish government and had nothing to do with Rome.  Even so, there is simply no historical evidence for the wild figures of thousands of deaths arising from it.  Ask people where they get their figures.  They will be forced to say that they have no solid ground for whatever number they were handing you.  The death penalty was an option for the Spanish inquisitors, but the accused were given what was, for the time, the fairest of all possible trials and actually very few death sentences were given.  The Inquisition of the Church is something else entirely.  It did essentially what Cardinal Ratzinger does today with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  It attempted to deal with heretics in the Church internally.  The problem is, at the time, all countries had civil laws against heresies, so if a heretic would not reconcile himself to the Church, he would be handed over to the civil authorities.  Do I agree with how Medieval people conducted their justice system?  No, but how easy and prideful it is to judge other cultures and not look at the problems within our own.

The Crusades

Again I ask, which one?  The Crusades were a series of wars over hundreds of years between various Christian powers and various non-Christian powers including Muslims in the Middle East and Spain, and Pagans in North Eastern Europe.  These wars were fought for different reasons by both saints and sinners, to lump them together is ridiculous.  Some of them were fought for very good reasons involving, most importantly, the preservation of Christendom.  Keep in mind that the Crusades, in general, were a response to Muslim aggression and were fought partly for political and economic reasons.  Most people seem to think, inexplicably, that the Christians woke up one day and decided to kill Muslims out of sheer bigotry.  Obviously, it was more complicated than that.

The Jesuits in North America

St. Isaac Jogues, St. John Brébeuf and their brethren died at the hands of aboriginal peoples in North America.  They were some of the first people to bring the Gospel to this country.  Non-Christians will often object to such missionary activity.  Make sure you assert that all religions and world-views have the right to propagate themselves provided it is not done using violence and (arguably) as long as they do not preach hate, which Christianity doesn't.  This is a principle that no one can logically disagree with, if so then we should do away with political parties, philosophy classes and most books. Many Europeans did horrible things in the New World, but it is ridiculous to group all Europeans together.  Also keep in mind that we know very little about what the religious beliefs of native peoples were at the time.  For this reason, many people have superimposed modernist or New Age ideas onto native spirituality such as feminism, pacifism and neo-paganism.  Thus, an argument about Jesuits "stealing" the native's culture and spirituality is really a psychological microcosm of a modernist's struggle with the Church.  The natives who converted did so because they found Christianity a more favourable world-view to their ancestral spirituality.  They had religious freedom as a human right, just like everyone else.

Priests Who Abuse Children

This is a very hot issue in the media right now.  It is, obviously, a delicate and uncomfortable topic of discussion and indeed I would have not have mentioned it if I didn't hear it discussed on every street corner.  Keep in mind that we really don't have much of an idea of the scope of the problem given the fact that we only know what the media tells us.  It is a problem in the Church, but it is not a reason to attack the Church as a whole.  Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous.  From this principle we can see what I think to be the only good thing that can come out of such scandal: that we, as the people of God, show divine mercy and love to the world through our compassion for the victims and the abusers alike.  I also suggest you read the Holy Father's statement on this issue and point out to whomever you are talking to that they do the same.