|
WHY—AND WHAT PRICE—RELIGION?
”Leave thy gift upon the Altar, and go thy way.” Jesus.All ancient religions we have seen are admittedly false, all Pagan priestcrafts fraudulent. The Pagan priestcraft held the lavished wealth of millions of superstitious dupes, and ruled the minds and destinies of men and nations. The motive and raison d'etre of priestcraft, confessedly, was greed and graft, wealth and power and privilege. When Paganism later was called Christianity,—No man can deny history by alleging any difference: we have seen too many analogies and identities. At the advent of Christianity, scores of religions flourished throughout the Roman Empire; the Roman world was thick covered with sumptuous Temples and swarmed with plutocratic Priestcraft. So rich were the “pickings” from the superstitious masses and rulers and so alluring the “Get-rich-quick” possibilities of religion, that new creeds and cults were ever in the making. Christianity came along, born in poverty and “made as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things” (I Cor. iv, 13); but even then petty faction leadership had its meed: the believers in the quick end of the world and the Second Coming in the Kingdom, pooled their poor belongings “and laid them down at the apostles' feet”; and these holy ones operated this first pool. But “the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved,” and it gradually increased in strength if not in grace. As the numbers grew and prestige and contributions increased, many “false teachers” arose among the “Sheep” and brought “damnable heresies” into the Fold. Scores of the Fathers filled parchments with dreary diatribes “Against all Heresies,” of which over ninety flourished in the first three centuries which CE. catalogues and describes the hair-splitting differences of doctrine which gave excuse to splitting the Fold and dividing the spoil, And for cutting throats and beating out brains until the end of the seventh century. All these factious sects of “Christians” waxed more or less powerful and wealthy; the Arian anti-Trinity “heretics,” the Donatists, Montanists, Manichaeans, Monophysites, and innumerable others divided Europe and the contributions of the credulous for centuries, until suppressed by law and sword of the Orthodox. It is the latter, the True Church, which “gathered. gear by every wile (un)-justified by honor.” An authoritative summary, gleaned at random from CE., of the grafting results is instructive.”They which minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple; and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the things of the Altar.” Paul. 304
”The Lord loveth a cheerful giver.” Anon.
”When peace was given to the Church by Constantine, at the beginning of the fourth century, an era of temporal prosperity for the Church set in. As Europe gradually became Christian, the donations for religious purposes increased by leaps and bounds. Gifts of land and money for ecclesiastical purposes were now legally recognized, and though some of the later Roman emperors placed restrictions upon the donations of the faithful, yet the wealth of the Church rapidly increased. Whatever losses were suffered in the [incursions of the barbarians], were made up for later, when the conquering barbarians in their turn were converted to Christianity. ... The wealth of the Church at this period [the “so-called Reformation”] his sometimes been made a matter of reproach to her, ... admitting that abuses were indeed at times unquestionable.” (CE. iii, 762.) Such “abuses” and the ghoulish clerical greed were exactly why some of the later Roman emperors “placed restrictions” on grafting the Faithful. Lecky gives a graphic picture of the priests with the itching palm: “ Rich widows 305 were surrounded by swarms of clerical sycophants, who addressed them in tender diminutives, studied and consulted their every foible, and, under the guise of piety, lay in wait for their gifts or bequests. The evil attained such a point that a law was made under Valentinian depriving the Christian priests and monks of that power of receiving Legacies which was possessed by every other class of the community.” (History of European Morals, ii, 151.) These shaming facts are confirmed by many of the contemporary Fathers. From the Latin text of St. Jerome I turn into English his mournful admission that the deprivation was justified: “The priests of the idols might receive inheritances; only the clergy and monks were prohibited by this law, and prohibited not by persecutors, but by Christian princes ... I grieve that we should merit this law.” (Epist. lii.) We remember that already the Christian emperors, by “persecuting laws,” had prohibited Pagans from making wills and from receiving bequests, and the law which declared all wills void which were not made before a priest,—who was there to get his share. The priestly profits rolled up through the Ages of Faith. Out of hundreds of like generalizations and specific instances cited, I make these limited selections, which show the universal process of clerical greed. ”The early Christians were lavish in their support of religion, and frequently turned their possessions over to the Church. ... Towards the end of Charlemagne's reign the regenerated peoples contributed generously to the support of ecclesiastical institutions.” (v, 421.) Indeed, so great had its volume then become, that “Church property excited the cupidity of the various factions, upon the death of Charlemagne.” (v, 774.) Even a hundred years previously the Church estates could make a prince's rewards: “Charles Martel is charged with secularizing many ecclesiastical estates, which he took from the churches and abbeys and gave in fief to his warriors as a recompense for their services, This land actually remained the property of the ecclesiastical establishments in question.” (vi, 241.) The Church grabbed all and shirked all; as a result, “Naturally there was a desire on the part of the king and princes to force the Church to take her share in the national burdens and duties.” (vi, 63.) “To this age belongs the famous grant to the Church of one-tenth of his land by Ethelburt, father of Alfred the Great” (i, 507). “On the authority of the Doomsday Book [of William the Conqueror], the possessions of the Church represented 25% of the assessment in the country [England] in 1066, and 26 1/2% of its cultivated area in 1086.” (v, 103.) “In 1127 Stephen gave to these monks his forest in Furness. This grant was most munificent, for it included large possessions in woods, pastures, fisheries, and mills, with a large share in the salt works and mines of the district.” (vi, 324.) “The see of Exeter was one of the largest and richest in England. The diocese was originally very wealthy.” (v, 708-9.) “The English people at large complained of the enormous revenue which the pope and the Italians drew from their country, ... the financial demands of the Curia.” (vii, 38.) “Bitterness existed for a considerable time between the monks and the people of F., who complained of the abbey's imposts and exactions.” (vi, 20.) “Vast sum of money extorted from the English clergy in 1531.” (iv, 26.) 306 In France the clergy formed “a wealthy body of men, gradually extending their possessions throughout the kingdom” during the Middle Ages. (i, 795.) “In 1384 almost a third of the land in the kingdom of Bohemia belonged to the Church.” (ii, 613.) In Germany, twelfth century, “the difficulty of administering the vast landed possessions caused the abbots to grant certain sections in fief.” (vi, 314.) “The gifts of German princes, nobles, and private individuals increased the landed possessions of the abbey so rapidly that they soon extended over distant parts of Germany,”—long list of provinces. (vi, 313.) “In parts of Germany [in 1770] the number and wealth of the religious houses, in some instances their uselessness, and occasionally their disorders, tempted the princes to lay violent and rapacious hands on them.” (iv, 38.) “The luxury of bishops and the worldly possessions of monks” led to violent rebellion in Italy, in twelfth century. (i, 748.) At this and most times, the “prelates were the most powerful and the wealthiest subjects of the State.” (ii, 186.) “The steady growth of power and wealth of the Church, since the beginning of the twelfth century, introduced an ever-increasing spirit of worldliness.” (vii, 129.) “The liberality of the faithful was a constant incitement to depart from the rule of poverty. This liberality showed itself mainly in gifts of real property, for example, in endowments for prayers for the dead, which were then usually founded with real estate. In the fourteenth century began the land wars and feuds (e.g. the Hundred Years' War in France), which relaxed every bond of discipline and good order.” (vi, 284.) To all this and these, “the faults and wealth of the clergy must have contributed something. The spiritual ruler seemed almost merged in the sovereign of Rome and the feudal lord of Sicily. Money was needed, and in order to obtain it funds had to be raised ... and by means which aroused much discontent and affected the credit of Rome. ... Even in the twelfth century complaints of venality were frequent and bitter.” (iii, 703.) “Simony, the most abominable of crimes ... was the evil so prevalent daring the Middle Ages.” (xiv, 1, 2.) Hundreds of instances are recited in CE. of the teeming wealth wrung by the Church and clergy from the fears of the Faithful; of the inordinate riches of popes and prelates, abbots and monks, Churches and their plethoric treasuries. The Church existed for riches and it got, rather ill-got them in inestimable enormity of amount. From the cradle to the grave of every faithful who had anything to get, the Church wheedled, extorted or coerced it. Fear was ever the foundation of the Faith and of the “liberality” of contributions to it. Among the greatest and greediest mints of ecclesiastical finance, were Simony, several times above mentioned,—the sale of every kind of hierarchical office and dignity, from the popedom to the jobs of the meanest servitors of the Servants of God; and the sale of Indulgences, or remissions of the pains of Purgatory. This non-existent place of expiation of “Sin,” acquired or “Original,” to fit the befouled soul for Heaven, was first charted if not invented by His holiness Gregory the Great, about 600 A.D. “An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt [to God] during the life on earth” (CE. vii, 783),—provided that “debt” is adequately liquidated by cash into the coffers of God's Vicars on earth. These indulgences are of various kinds, efficacy and price: “ The most important distinction, however, is 307 that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty. ... Some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls of the departed” (Ib. 783-4). Leo X, he who perpetrated the celebrated aphorism—”What profit has not that Fable of Christ brought us,” rose in defense of the revenues, and in his Bull “Exurge Domine,” 1520, “condemned Luther's assertions that‘ Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful'; ... the Council of Trent, 1563, pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has power to grant them” (Ib.). The flimsy basis of the traffic is thus referred to the forged “famous Petrine text” which we have seen is itself a huge fraud: “Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins, the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred” (p. 785); but logically perfect inferences can readily be made from false premises; the premises must be true to yield valid and truthful “inference” or conclusion. Not only were genuine but false indulgences hawked throughout Christendom, resulting in immense revenues—and abuses, for “one of the worst abuses that of inventing or falsifying grants of indulgence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded” (p. 787). The Council of Trent sought to stop outside profits from this traffic, declaring it to be “a grievous abuse among Christian people, and of other disorders arising from superstition, (etc.) ... on account of the widespread corruption” (Ib.); though it seems that now “with the decline in the financial possibilities of the system, there is no danger of the recurrence of the old abuses” (p. 788). But still they sell well and net fine revenues; the writer has invested in them several times in Mexico, for souvenirs,—there being no Purgatory for unbelievers in that fiery near-Hell. A graphic picture is drawn by the great historian of the Middle Ages, which shows Avarice as the cornerstone and effective motive of the Church. Hallam, Von Ranke, and many historians, give revolting examples in the concrete through many ages; here is their summary:
”Covetousness, especially, became almost a characteristic vice. ... Many of the peculiar and prominent characteristics in the faith and discipline of those ages appear to have been either introduced or sedulously promoted for the purposes of sordid fraud. To these purposes conspired the veneration for relies, the worship of images, the idolatry of saints and martyrs, the religious inviolability of sanctuaries, the consecration of cemeteries, but, above all, the doctrine of purgatory and masses for the relief of the dead. A creed thus contrived, operating upon the minds of barbarians, lavish though rapacious, and devout though dissolute, naturally caused a torrent of opulence to flow in upon the Church. ... Even those legacies to charitable purposes. ... were frequently applied to their own benefit. They failed not, above all, to inculcate upon the wealthy sinner that no atonement could be so acceptable to Heaven as liberal presents to its earthly delegates. To die without allotting of worldly wealth to pious uses was accounted almost like suicide, or a refusal of the last sacraments; 308 and hence intestacy passed for a sort of fraud upon the Church, which she punished by taking the administration of the deceased's effects into her own hands. ... And, as if all these means of accumulating what they could not legitimately enjoy were insufficient, the monks prostituted their knowledge of writing to the purpose of forging charters in their own favor, which might easily impose upon an ignorant age, since it has required a peculiar science to detect them in modern times. Such rapacity might seem incredible in men cut off from the pursuits of life and the hopes of posterity, if we did not behold every day the unreasonableness of avarice and the fervor of professional attachments.”(Hallam, History of the Middle Ages, Vol. 1, Bk. vii, passim.)
Can't find what you're looking for? Have an idea or a question? Let us know in the Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
| Need to ask me a question? Something missing, broken, or incorrect? I make every attempt to reply to all email. Click here to send me an email. |
