Joan of Bark

I have just finished this book by De Rosa, and even I'm stunned! De Rosa, a former priest, rips the Catholic hierarchy to shreds. Talk about incendiary remarks ...

Here is a sample:

(About the 9th and 10th century popes):"Without question, these pontiffs constitute the most despicable body of leaders, clerical or lay, in history. They were, frankly, barbarians. Ancient Rome had nothing to rival them in rottenness" (pg 48)

"Their (the Dominican inquisitors) guiding principle was: 'Better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free'" (pg 163)

"Many Roman pontiffs were heretics" (pg 204)

There are many more (which I wish I'd kept track of while reading), but you get the idea. I've long known that the Catholic church was guilty of some horrendous acts, but De Rosa goes a step further in denouncing the papacy and the Vatican, along with numerous bishops and priests, as being more evil than Satan himself. He also claims that the good popes were more dangerous than the bad ones, as they concentrated power in the papal throne and became dictators and demi-gods (examples being Gregory VII, Innocent III and Pius IX (anytime a pope is named Innocent or Pius, you can bet he's neither)).

Anyway, my question is: does anyone know anything about De Rosa, other than what's in this book? What is his reputation in the academic community? What was the reaction to the publication of Vicars of Christ? The internet has little to say about him.

DMB

Sorry I can't answer your question, but I thought I'd add a post here about a book I'm currently reading, Double Cross: the Code of the Catholic Church, by David Ranan. It sounds a bit similar. It examines the church as an institution and finds it to be profoundly corrupt.

Tao of Pooh

I read that book years ago and was also amazed by most of what it said.

I can't verify the info but I recall hearing (somewhere) that De Rosa is an ex-Jesuit priest.




Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me, either. Just leave me alone.

Cheerful Charlie

These savage critiques of the RCC come from Catholic historians of the late middle ages. They called the 10th century era of the church "The rule of the whores". Many a historian since has had fun with these things,
bad popes are always colorful. It was a very popular genre in Victorian
times.

CC

EternallyI

:Cheeky:Is this your creed?:Cheeky:

llamaluvr

Article about attacks from De Rosa, etc. on papal infallibily from Catholic.com

Another article on Catholic.com quotes a leader of an anti-Catholic group who questions De Rosa's statements:

Bill Jackson, who runs Christians Evangelizing Catholics, touted Peter de Rosa's book Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. "A good friend sent me de Rosa's book to read several months ago. I found it fascinating--after a while I realized it was too fascinating. All born-again Christians are somewhat familiar with the reality that the papacy has had some low moral ebbs. I have referred to them from time to time myself. De Rosa's book never stops."

And that's why the book is fascinating to Fundamentalists. Jackson admits that he doesn't know if what de Rosa writes is completely true, and he says he wonders "if getting carried away with too much sensationalism can destroy our heart for Catholic evangelism."

What he doesn't quite say, perhaps because he doesn't quite realize it in these terms, is that anti-Catholicism pushes sensationalism because it is Fundamentalism's pornography. Few Fundamentalists would think of looking through a dirty magazine, but they voyeuristically follow writings such as de Rosa's and of Fundamentalist Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.
(http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505drag.asp)

Johnny Skeptic

Message to llamaluvr: What evidence do you have that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church?

Spitfire

Meh... this book sounds like a 496 page Jack Chick tract, just without all the goofy drawings. But, if anyone, Catholic, opposed to Catholicism, or otherwise, is shocked to read that there were some very bad popes in the past, my question is.......... why? Papal infallibility is a dangerous half-truth, any informed Catholic should understand that. Of course, many Catholics are not the slightest bit informed, but rather than going on angry written tirade about how EEEEEEEEEEVOL the papacy supposedly is it would have been more productive to use these bad popes as examples of how papal infallibility is subject to certain stipulations, while trying to explain the true complexity of the matter and what it means to be obedient to the Church.

Spitfire

Examine the history of any other church and you'll see they either broke away from the Roman Catholic Church at one point or broke away from another group that had broken away previously. With the exception of the Coptic Church of Ethiopia, which far more closely resembled the Roman Church than any non-Catholic church even before the attempts began to bring it into communion with Rome.

Tao of Pooh

Usually, although I probably should include "do not ask me for spare change, I use all my money", or "do not sit next to me on the bus & expect to chat, I do not want to talk to you".


I use a different sig every day, you'll get used to it




I'm out of my mind...please leave a message.