Dear John
I happily accept Papal Bulls as primary source material giving the church's
view on events at that time and as accuate statements of how the curch
wished its position to be perceived. Furthermore, they are reinforced by the
documentary record as to how, what and when the church followed them up by
other actions.
Now, there is a vast wide yawning chasm of vaildity and credibility between
documents ofthat nauture and modern publications by the church attemting to
whitewash its well recorded actions in history and minimise their
imposrtance or impact.
For example,does the Pope's stements a few years ago relieving the Jews from
all blame for the death of Jesus alter one dot or comma in the historical
record of that same church's sustained and systematic persecution of the
Jewish people as 'Christ Killers' - an attitude that led ultimaely to the
Holocaust?
Does the Pope's recent rehabilitation of Galileo alter, modify or cause us
to re-interpret the evnts of his trial, house arrest or the church ban on
'unacceptable advances in knowledge' that contraditcted church teaching and
dogma at the time? _ remeber Giordano Bruno.
To continue to compare modern documentation which is published to sustain
the faith, or apologise for the terrors of the past, with official staments
of church policy in the form of Papal Bulls and Encyclicals of the Middle
Ages is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
For a better overview of the Churhc's present attitude to the history of the
past and the stranglehold that the modern Inquisition still exerts on that
process, may I recommend that you read Baigent and Leigh's excellent work
'The Dead Sea Scrolls Conspiracy'. The Thumb-screw, the rack and the stake
are abolished, but fundamnentally the church is still up to its old game of
creating 'truth'. Just as in the days of old it stillclaims to be the
divinely appointed custodians of 'Divinely Revealed Truth' and, as such,
defines such 'Truth' to suit itself.
Best wishes