should there be a Vatican in the first place?

Question

time and time again had history proved that the church(vatican) had been a failure. corrupted papals in the dark ages of the medival wrote none other than poverty, suppresion and deaths into the pages of time. to me a religion is something wholesome, nothing could go wrong, all thing must be right. but then again critical and logical thinking had led me to a series questions whether there is need of vatican to be precise a religion.in every organisation there are surely politics and therefore power stugles exists ecspecially when monetary elements are involved.the vatican is like an organisation pope is the highest ranking in the hierarchy of catholic faith hence an authoritarion nature exists and power strugle will emerge to compliment this authority.imagine if when a religion posses a slightest sense of politic, should i doubt the sincerity of that religion. if religion is something good or perfect no one should die for the cause of it,crusade,jihad does all these make sense i doubt

Answer 1

And you propose what, nuking it?

Answer 2

It is true that in years past the Vatican has sometimes been a place of corruption and greed. This does not, however, mean that the religion is wrong or bad. The religion is wholesome even though its leaders sometimes aren't. Even during the Crusades or the Inquisition, the fault was not with the religion - which still spoke of peace and love - but with its power hungry leaders. You suggest that if a religion is true, then 'nothing could go wrong; all things must be right,' but keep in mind that even the most holy of popes is still only a man; he will still sin. No person, and therefore no Church, can ever be perfect. Even keeping in mind all its faults, however, I do not think the Vatican has been a failure. In the very beginning, for example, the Vatican was necessary to decide many of the conflicts that were present in an emerging Church (acceptance of gentiles, status of Judaic Law, humanity/divinity of Christ, etc.). There was a leader and a father ('pope') to guide the Church. This beneficial role lasted for several centuries. Yes, then during the Middle Ages especially it got corrupted through sin and greed. Even then, however, God did not abandon his Church. For instance, you've heard of the concept of papal infallibility? The idea that when speaking ex cathedra and on religious matters, what he says is true? Well even during the worst of times - rich and licentious popes, 12-year old popes, political puppet popes - none of them ever abused that. And of course we've gotten through that time now. The Vatican is not perfect, but it's a whole lot better. Vatican II, for instance, was a huge step forward and the Church still progresses today. As for monetary elements and power struggles, yes, that probably still exists to some extent. These days, however, one does not generally enter the Church because of its great possibilities of wealth and power. And of course one cannot enter the Church expecting to become pope, or even a bishop. Thus, I think that most of the worst people are weeded out at the start. And finally, the authoritarian nature of the Church can be helpful. An organized grouping of a religion allows people to work together for large projects - supplying aid, providing schooling, or making sure there are sufficient priests in all areas. Also, as to faith, there is a certain amount of leeway available. The Vatican is only human, and so it acknowledges that despite all its best efforts, there is still the possibility that it may be wrong at times. Thus, if a person disagrees with a non-dogmatic Catholic teaching, prays about it, talks about it, researches it, and still in all good conscience disagrees, that's okay. The dogma is authoritarian, but that makes sense. As you say, a religion ought to be precise; it ought to have certain core beliefs so that saying you belong to a certain religion actually means something. Otherwise, what would the difference be between being a Catholic and being a Hindu or a Baptist?

Okay, so I know I've been rambling, but in summary I'd just like to say that the Vatican is not perfect nor ever will be because it's made up of people, and people sin. Even though this is true, however, that does not mean that the religion itself is bad or that the Vatican is useless. It just means we have to be aware of its failings and try to avoid them.

Answer 3

You have a point. But, the Christian religion, and any religion for that matter gives people an outlet and hope to believe in something.
In the Middle Ages (yes it was a time of darkness, death, and confusion) religion is what in fact held all the people together. Then, they grew together with religion when in the Reaissance, people started to become interested in humanism and but still hung onto religion.
In every organization there is faults as well positive attributes. People like Martin Luther and Erasmus ,in the Reformation, began to question the Church for the extreme power of the Pope, unfair tax -collecting and spending, paid indulgences, and how the Bible and prayers were only in Latin and not the langiage of the people. But these faults were not in the beliefs of the Church. This was a failure in organization and the people wanting some say in what went on and that they should also think of themselves (humanism). The priniple of the Church still evolved around the teaching of Christ and the religion of the Christians. The faults were of something else entirely, not what the Church believed in.
The Crusades were meant to capture Jerusalem from the Turks. The Crusaders were Christians sent by Pope Urban the 2nd. Never did they really capture it, but they fought for the Church. Yes, to fight isn't exactly a just way to show your love for religion, but this is what held the people together, in the Middle Ages, then less extreme, the Renaissance, and then people started to question in the Reformation. And now, in 2006, many people follow this religion. If this religion was unorganized and wrong, the time between A.D 500 and now, the Vatican would have fell and become nothing. But obviously it hasn't so the Vatican /Church is very powerful and is in some way, right and just to agree with millions of people.

Answer 4

It really is no different than the Roman system that it grew out of. If the Vatican had not stepped up, something else would have I am sure.
Personally, I don't need the Vatican, but then I am not Catholic and do not look to the Pope for Infallible instructions on morality (at least, that is what I am told he is there for).
If you look, though, ALL of mainstream religion is doing this very thing.

Answer 5

If the Vatican can lead people to the Lord Jesus Christ, then there should be a Vatican. If the Vatican prevents people from coming to the Salvation Foundation, then there shouldn't be a Vatican.

Answer 6

Flawed as it is there are a lot of good things about the Vatican including a first class museum, fine library, and nice world meeting place.

Answer 7

No. All good christians should live in a community center where they can help poor people, instead of living in luxury.

Answer 8

If there were no Vatican, people like you would have nothing to talk about.

Answer 9

i dont think the pope should live richly, especially when he preaches give all your money to charity and live humbly, i am a christian by the way

Answer 10

the Pope needs somewhere to live, yes

Answer 11

No there shouldn't be. It is the invention of man. It was built by man for man.