A Question for Catholics

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your Inquistion thread is filled with bad history and half-truths. Compare the Magna Carta provisions of 1215 with your secret proceeding:

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
...[text shortened]... ay, right or justice.

Was your Inquistion "progressive" compared to the Magna Carta?

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

My history might be a little rusty, but isn't the Magna Carta essentially an agreement between the King and the Aristocracy? So, the rights you cite here apply to noblemen - not the common people.

That, of course, was not the case with the Inquisition.

EDIT: Why don't you tell us what the judicial procedure was for common people accused of crimes in 13th century England?

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Ditto with the Inquisition.

Was your Inquistion "progressive" compared to the Magna Carta?

Based on what you've posted so far - yes.

EDIT: What "bad history and half-truths"? Specifics, please. I hope the Wolf Pack isn't basing its refutation of my arguments on innuendos, sarcasm and ad hominems.

Here's an uplifting story of the wonderful due process protections accorded by the Inquistion in the 13th Century:

There he had the prisoners, whom he had dragged along behind him in chains and who were exhausted by the trip, placed under heavy guard. The next day he visited them and, binding himself with a terrible oath, said, "Unless you confess to me that you are heretics, may God do thus and so to me if I don't kill all of you right here with a variety of tortures and torments. If, as I ask, you do confess to me that you do or did err in something or other, I'll give you a light penance and set you free immediately." The brothers replied that he should not ask them to say something that wasn't true. Telling such a wicked lie would cause death to their souls and offense to God. The furious inquisitor selected one of them who seemed more fervent than the others and was a priest, and ordered that he be tortured. The torturer entered with his assistants and tied the prisoner's hands behind his back. Then he had him raised up by means of a pulley attached to the roof of the house, which was very high. After the prisoner had hung there for an hour the rope was released suddenly. The idea was that, broken by the intense pain, he would be defeated and confess that he had once been a heretic. After he had been raised and suddenly dropped many times they asked whether he would confess that he was or had been a heretic. He replied, I'm a faithful and catholic Christian, always have been, and always will be.. If I said anything else to you shouldn't believe me, because I would only have said it to escape the torture.. Let this be my perpetual confession to you, because it's the truth. Anything else would be a lie extorted by torture."

Driven out of his mind by anger, the inquisitor ordered that, dressed in a short tunic, the prisoner be put first in a bath of hot water, then of cold. Then, with a stone tied to his feet, he was raised up again, kept there for a while, and dropped again, and his shins were poked with reeds as sharp as swords. Again and again he was hauled up until, on the thirteenth elevation, the rope broke and he fell from a great height with the stone still tied to his feet. As that destroyer of the faithful stood looking at him, he lay there only half alive, with his body shattered. The treacherous man's servant's took the body and disposed of it in a cesspool.

That inquisitor, although he was a learned man and of noble family, was so demented by fury that he began to inflict torture with his own hands. When one of the brothers who was to be tortured devoutly recommended himself to Christ, he was so insane with anger that he struck the man on the head and neck. He hit the man so hard that he drove him to the ground like a ball. For days afterward the man's neck and head hurt and his ears rang. Another brother had his head bound in the inquisitor's presence, and the binding was tightened until the torturers heard the bones in his head crack, after which they ended the torture and took him away for dead.

http://www.torture-museum.com/papal-inquisition.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's an uplifting story of the wonderful due process protections accorded by the Inquistion in the 13th Century:

There he had the prisoners, whom he had dragged along behind him in chains and who were exhausted by the trip, placed under heavy guard. The next day he visited them and, binding himself with a terrible oath, said, "Unless you confess t ...[text shortened]... d the torture and took him away for dead.

http://www.torture-museum.com/papal-inquisition.htm

As your site says:

"Obviously Angelo, who by that point had become leader of the Anconan spirituals, had about as little sympathy for the inquisitor as the latter had for the Anconan spirituals in his clutches. Thus we can hardly expect a balanced picture of what occurred, and Angelo was in any case not with the group."

Not to mention that Angelo's account inevitably speaks of the inquisitor killing his victims - something that was expressly forbidden by the Papal Inquisition.

Originally posted by bbarr
The right to X does not entail that X-ing is mandatory. I may have a right to confront my accusers, but this does not mean that I am forced to confront my accusers. Rather, this means that if I am prevented from confronting my accusers, my rights have thereby been violated.

Of course, you're correct. But maybe no1 is the best person to speak of conviction rates on rape cases where the accuser is not present...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As your site says:

"Obviously Angelo, who by that point had become leader of the Anconan spirituals, had about as little sympathy for the inquisitor as the latter had for the Anconan spirituals in his clutches. Thus we can hardly expect a balanced picture of what occurred, and Angelo was in any case not with the group."

Not to mention that Ang ...[text shortened]... nquisitor killing his victims - something that was expressly forbidden by the Papal Inquisition.

It's still a lot more conclusive evidence of something serious than what your beloved Inquistion ever got before they stuck some poor peasant girl in a fire, ain't it though? And Angelo never even got to torture anybody once, nevermind the second chance your inquistors got! And. of course, no one could possibly die under physical torture: how absurd!

But if that one isn't good enough, I've got plenty more: want to read the proceedings against a French girl who refused to take an oath on religious grounds? Take a wild guess what her sentence was??

This dick-measuring contest belongs in a different thread.

The topic of the thread is Confession.

😛

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This dick-measuring contest belongs in a different thread.

The topic of the thread is Confession.

😛

Nemesio

What better for LH to confess then the sins of the RCC? Here's a very beautiful story of enlightened Inquistional justice told by Inquistor (and a damn fine one!) Bernard Gui:

The above-said Agnes did not wish to swear an oath on the command of my said lord bishop, even though he gave her ample opportunity to do so, but said that she would never swear an oath concerning anything, even to save her life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Why? For what reason do you refuse to swear an oath?
About a year ago, I was ill and I was anointed; I received extreme unction from a curate who was called, I believe, Etienne, who was the vicar of the church in that place. After the anointing and confession that I made to him, he ordered me never, for any reason or in any circumstances, to swear or take a personal oath, nor to walk barefoot. He added that our Lord Jesus Christ had not lied out of fear of death, and that I ought never to lie out of fear of death, but to tell the truth, without oath in response to questions that anyone posed to me. I promised him I would not take an oath for any reason.

-----Do you beliee that swearing in order to tell the truth is a sin?
Yes, after what this curate told me.

-----Were you instructed by anyone else besides this Etienne never to take an oath to tell the truth?
No.

-----Have you said to anyone or any others not to take oaths?
No.

-----Have you ever taken an oath?
No.

-----Do you know Raymond, with whom you were arrested in Pamiers?
Yes, for about a year and a half.

-----What is his family name?
De Sainte-Foy (of the Holy Faith), and according to him, he is from the diocese of Geneva, but I don't know what part of this diocese.

-----Where did you see this Raymond for the first time?
At Castelsarraasin, where I had just arrived, coming directly from Viennois, through Montpéllier, Béziers and Toulouse.

-----After having found this Raymond at Castelsarrasin, were you constantly with him?
No, I left him and from Castelsarrasin I went to Beaumont-de-Lomagne.

-----How long did you remain in that walled town?
One month in all.

-----With whom did you lodge?
With a woman named Huguette, who was of the diocese of Vienne and who is now dead.

-----Why did you go to Beaumont?
Because of my poverty and to beg for necessities.

-----From Beaumont, where did you go?
To the city of Toulouse, where I found Raymond again.

-----Did you go with him to Pamiers?
No, I went all alone, and he arrived a little later. We stayed there for some time together, but eventually he left and returned later.

-----Do you believe that my lord the bishop could absolve you of perjury?
Yes.

-----Do you believe that someone who is not a priest can celebrate the Mass and absolve sins, if he is a good and holy man?
No.

-----Do you believe that there is a purgatory in the other world?
Yes.

-----Do you believe that a man who has confessed his sins and dies without doing penance in this world does penance in the other world or purgatory?
Yes.

January 18. She was once again asked by my said lord bishop to swear to tell the truth concerning herself as well as others, both living and dead, concerning the faith, each time being presented frequently a book containing the Gospels. She would not take an oath at all, but turned her face from the Gospel book which was presented to her, bringing forth the same reason for not taking an oath as above.

-----Do you believe that taking an oath to tell the truth is a sin?
Since I have promised not to take oaths, as a result, if Iwere to take one, I believe I would sin.

-----If my lord the bishop released you from this promise, would you believe yourself released?
Yes.

-----Well then, if you believe it, and if he released you, would you take an oath?
I do not wish to take an oath at all, even to save my life.

-----Do you believe that swearing to tell the truth is a sin?
I do not know; I do not even know what to believe concerning this subject.

-----Would you be prepared to swear that you are now before my lord the bishop, if in doing so you would be liberated from prison?
I will not take any oath at all.

-----Did foreign women come to Raymond's house when he was living in Pamiers?
Yes, Jeanne, the sister of Arnaud Melonier and Guillemette, the wife of a mason who lived next door to us. They came from time to time to Raymond's house and passed the time, eating and drinking with Jeanne, the sister of Raymond, who left one month before Raymond and I were arrested, with André Pascal, a cleric. I heard them say that they wished to return to Provence, where they were from, with another woman, named Jacqueline. These people, André, Jeanne and Jacqueline had arrived and left together. Living with us also were Jean, who kept company often with Raymond, and Petronilla. They both saved themselves when Raymond was arrested with the others.

-----What is the family name of this Raymond and where was he from?
He is called Raymond de Saint-Foy, and he is originally from the town of la Côte-Saint-André, which belongs to Lord Thomas of Savoy.

-----For how long did he stay in the town of Pamiers?
From the grape harvest of 1318 until the Feast of St. Lawrence 1319.

----Did you know him for a long time?
Since his birth or a little later, because I was his nursemaid and suckled him. When his mother died, his father, who was Genevois engaged me to nurse him, which I did at la-Côte-Saint-André.

-----Did you see him anywhere else than at Pamiers?
Yes, at Castelsarrasin, where I remained for several days with him, and then I stayed about a month at Beaumont. After that I came to Toulouse and found Raymond there.

After this, the same year as above, on January 21st, the said Agnes appeared for questioning in the château of Allemans before my said lord bishop, assisted by the said Brother Gaillard de Pomiès.

The bishop told her once again to swear to tell the truth. She replied that she would not take an oath at all, no matter what. But she asked and begged my said lord bishop not to speak to her anymore concerning taking oaths, because she would not take one ever, just as she stated above.

After this, the same year as above, on January 23rd, the said Agnes appeared for questioning in the château of Allemans before my said lord bishop, assisted by the said Brother Gaillard de Pomiès.

-----Do you wish to take an oath?
No.

-----Do you believe it to be a sin?
I believe that it is evil to swear by God, by one's faith or by one's belief.

-----But do you believe that swearing is the same evil as the evil of sin?
I believe that it is evil because it is a sin.

-----Do you believe in Purgatory?
Yes.

The 25th of April 1320, the above said Agnes, appearing for questioning at the chateau of Allemans before my said lord bishop, assisted by the venerable and religious person my lord Brother Jean de Beaune, inquisitor of the heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, commissioned by the Apostolic See, was once again requested by them to swear to tell the truth, and he told her that she was compelled by law to swear when she was judicially requested to do so, and by not doing so, she sinned mortally and that if she persisted obstinately in refusing to swear to tell the truth, as required by law in the case of faith, she could and would be condemned as a heretic.

Although she was frequently requested and counselled, she replied that she would not take an oath for any reason.

-----Why?
Because God has forbidden all swearing.

-----If you were to swear to tell the truth, do you believe you would sin mortally?
If I myself were to take an oath, I believe I would sin mortally.

-----You say that you do not know how to read. Who taught you that taking an oath is a sin and against the teaching of the Lord, and specifically swearing to tell the truth?
It was Raymond de la Côte, with whom I was arrested, who taught me never to take an oath of any sort, even to tell the truth.

-----For how long have you believed that taking an oath, even to tell the truth, is a mortal sin?
I have believed this for about 20 years.

The above-named woman was admonished, begged and ordered by our said lords bishop and inquisitor once, twice, and three times for charity to leave and abandon the said errors and heresies which she avowed to have held and still to hold, during many requests and court appearances before my lord the bishop, and now before my said lord inquisitor, to abjure the Waldensian heresy, and the sect of the Poor of Lyons, and to denounce all her companions, accompliced and believers, and return to the faith and unity of the Roman church. She replied that she would not take an oath.
Our said lords bishop and inquisitor protested that unless she wished to take an oath and abandon her errors, proceedings would begin against her as against a heretic, according to canonical sanctions and the forms of law. Present were my lord Germain de Castelnau, archdeacon of the church of Pamiers, Brother Gaillard de Pomiès, Brother Arnaud du Carla, of the order of the Preachers of the convent of Pamiers, Brother Jean Estère of the same order, companions of my lord the inquisitor, and master Barthelemy Adalbert, notary of the Inquisition. And master Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my lord the bishop, who wrote and received all of the above said by order of my lords bishop and inquisitor.

On Wednesday, the 30th of April 1320, I, master Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my lord the bishop of Pamiers, came in person to the chateau of Allemans and presented myself by the order of my lords the bishop and the inquisitor to the said Agnes, to ask that she appear before them in person the following day before the church of Allemans, to hear the sentence passed on her above confessions. The said Agnes accepted this day purely and simply.
...

Sorry, lost the punchline:


In the presence of master Marc Rivel, notary of the terre du paréage (terre pariagi), Raymond Gasc of Allemans and Garnot, sargeant of the said terre du paréage, etc.
The sentence in this case was given thus the1st of May and is inscribed in the Book of sentences of the Inquisition.

And I, Rainaud Jabbaud, cleric of Toulouse, sworn to the service of the Inquisition, have faithfully corrected this deposition against the original on the order of my lord the bishop above-named.

(Agnes was burned along with Raymond.)


Guess she couldn't afford one of them indulgences.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, lost the punchline:


In the presence of master Marc Rivel, notary of the terre du paréage (terre pariagi), Raymond Gasc of Allemans and Garnot, sargeant of the said terre du paréage, etc.
The sentence in this case was given thus the1st of May and is inscribed in the Book of sentences of the Inquisition.

And I, Rainaud Jabbaud, cler ...[text shortened]... as burned along with Raymond.)


Guess she couldn't afford one of them indulgences.

Wow, they burned a woman at the stake for not wanting to sin. Incredible!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I haven't read through the book myself, so I don't know what the answers to your three questions are.

[b]How can any of this make the Inquisition anything better than a somewhat less hideous affair than the secular injustice system?

The point I (and ivanhoe) are making is this - the Inquisition evokes a much stronger emotional response fro ...[text shortened]... he Inquisition if I continue to evaluate it with my 20th century sensibilities.

That's all.[/b]

The point I (and ivanhoe) are making is this - the Inquisition evokes a much stronger emotional response from us today because we are used to the modern judicial system, with all the rights and privileges it provides the accused.

I think it evokes an emotional response because we find its aims and tactics abhorrent. Haliczer does not seem to dispel that finding, nor does he seem to be attempting to do so; I assume he is intending to do balanced historical research. It goes beyond just the judicial system we’re familiar with.

So, when Prof. Madden claims that the Inquisition brought justice and mercy to medieval society he is, relatively speaking, correct (also keep in mind that, but for the Inquisition, convicted heretics would've automatically been executed by the secular authorities - especially following the experience of the wars with the Albigensians).

First, Haliczer does not indicate that its aim was either justice or mercy, so maybe he’s at odds with Madden. He indicates that its aims were to root out heresy and behaviors that went against church teachings on morality and doctrine. Yes, one unjust system can be less unjust than another, one brutal system can be less brutal than another; I suppose that makes the latter a more just system “relatively speaking,” but that seems a bit disingenuous to me if both systems are clearly unjust and brutal. A less brutal rape ought not to be classified as a relative kindness. The fact that people perceived that they had better chances with the Inquisition does not mean that they viewed it as merciful and just. It only means they did a practical assessment of where their chances were relatively the best, of which was the lesser evil.

Also, it seems to me that you are arguing a kind of “moral relativism” here, from a historical perspective—and I think that puts you in a dilemma. For example, it seems clear that the Church did not view torture as immoral in those times—does that mean that the Church was in fact in moral error, or that torture was moral in those times? Or that we are not permitted to say? [The same questions apply to the other conditions of the judicial framework in which they operated: were they honestly viewed as valid at the time? Were thy valid? etc.]

Now, I'm not condoning the methods of the Inquisition (or, indeed, the American police) - but I think it would be difficult for me to evaluate the impact of the Inquisition if I continue to evaluate it with my 20th century sensibilities.

I think you have to do both: (1) try to research the facts without bringing your sensibilities into it at all; and (2) then evaluate it, including with your 20th century sensibilities. Either your 20th century sensibilities about the morality of using torture to induce confession are correct or they are not, or it is historically relative.

I mean, maybe it goes like this:

“Here were the conditions under which they used torture. Because even then they recognized that a confession under torture might not be voluntary, the accused was required to confirm the confession after a wait of at least 24 hours from the torture. Very seldom was torture reapplied if the accused retracted his/her confession. In the secular system, the conditions were....” (Very straightforward: “Just the facts, ma’am.” )

“Do you think that somehow makes torture a less evil act?”

“Absolutely not! I think it’s horrible. I’m sure the victim did too, and it would certainly take a courageous, bull-headed or mad person to retract their confession if they thought they even might be tortured again.”

If that reflects where you were trying to go, then we have no argument.

I don’t condone the methods of the Inquisition, nor police brutality in the 1930s, nor the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s, nor the Salem witch hunts of the of the 17th century, nor Martin Luther’s call for the slaughter of the peasants because he feared the peasant rebellion would undermine his reformation. My argument has nothing to do with the RCC per se (I think you know me better than that!). If someone wants to say that Luther’s exhortation to the German knights was really to protect the peasants, or that it was somehow relatively just in light of the Reformation, I’ll start digging up my Luther biographies to argue with them—just as I did when I was a Lutheran.

Originally posted by vistesd
If someone wants to say that Luther’s exhortation to the German knights was really to protect the peasants, or that it was somehow relatively just in light of the Reformation, I’ll start digging up my Luther biographies to argue with them—just as I did when I was a Lutheran.

I think sonhouse would appreciate that story!

I wonder why was it left out of the film, or did I nod off at that point?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think sonhouse would appreciate that story!

I wonder why was it left out of the film, or did I nod off at that point?

I haven't seen the film. Is it any good? It was in the version with Stacy Keach as Luther, if I remember rightly--that was a bunch of years ago.

Originally posted by vistesd
I haven't seen the film. Is it any good? It was in the version with Stacy Keach as Luther, if I remember rightly--that was a bunch of years ago.

I think it's a good film .

Where would be a good place to start with Lutheran history?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think it's a good film .

Where would be a good place to start with Lutheran history?

Luther Alive: Martin Luther and the Making of the Reformation by Edith Simon was the best one I read. I went to search my bookshelves, but can't find any of my "Luther" books. I know I wouldn't have given that one away though.

Originally posted by vistesd
Luther Alive: Martin Luther and the Making of the Reformation by Edith Simon was the best one I read. I went to search my bookshelves, but can't find any of my "Luther" books. I know I wouldn't have given that one away though.

Thanks. I'll follow the New Confessions thread with interest...