The Church and Heretics

yes the church and heritics
we HAVE moved on now havent we??
instead of torturing and killing them
you hound them
i guess it beats the hell outta getting disemboweled or whatever
thanks

Originally posted by no1marauder
The thread is an answer to absurd claims made by Lucifershammer and yourself. He claimed that he wanted the "truth" about the Inquistion to be known. Since neither of you have disputed the authenticity of my quote from Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council, it clearly shows that the Church itself pressured secular authorities to "exterminate" heretic ...[text shortened]... year as the Fourth Lateran Council was telling secular authorities to 'exterminate" heretics.

Since neither of you have disputed the authenticity of my quote from Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council, it clearly shows that the Church itself pressured secular authorities to "exterminate" heretics.

The Church pressured secular authorities to exterminate heretics once it had determined that they were unrepentant (i.e. past the one-year period of excommunication). That is undeniable. But the idea that heresy equals treason was not invented by the Church (though it did affirm it). That can be traced at least as far back as Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. Well before the Albigensian Crusade, the Medieval Inquisitions and Lateran IV, heretics were being put to death by secular authorities as traitors (e.g. Cathars being executed in 11th century France).

The idea that the Inquistion was some humanitarian response to the brutality of secular authorities is shown to be patently false by this Church document.

How so?

The central "truth" about the Inquistion is that it was one part of a wider attempt by the church to combat heresy

A truth no one has denied.

Distorting the facts like LH and yourself have tried to do does the Church no favors.

Which of my factual assertions is false? Which true facts have I ignored or "twisted"?

Did you look at the interrogation of Agnes Francou in the other thread? Do you really think that it was an improvement over prior systems of law?

Based on every comparison I can find between Inquisitorial procedures and prior systems - yes. That doesn't mean the Inquisition itself was a morally perfect institution.

Interesting fact: The Magna Carta, which assured due process of law to all accused and other protections, was promulgated in 1215 the same year as the Fourth Lateran Council was telling secular authorities to 'exterminate" heretics.

You raised this point before - and provided no response as to what rights the Magna Carta provided the common man (i.e. the serf) as opposed to nobility and freeholders. I also asked you what the current judicial procedures were for trials of common people (especially those accused of heresy) was in 13th century England - you ignored that question as well.

Originally posted by vistesd
To fight this kind of political mob-rule, which was and is only interested in the truth if it serves its political purposes was exactly the reason why the Inquisition was installed at the time.

I thought the primary reason was to combat heresy, blasphemy and violations of Church moral doctrine.

My claim was and is that the initial creation of used. If I am so accused, I will simply call my accuser a damned liar and go merrily on my way.

The point remains that that does not make the actions of the Inquisition “good,” only less unjust and less brutal than secular judicial practices.

What is the difference between "less unjust and less brutal" and "more just and more kind"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

[b]The central "truth" about the Inquistion is that it was one part of a wider attempt by the church to combat heresy

A truth no one has denied.[/b]

Ivanhoe has denied that: "To fight this kind of political mob-rule, which was and is only interested in the truth if it serves its political purposes was exactly the reason why the Inquisition was installed at the time."

Ivanhoe claims that it was exactly a political fight, not a fight against heresy. Is he wrong?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What do you think Agnes Francou would have thought of your claim?

Were the procedures of the Inquistion an improvement over the system used in English courts in the period following the Magna Carta?

What do you think Agnes Francou would have thought of your claim?

I have no idea.

Were the procedures of the Inquistion an improvement over the system used in English courts in the period following the Magna Carta?

Why don't you tell us? What rights were granted to the common peasants (and not just nobility and freeholders) under the Magna Carta?

Specifically:

(1) Were common peasants allowed lawyers for serious crimes (i.e. meriting death)?
(2) Did they have the right to face and question their accusers?
(3) Were they exonerated if the charges were made by their enemies?
(4) Were they tortured for confessions?
(5) Were such confessions admissible in court?
(6) If torture was involved, did it involve mutilation, wounding or death?
(7) Who were the judges for their cases? Were they trained for the job?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is the difference between "less unjust and less brutal" and "more just and more kind"?

The difference is emphasis. To say something is 'less unjust'
than previously expressed means that it remains unjust (the degree,
of course, will be in successive sentences).

Similarly, to say that it was 'more kind' emphasizes 'kindness.'

For example, the Jews who went to Terrazenstadt (sp?) fared much
better than those in Auschwitz. Those who went to the former were,
among other things, were those Jews who were famous artists or
musicians/composers.

However, if I said the Terrazenstadt Jews were treated more kindly than
the Auchwitz Jews, and then elaborated on all the 'benefits' that this
camp had over all other camps, and failed to emphasize the
atrocities which marked both camps, I would be misrepresenting
the history of the event.

Yes, the former was 'better,' but it was still very bad. And Auchwitz was
hell. That has to be the premise which undergirds any discussion of
the unusual things that happened at Terazenstadt.

Any presentation of the Inquisition which does not indicate, as a
fundamental premise, that it was a horrible, evil, nasty affair which was
about controlling the masses and compelling them to obey the
Church is a false presentation. Yes, the Church was 'nicer' than the
secular authorities, but it was still acting in an evil manner. It was a
shameful time for an Institution which has so much else to its credit.
That its faithful would not recognize, much less its hierarchy, is also
quite a shame.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The point remains that that does not make the actions of the Inquisition “good,” only less unjust and less brutal than secular judicial practices.

What is the difference between "less unjust and less brutal" and "more just and more kind"?[/b]

The former is a more accurate description of the comparative relationship. Both systems are unjust and brutal. Neither is just and kind.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What do you think Agnes Francou would have thought of your claim?

I have no idea.

Were the procedures of the Inquistion an improvement over the system used in English courts in the period following the Magna Carta?

Why don't you tell us? What rights were granted to the common peasants (and not just nobility and freeholders) und ...[text shortened]... ion, wounding or death?
(7) Who were the judges for their cases? Were they trained for the job?[/b]

Again, LH:

Just because it was better than an evil system, doesn't mean that it
wasn't still evil.

The Church has a duty to promote only good. It failed to do so in the
Inquisition (and, say, the Crusades).

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Since neither of you have disputed the authenticity of my quote from Canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council, it clearly shows that the Church itself pressured secular authorities to "exterminate" heretics.

The Church pressured secular authorities to exterminate heretics once it had determined that they were unrepentant (i.e. past th ...[text shortened]... cially those accused of heresy) was in 13th century England - you ignored that question as well.[/b]

Where did you ask such questions??? You asserted that the Inquistion was fairer; why don't you do your own research before making such a claim since its obvious you have no knowledge of prior legal systems?

You're playing sophist again; if you want I'll pull up early Church documents condemning heresy and calling for death sentences. We both know they exist. and we know who was driving force behind the massacres of the Cathars in the 11th Century was.

You again can't read; the one year period mentioned in Canon 3 was for the RULERS to get busy and start exterminating heretics; not for the heretics!

Canon 3 shows that the Church itself was the driving force behind the extermination of heretics and thus the Inquistion was not a response to secular authority's actions. Stop playing dumb. The Inquistion was created to enhance and aid the extermination of heretics, not protect them from secular authorities who the Church sicced on them in the 1st place! Your core assertion is blatantly false.

I'll get back with a rundown of prior legal system protections of the accused from ancient times to the Middle Ages that the Inquistion ignored. I mentioned one before i.e. the right to confront accusers only to have you say it was of no importance! Are you going to take that position with every instance of a procedural due process right that is in the US Constitution but was ignored by the Inquistion? If so, say so as your interpretation of a "fairer" judical process is so radically flawed that you will continue to insist that the Inquistion was "fairer" no matter what I show. I prefer not to waste my time if you are unwilling to grant that the traditional due process considerations embodied in Western systems before and after the Middle Ages are important like the right to confront witnesses. Your conclusion of fairness is seemingly question begging.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ivanhoe has denied that: "To fight this kind of political mob-rule, which was and is only interested in the truth if it serves its political purposes was [b]exactly the reason why the Inquisition was installed at the time."

Ivanhoe claims that it was exactly a political fight, not a fight against heresy. Is he wrong?[/b]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Originally posted by Nemesio
The difference is emphasis. To say something is 'less unjust'
than previously expressed means that it remains unjust (the degree,
of course, will be in successive sentences).

Similarly, to say that it was 'more kind' emphasizes 'kindness.'

For example, the Jews who went to Terrazenstadt (sp?) fared much
better than those in Auschwitz. ...[text shortened]... at its faithful would not recognize, much less its hierarchy, is also
quite a shame.

Nemesio

Any presentation of the Inquisition which does not indicate, as a
fundamental premise, that it was a horrible, evil, nasty affair which was
about controlling the masses and compelling them to obey the
Church is a false presentation.

Agreed. But any presentation of the Inquisition which indicates that the Inquisition was more horrible, evil and nasty than it really was would also be false. Do you disagree?

Here's an example: any presentation of the Manhattan Project that ignores the evil of the A-bomb it created would be false. Equally, a presentation that ignores the scientific and technological achievements of the project would also be false.

Another example: any presentation of the French Revolution that ignores the basic republican principles it espoused would be false. Equally, a presentation that ignores the bloodshed and savagery of the Revolution would also be false.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are the two mutually exclusive?

Of course.

Heresy is not exactly equivalent to the kind of political mob rule that Ivanhoe was referring to.

Thus, fighting heresy is not exactly equivalent to fighting the kind of political mob rule that Ivanhoe was referring to.

But, fighting the kind of political mob rule that Ivanhoe was referring to is exactly the reason, according to Ivanhoe, that the Inquisition was instantiated.

Therefore, fighting heresy is not the reason that the Inquisition was instantiated.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Agreed. But any presentation of the Inquisition which indicates that the Inquisition was more horrible, evil and nasty than it really was would also be false. Do you disagree?

LucifersHammer: You know I agree. I am for the pursuit of historical
truth and I think that it is ESSENTIAL to correct errors, whether they be
errors which make things appear worse or make them appear better.

The articles that were cited were ones which failed to recognize the
inherent evil of the Inquisition. As I said, because the focused on
the 'good' of the Inquisition without a recognition of the baseline evil,
they were not only inaccurate, but dishonest. I can tolerate
error, I cannot tolerate dissemblement.

This is the critical difference. Sincere error is neutral; mistakes in
history are going to happen and those who are historians strive to
correct, amend and supplement all the time. Spinning facts so that
they paint a particular picture, while selectively ignoring other facts, is
something else. The first is simply 'false.' The second is 'fallacious.'

Indeed, when those documents asserted that the Spanish people were
happy for the Inquisition, they were dishonest and worthy of derision.
Addressing the content of those texts wasn't (simply) a matter of
correcting wrong to right -- in history, this is not a big deal -- it was a
matter of unspinning the political agenda that was inherent to them.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The point remains that that does not make the actions of the Inquisition “good,” only less unjust and less brutal than secular judicial practices.

What is the difference between "less unjust and less brutal" and "more just and more kind"?[/b]

What is the difference between "less unjust and less brutal" and "more just and more kind"?

The "weight of the words," to just add to what Scribbs and Nemesio said; words have more than just denotation--they have connotation as well. To say that someone is "more courteous" that someone else implies that they are both at least courteous, that neither is consistently discourteous. To say that one person is less disourteous than another implies that they are both, on balance, discourteous nevertheless; one is perhaps just less egregiously discourteous than the other.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where did you ask such questions??? You asserted that the Inquistion was fairer; why don't you do your own research before making such a claim since its obvious you have no knowledge of prior legal systems?

You're playing sophist again; if you want I'll pull up early Church documents condemning heresy and calling for death sentences. We both ...[text shortened]... like the right to confront witnesses. Your conclusion of fairness is seemingly question begging.

Where did you ask such questions??? You asserted that the Inquistion was fairer; why don't you do your own research before making such a claim since its obvious you have no knowledge of prior legal systems?

It is true I have no knowledge of prior legal systems. However, virtually every objective (i.e. neither Catholic nor anti-Catholic) account (e.g. Wikipedia) of the Inquisition I have seen makes it a point to mention that the methods used by the Inquisition were milder and fairer than prior systems. Why do you think this is the case?

You're playing sophist again; if you want I'll pull up early Church documents condemning heresy and calling for death sentences.

Prior to when the Christians themselves were persecuted for not worshipping the Roman Emperor and deities? Go ahead.

You again can't read; the one year period mentioned in Canon 3 was for the RULERS to get busy and start exterminating heretics; not for the heretics!

Actually, the one year period is mentioned in the following paragraph for all those "who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them" as well. But you're right, the canon doesn't say whether heretics got a year.

Canon 3 shows that the Church itself was the driving force behind the extermination of heretics and thus the Inquistion was not a response to secular authority's actions.

The Church itself was the driving force behind the extermination of heretics, but it wasn't pushing for indiscriminate extermination of all those suspected to be heretics. That's what the institution of the Inquisition was for - to first distinguish between those who were heretical and those who were not, and then between those who would repent and those who would not.

I'll get back with a rundown of prior legal system protections of the accused from ancient times to the Middle Ages that the Inquistion ignored.

You do that.

I mentioned one before i.e. the right to confront accusers only to have you say it was of no importance!

I didn't say it was of no importance - I also said the Inquisitions did have that right to begin with. The right was rescinded when defendents and their families began assassinating witnesses.

Also, as I've asked before - what is so sacrosanct about this right? Do you think the interests of justice are served when a rapist has the right to face his victim? A child-molester? A member of a crime syndicate?

Are you going to take that position with every instance of a procedural due process right that is in the US Constitution but was ignored by the Inquistion?

Don't be anachronistic - we are talking about prior systems here.