The Church and Heretics

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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, w ...[text shortened]... eal -- it was a
matter of unspinning the political agenda that was inherent to them.

Nemesio[/b]

Indeed, when those documents asserted that the Spanish people were happy for the Inquisition, they were dishonest and worthy of derision.

Actually, only Prof. Madden's article claims that. Two points:

(1) I personally don't think it was the case. My guess is that the Spanish people probably just about tolerated their Inquisition - particularly since it targetted (in the early years) conversos, who were not exactly loved by the general public.
(2) I don't know that it is untrue either. Extremely bloody and evil affairs have enjoyed widespread public support in the past (e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

Small note:

Wikepedia is not 'objective.' You, I, or anyone can submit an
article. The author may or may not be objective or even right,
although, because of the volume of people reading the site, errors get
corrected all the time.

I do not know how it works with amending submissions to make them
less 'subjective,' but I am here to tell you, not every article I've read
takes a 'objective' point of view.

Imagine, for example, if Paula Frederickson or Dominic Crosson or
Robert Eisenman wrote the 'Historical Jesus' article with their rather
extreme positions on the evolution of Jesus? Do you think, simply
because they are outstanding scholars, that they would present their
case with the evidence for AND against their (extreme)
arguments?

Of course, they wouldn't. The document would be scholarly, cogent,
well written, and fully subjective.

A true encyclopedia would include summaries of all the accounts
without weighing the evidence, giving the reader a bibliography so that
they could pursue that author's point of view.

Nemesio

P.S., this is just a tangent. If you want to discuss this, take it to
another thread.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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 ...[text shortened]... tiated.

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

no1's claim was that the Inquisition was part of a larger movement to root out heresy. Nemesio's claim is that the Inquisition was part of a movement to control the population. ivanhoe claims that it was instituted to control mob-rule and politicking.

All of these claims are true. An institution can have multiple purposes. In the case of the Inquisition, it was a seriously fatal attempt at balancing these factors.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1's claim was that the Inquisition was part of a larger movement to root out heresy. Nemesio's claim is that the Inquisition was part of a movement to control the population. ivanhoe claims that it was instituted to control mob-rule and politicking.

All of these claims are true. An institution can have multiple purposes. In the case of the Inquisition, it was a seriously fatal attempt at balancing these factors.

To be clear: Nemesio's claim is that the Inquisition was a means for
the Church to maintain power over the secular masses. It did so
by instilling fear into the population. The fear was, of course,
the fear of being a heretic (or even simply just labeled one). Rooting
out heresy was a vehicle for creating this fear. It did, indeed, control
mob-rule and politicking, replacing it with a politically stronger Church,
one with the ability to control people, the direction of their rulers, and,
amassing even more wealth and territory.

It is, at least in part, because 'rule by fear' was at the fundament of
the movement that I feel it is a shameful action on the part of the
Church. The Church should never rule by fear, but by love, for that is
their claim about the essence of God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Small note:

Wikepedia is not 'objective.' You, I, or anyone can submit an
article. The author may or may not be objective or even right,
although, because of the volume of people reading the site, errors get
corrected all the time.

I do not know how it works with amending submissions to make them
less 'subjective,' but I am here to tell you ...[text shortened]... esio

P.S., this is just a tangent. If you want to discuss this, take it to
another thread.

Wikepedia is not 'objective.' You, I, or anyone can submit an
article. The author may or may not be objective or even right,
although, because of the volume of people reading the site, errors get
corrected all the time.

Which is why I sometimes look at the edit history of the article.

Originally posted by Nemesio
To be clear: Nemesio's claim is that the Inquisition was a means for
the Church to maintain power over the secular masses. It did so
by instilling fear into the population. The fear was, of course,
the fear of being a heretic (or even simply just labeled one). Rooting
out heresy was a vehicle for creating this fear. It did, indeed, control ...[text shortened]... d never rule by fear, but by love, for that is
their claim about the essence of God.

Nemesio

Nemesio's claim is that the Inquisition was a means for the Church to maintain power over the secular masses

I hope no one mistook my representation of your claim as indicating Church support for Malthusian population control!

Rooting out heresy was a vehicle for creating this fear.

In all fairness, the Church was committed to rooting out heresy from the very beginning.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes. They didn't believe in sex or swearing oaths. So what?

And the logical implications of that for medieval society?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In all fairness, the Church was committed to rooting out heresy from the very beginning.

Whereas I don't have a problem with an institution 'rooting out'
disagreement, to impose its will on an unwilling subject is evil.

That is, I don't care if Ivanhoe calls me 'Culture of Death Monger'
until he is blue in the face. I have a problem when he tells me that
I should be imprisoned for it.

Sure, it is the motivation of the Church to compel people to believe as
it does. To do so by fear or force, however, is evil.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whereas I don't have a problem with an institution 'rooting out'
disagreement, to impose its will on an unwilling subject is evil.

That is, I don't care if Ivanhoe calls me 'Culture of Death Monger'
until he is blue in the face. I have a problem when he tells me that
I should be imprisoned for it.

Sure, it is the motivation of the Church to compel people to believe as
it does. To do so by fear or force, however, is evil.

Nemesio

Whereas I don't have a problem with an institution 'rooting out'
disagreement, to impose its will on an unwilling subject is evil.

Is that always the case? What about laws against inciting rebellion, revolution or hate crimes?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Whereas I don't have a problem with an institution 'rooting out'
disagreement, to impose its will on an unwilling subject is evil.

Is that always the case? What about laws against inciting rebellion, revolution or hate crimes?[/b]

Those are laws which stop people from rooting out disagreement!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Those are laws which stop people from rooting out disagreement!

But they do so by rooting out disagreement themselves.

It's a case of using a thorn to pick out a thorn.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But they do so by rooting out disagreement themselves.

It's a case of using a thorn to pick out a thorn.

No. They permit disagreement. I do not believe that it should
be illegal to hate black people (though I think it is immoral).

It should be illegal to string them up on trees.

To make rioting illegal is to make the imposition of a position
illegal. If the KKK (as despicable as they are) want to peacably
assemble to demonstrate the superiority of the redneck, I'm all
for it (as long as my ilk can peacably assemble and protest them).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
No. They permit disagreement. I do not believe that it should
be illegal to hate black people (though I think it is immoral).

It should be illegal to string them up on trees.

To make rioting illegal is to make the imposition of a position
illegal. If the KKK (as despicable as they are) want to peacably
assemble to demonstrate the superiority of ...[text shortened]... edneck, I'm all
for it (as long as my ilk can peacably assemble and protest them).

Nemesio

I'm not talking about people who, say, hang black people on trees themselves.

I'm talking about those who face incarceration (in countries where hate-crime laws are in place) for saying that black people should be hung from trees.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whereas I don't have a problem with an institution 'rooting out'
disagreement, to impose its will on an unwilling subject is evil.

That is, I don't care if Ivanhoe calls me 'Culture of Death Monger'
until he is blue in the face. I have a problem when he tells me that
I should be imprisoned for it.

Sure, it is the motivation of the Church to compel people to believe as
it does. To do so by fear or force, however, is evil.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "That is, I don't care if Ivanhoe calls me 'Culture of Death Monger'
until he is blue in the face. I have a problem when he tells me that
I should be imprisoned for it."


Just for the record: I have never called Nemesio a "Culture of Death Monger" and I never stated he should be imprisoned for it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Indeed, when those documents asserted that the Spanish people were happy for the Inquisition, they were dishonest and worthy of derision.

Actually, only Prof. Madden's article claims that. Two points:

(1) I personally don't think it was the case. My guess is that the Spanish people probably just about tolerated their Inquisition - parti ...[text shortened]... rs have enjoyed widespread public support in the past (e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions).[/b]

My guess is that the Spanish people probably just about tolerated their Inquisition - particularly since it targetted (in the early years) conversos, who were not exactly loved by the general public.

That seems to make sense: when we talk about the “people’s” view of things, we need to note which people we’re talking about. Perhaps I can "tolerate" an inquisition when it goes after people I don't like, but then perhaps it comes after me.... The famous quote by Martin Niemoller, with reference to the Nazis (note the Protestant repsonse to when they came after the Catholics: the "German Church" was Lutheran) comes to mind:

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."