The Inquisition(s)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If one is interested in winning the perpetual propaganda war against the Roman-Catholic Church, one is, of course, not interested in such an approach.

There's a "perpetual propaganda war against the Roman-Catholic Church"?

Now who's being "Hollywood"? 🙂

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I didn't read that in any of Luciferhammer's or any of my posts. On the contrary .... if you read them again you will undoubtedly find your claim is completely missing the point.

You read what you want to read.

Please state what you believe to be the correct message one should extract from yours & LH's posts. Please DON'T skirt the issue with yet another injunction to "read properly" as if everything would fall into place were everyone to see things the way you do. Or was that comment you made about the parrot hat being made for you a veiled confession.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
No, it is not a false analogy. Please explain to me what LH was doing in the first post of this thread if not suggesting that the Catholic Church is guilty just not AS guilty as some seem to think?

If that post was anything other than an attempt to mitigate damages on behalf of the Church I don't know what would be.

TheSkipper

The Skipper: "Please explain to me what LH was doing in the first post of this thread if not suggesting that the Catholic Church is guilty just not AS guilty as some seem to think?"

Now you are changing your claim. You'd better ask LH.

The Skipper: "If that post was anything other than an attempt to mitigate damages on behalf of the Church I don't know what would be."

I refer to my above post to the Dear Doctor and this post.

I can add that MY intention is, among others, to attack the blame game that is being played to discredit and blacken the Roman-Catholic Church as much as possible. People who engage in this kind of propaganda war are not interested in the historical facts placed in its correct perspective. They are interested in other things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

" The Catholic Church has always been the single most consistent proponent of life and opponent of abortion in American culture. So if you’re ‘pro-choice,’ breaking its credibility becomes a serious priority."

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But now I am straying from the thread's subject.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You read what you want to read.

Please state what you believe to be the correct message one should extract from yours & LH's posts.

You seem to have missed the following post in the CatID thread:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Firstly, creating the medieval Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial field combatting mob rule, combatting arbitrary decisions by secular rulers and other injustices.

- Secondly, the Inquisition as such should not be equated with the practises of the Spanish Inquisition created and lead by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. You could say that the initial Inquisition was turned into a political instrument, the Spanish Inquisition, which in effect was a return to arbitrary decisions and mob rule.

- Thirdly, the ecclesiastical and secular responsibilities should be investigated carefully and should not be conveniently mixed up, in particular in the case of the Spanish Inquisition.

- Fourthly, the developments and situations should be placed in their historical and cultural contexts. They should be placed in their own time. Inquisition practises then should be compared to secular practises then and not to practises now in modern Western democratic countries adhering to the Declaration on Human Rights.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have to add that, of course, I do not speak for Lucifershammer. I speak for myself.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

- Firstly, creating the medieval Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial field combatting mob rule, combatting arbitrary decisions by secular rulers and other injustices.

Incorrect. The mediaeval Inquisition was created in the aftermath of the Albigensian crusade, to stamp out the remnants of Catharism (which was, strictly speaking, not a heresy at all, being entirely non-Christian in nature). Note that in the course of those wars, which lasted for more than a century, feudal loyalties overrode ideological principles--Catholics fought alongside Cathars against the French crown, whose conquests were legitimised by the Pope.

- Secondly....You could say that the initial Inquisition was turned into a political instrument, the Spanish Inquisition, which in effect was a return to arbitrary decisions and mob rule.

Ferdinand & Isabella made use of what was already there.

- Thirdly, the ecclesiastical and secular responsibilities should be investigated carefully and should not be conveniently mixed up, in particular in the case of the Spanish Inquisition.

These responsibilities seem to have been inextricably linked. Does Joan of Arc mean anything to you? Then there is the famous Bruno affair...was the Pope right to have him burnt, or was it politically expedient to do so?


- Fourthly, the developments and situations should be placed in their historical and cultural contexts. They should be placed in their own time. Inquisition practises then should be compared to secular practises then and not to practises now in modern Western democratic countries adhering to the Declaration on Human Rights.

A comparison with secular practises yields the following result: the Inquisition killed less people, was less cruel, than its secular counterparts. That it killed people, and was cruel, is still blindingly obvious. The "rape with a condom" analogy holds (but does the condom?).

Answer me this, Ivanhoe:

"Why should anyone ever be put in prison or put to death for believing
heresy? That is not the way of the Gospel, nor the path of reason."

A question put by a Catholic scholar, as yet unanswered by you or LH (although LH has incorporated the reference into his posts: http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.TXT).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is it a fact or a myth that "the Spanish people loved their Inquisition?"

Certainly not one of the 'classical' Inquisition myths, but I don't think the Spanish people actually "loved" their Inquisition. More of a grudging acceptance*.

---
* I read an article by Henry Kamen expressing this view, but I can't locate it now.

Originally posted by Nemesio
LH,

I cannot believe you wrote this. Torture was, is, and always will be a horrible moral wrong.
Whether or not it was a normative part of society does not make its existence a disgusting
and despicible thing.

[b]Using torture to obtain a full confession in a secular issue was, is, and always will be
an EVIL act.

To repatriate 'heretics ...[text shortened]... itions and that this is
a great moral failing in this history of the Church.

Nemesio[/b]

I cannot believe you wrote this. Torture was, is, and always will be a horrible moral wrong. Whether or not it was a normative part of society does not make its existence a [less] disgusting and despicible thing.

Do you see me disagreeing?

To repatriate 'heretics' (i.e., non-believers like Moslems and Jews)

You are aware that the Inquisitions did not actually touch practising Muslims and Jews, right*? The Spanish Inquisition targetted conversos - converts from Islam and Judaism (or their descendents) to Christianity (most of whom were, quite frankly, good Christians).

Myths and exaggerations aside (and, yes I agree that there have been many of them), I do not see how this simpe fact can even be debated: at various times the Church tolerated, condoned, endorsed, and participated in the actions of the various Inquisitions and that this is [b]a great moral failing in this history of the Church.[/b]

Once again - do you see me denying that?

---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#The_Inquisition_and_the_expulsion_of_the_Jews

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, LH this is an interesting topic and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt even though my head is screaming to just write you off as an incorrigible Catholic apologist. I think to have an honest discussion about this we need to establish where one another is coming from. I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church has over the centuries comm ...[text shortened]... e Church of hundreds of years ago is not going to help.

I guess that is my bit…

TheSkipper

I like your post. I disagree on some points - but it deserves a rec.

Ok, LH this is an interesting topic and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt even though my head is screaming to just write you off as an incorrigible Catholic apologist.

Your head or your heart? Give it a moment before you respond - because that is part of the reason why I started this thread.

The problem, of course, is that people like you and other Catholics seem to want the Church to have a perfect record from the word go and it is just not the case.

I'm not claiming the Church has a perfect record. I'm not claiming that the Church has not committed the atrocities it has. I'm not saying the Church should not ask for forgiveness for those atrocities (although belatedly, it did begin to under Pope John Paul the Great - but not enough IMO).

If people want to think the Catholic Church killed a million people in Spain and tortured a million more…let them. Concentrate now on continuing the very very good things the Church does and make its detractors sound foolish for criticizing what is now a very sound and non-violent institution.

I have to agree with Nemesio here - this isn't a scorecard. I think the Church has the moral duty to say sorry for the things it did if it is to move on and be more effective in the good it is trying to do.

But I don't think the Church has the duty to apologise for things it didn't do, to be held culpable for the things people think it did. Is it too much to ask that people at least check up the facts before they start accusing the Church of something? (I'll return to this in a moment.)

Besides, the Church is going to have plenty of modern publicity wars to fight. It seems ... their priests seem to love little boys a little [too] much etc.

Here's a simple exercise - look up the % of pedophile and ephebophile priests and compare it with the % for the general population (yes - I know Scribs will argue that doesn't prove anything; but how can it hurt to have the facts?) And, if you are one of those who believe that not allowing [Roman Rite] priests to marry is the cause, compare that % with that for married men.

As I said - all I'm looking for is an open, honest, fact-based discussion (on this and any topic).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You are aware that the Inquisitions did not actually touch practising Muslims and Jews, right*? The Spanish Inquisition targetted conversos - converts from Islam and Judaism (or their descendents) to Christianity (most of whom were, quite frankly, good Christians).

It was not permitted to practice Islam.

"But on January 2, 1492 CE, Muhammad II agreed to the capitulation of Granada. As part of the agreement10:

Their highnesses and their successors will ever afterwards allow [the Granadians] to live in their own religion, and not to permit their mosques to be taken from them, nor their minarets nor their muezzins, nor will they interfere with the pious endowments which they have for such purposes, nor will they disturb the uses and customs which they observe.

The agreement was broken almost immediately as Isabella confiscated a mosque and had it consecrated into a church. Muslims were forced to convert and became known as Moriscos. The reading of Arabic was prohibited and Arabic books were burned. On March 31, 1492 CE an edict was signed expelling all Jews from Christian Spain."
(http://www.iis.ac.uk/learning/life_long_learning/andalusia/andalusia.htm)

Originally posted by Nemesio
While I was taking a shower I thought about these three sentences, and I think this the the
crux of your problem, LH.

I am going to use an exaggerated example for illustrative purposes. If a woman has an
ectopic, enencephalic where the mother's life is forfeit should she pursue the pregnancy and
the child will not survive post-partum and will have n ...[text shortened]... to leave go her wayward members
than to poison herself by commiting maleficent acts.

Nemesio

If Sixtus had been a man of faith, then he would have gone to the block before giving in to blackmail by Ferdinand.

I don't disagree.

That the English Church defected from the Roman Church, although
sad from a RC perspective, is not justification for the institution of torture.

No, it isn't. Just to be clear - you do know that the Spanish Inquisition was established before the Church of England was created, right? I'm just mentioning this because in the CATID thread you said something to the effect of the Inquisition being a response to Protestantism and I wanted to point out then that it was anachronistic.

For the question of torture, let me return to spanking for a moment. Suppose we were to know tomorrow that even a single instance of spanking causes irreparable physical and psychological damage to the child. Do you doubt that society (and the Church) will definitively judge spanking to be morally evil? But what about the countless generations before us who spanked their children? What they did was objectively morally evil - but to what extent can we hold them culpable? They were certainly aware that spanking hurts the child and (especially in these modern times) are aware of the possibility of permanent damage.

I'm not asking anyone to excuse the Inquisitors. But I think it is important that, before we judge them, we understand them.

When you state that you 'think a strong refusal would not have been better,' you mean 'better' from a political point of view.

No. When I said 'better', I was thinking of the 30,000+ Catholics and Protestants who died under the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I* - as well as the many more who died on the Continent. I know you think I'm despicable - but at least give me some credit.

---
* I can't remember where I saw this number.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by TheSkipper
[b]I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church has over the centuries committed horrible acts in an effort to pad not only their pockets but their power. I think that they have in the past and even recently sought to hide many of the things they have done and/or condoned from modern society to keep from losing their r ...[text shortened]... utable evil it has committed, repent of it and strive
to avoid it in the future.

Nemesio[/b]

And I think that all of us reflect on the things we do and say 'sorry.'

I agree completely.

But do you say "sorry" for things you didn't do?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's right. That's the elephant that people always put in the room when they say, "...but look how much good the Church has done!"

If that were truly any justification or mitigation of evil, then one could "earn" or "purchase" the right to kill people by accummulating a sufficient balance of good to exchange for it. If I wanted to r ...[text shortened]... ght by buying her enough flowers.

And that's the real reason why ivanhoe's article is crap.

And that's the real reason why ivanhoe's article is crap.

What about my post and the sources I cited? Are they crap too?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]- Firstly, creating the medieval Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial field combatting mob rule, combatting arbitrary decisions by secular rulers and other injustices.

Incorrect. The mediaeval Inquisition was created in the aftermath of the Albigensian crusade, to stamp out the remnants of Catharism (which was, strictly speaking, no ...[text shortened]... as incorporated the reference into his posts: http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.TXT).[/b]

BdN: "Incorrect. The mediaeval Inquisition was created in the aftermath of the Albigensian crusade, ...... "

You adress the moment of creating the Inquisition and one of the heresies involved, while I was adressing the reason why the Inquisition was created, namely to outlaw mob rule and arbitrary decisions by the local secular Lords. The Medieval Inquisition introduced an investigation into the accusations which were being made and it provided rules that had to be obeyed in that investigation. It was a fundamental improvement in the judicial system of 12th century Europe. You simply chose to ignore this fundamental point in your reaction.

"The medieval Inquisition began in 1184 when Pope Lucius III sent a list of heresies to Europe’s bishops and commanded them to take an active role in determining whether those accused of heresy were, in fact, guilty. Rather than relying on secular courts, local lords, or just mobs, bishops were to see to it that accused heretics in their dioceses were examined by knowledgeable churchmen using Roman laws of evidence. In other words, they were to “inquire”—thus, the term “inquisition.”

http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In your comment you also fail to place the events in the light of the cultural and historical situation then.

About the cultural and historical context of the Medieval Inquisition:

"For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community. Medieval Europeans were not alone in this view. It was shared by numerous cultures around the world. The modern practice of universal religious toleration is itself quite new and uniquely Western.

Secular and ecclesiastical leaders in medieval Europe approached heresy in different ways. Roman law equated heresy with treason. Why? Because kingship was God-given, thus making heresy an inherent challenge to royal authority. Heretics divided people, causing unrest and rebellion. No Christian doubted that God would punish a community that allowed heresy to take root and spread. Kings and commoners, therefore, had good reason to find and destroy heretics wherever they found them—and they did so with gusto."

"From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep that had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely departed out of hostility to the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Secondly....You could say that the initial Inquisition was turned into a political instrument, the Spanish Inquisition, which in effect was a return to arbitrary decisions and mob rule.

BdN: "Ferdinand & Isabella made use of what was already there."

You are missing or rather ignoring the point. Ferdinand and Isabelle turned the Inquisition into a means to use in their political battle. The rules of the investigation were changed. Mob rule and arbitrary decisions in favour of the King and Queen were reïntroduced. The Church protested against the misuse of the judicial system, but her protests were dismissed. The Church may have made many mistakes in this difficult situation but it is hardly fair to make the Church responsible for the actions undertaken by Ferdinand and Isabelle. We have to distinguish here the different responsabilities in order to make a fair and just judgement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Fourthly, the developments and situations should be placed in their historical and cultural contexts. They should be placed in their own time. Inquisition practises then should be compared to secular practises then and not to practises now in modern Western democratic countries adhering to the Declaration on Human Rights.

If you ask me the question "Why should anyone ever be put in prison or put to death for believing heresy? That is not the way of the Gospel, nor the path of reason." you are again failing to put things in the necessary perspective as I pointed out above.

Of course now, after a thousand years of development and civilisation we have reached the point not to kill people because they have a different believe system or a different ideology we find threatening ...... but have we really reached that point ? ..... or are we still engaged in these activities ? If we look around in the world we still see arbitrary decisions being made, we still see people being emprisoned, persecuted and tortured for expressing their thoughts and beliefs. Mob rule still needs to be replaced by the Rule of Law .... How about Pol Pot, ..... the evil "religion" of Fascism and the challenge we are facing in our days: the religious fascists we call Jihadists ?

Creating the Medieval Inquisition was an attempt to (re)introduce the Rule of Law in 12th century Europe building on the fundaments of the Law which were handed over to us by those other Europeans, the amazing Romans .......

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I cannot believe you wrote this. Torture was, is, and always will be a horrible moral wrong. Whether or not it was a normative part of society does not make its existence a [less] disgusting and despicible thing.

Do you see me disagreeing?

To repatriate 'heretics' (i.e., non-believers like Moslems and Jews)

You are aware that ...[text shortened]... * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#The_Inquisition_and_the_expulsion_of_the_Jews[/b]

Here is the thing, Lucifershammer:

When one writes articles that essentially say 'The Inquisition is not
as bad as people want to admit,' without a full expression of contrition,
that person is guilty of propeganda.

If I were to say 'The holocaust stablized 1930s Germany by controlling
the actions of the Jewish community,' I would expect everyone to jump
on me. Why? The statement is true: the Jews were controlled. But
at what cost? With what evils?

While factual, the statement is incomplete and, consequentially,
untruthful; I would argue that any time a statement is presented as
a reasonably complete truth that has glaring ommisions of relevant
factual content, the mere fact that the statement is factual does not
have much meaning.

Consider what Ivanhoe's article states: The simple fact is that the
medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and
even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted
by secular lords or mob rule.

[and]

One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool
of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry
Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought
order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and
popular persecutions of heretics.

[and]

The Spanish Inquisition had jails, of course. But they were neither
especially dark nor dungeon-like. Indeed, as far as prisons go, they
were widely considered to be the best in Europe. There were even
instances of criminals in Spain purposely blaspheming so as to be
transferred to the Inquisition’s prisons.

[and]

The Spanish people loved their Inquisition. That is why it lasted for so
long. It stood guard against error and heresy, protecting the faith of
Spain and ensuring the favor of God.

(http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm)

This presentation is wildly unbalanced. It fails to address the demonstrable
notion that the Church was struggling to maintain a foothold in the
political scene. It gives only a cursory nod to the abuses that the
Church and secular authorities effected. And, most appallingly, it fails
to make any apologies for the atrocities (however many) that were
endorsed and enacted by the Church, directly and indirectly.

These omissions of fact make the article untruthful and, as Doctor
Bonum said, make it crap.

The article is indefinsibly incomplete. Any one backing it up as even
a reasonably presentation of the facts is endorsing an untruthful
document.

Just because it is factual (and I'm not sure it all is), does not make it
worthy of consideration because its wildly biased hermeneutic taints its
truthful value. The fact that its content gives the impression that the
Inquisition was a good thing, or at worst a 'necessary' not-so-good
thing, is appalling and I cannot believe that either you or Ivanhoe
(well...I can believe that Ivanhoe can't) will not acknowledge it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I have to agree with you. I really wish the Church would simply say "oops, we goofed" and get on with things. You are right all the good deeds in the world will not make killing or torturing even one human being ok. My last post was not intended to suggest so. I was hoping to convince LH that attempting to defend the actions of the Church is ultimat ...[text shortened]... ere "not quite as evil as everyone seems to think". It is shocking, really.

TheSkipper[/b]

Do you think that, if the Church simply stopped trying to defend itself, that the accusations will go away and that its credibility will be restored? That people will just forget all the myths?

Or if the Church were to get on its knees and beg for forgiveness for all atrocities (real and imagined)? Would that stop the harangue?