Christian Forums

The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition's bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don't Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.
 
Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer's sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe's population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What's the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists' beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition's lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:22:11
So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

Nope...just trying to clear up some misconceptions...that's all.

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."  -- Jesus

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.  The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."  -  Jesus

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:30:20

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:22:11
So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

Nope...just trying to clear up some misconceptions...that's all.

By demonizing the opposition.

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:30:20

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:22:11
So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

Nope...just trying to clear up some misconceptions...that's all.

By posting this article, it appears that you are trying to defend it. After all, that is what the author was doing:

It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:36:22
By demonizing the opposition.

You have done that quite well...I am just following your lead.

The inquisition is what happens when Religion becomes institutionalized and that institution gains secular power.  I have no doubt that some of my CoC brethren would behave the same way if given the opportunity, and I don't think we're the only church you could say this about by a long shot.

Personally, I think the article makes too much of an attempt to explain away, if not excuse, the inexcusable, but it does rightly make the point that Protestants have done essentially the same thing in their history.

Gosh, I wasn't expecting this.

(http://lantech.geekvenue.net/gifts/sharon/SFE/Themes/MontyPython/shirts/SpanishInquisitionshirt/image)

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:58:39Personally, I think the article makes too much of an attempt to explain away, if not excuse, the inexcusable, but it does rightly make the point that Protestants have done essentially the same thing in their history.

You can't be serious.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/Midnitte/fighting.gif)

Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

: DCR  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:11:41
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/Midnitte/fighting.gif)

Your picture doesn't make sense... They didn't have guns during the Inquisition.

I think that's more about what's happening now. Here.

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:10:29

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:58:39Personally, I think the article makes too much of an attempt to explain away, if not excuse, the inexcusable, but it does rightly make the point that Protestants have done essentially the same thing in their history.

You can't be serious.

Puritan colonialism, Cromwell England, Calvinist Geneva, and you might want to research the origins of the state of Maryland.

Yes, he is serious.

What's wrong Charles, is the glass around you starting to crack a little?

Still defending the Inquisition, broach?

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity. But I guess anything is possible when you are trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Maybe its just the idea that any non-catholic atrocity is the Protestants fault. So lets just lump all the atrocities of Islam, the Holocaust, maybe even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were because of the Protestants.

Anything that would lessen the truth of the Inquisition.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:19:39
Still defending the Inquisition, broach?

I don't defend the methods, but the intentions were no different from that of the Puritans or even the Calvinists in Geneva.  I simply look at the Inquisition within the historical context in which it took place.  Even the religious right today aims to purify society by speaking out against things and attempting to outlaw certain perceived evils of society, no matter how much they trample on civil liberties.

I don't defend the methods of the Inquisition but I do expect people to study it with some degree of intellectual honesty.

So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Christians, as well. Does that mean we should lump any and all atrocities committed by them under the umbrella of Protestantism? Furthermore, should we not also count Jim Jones group, and the Jamestown massacre as a Protestant atrocity, according to such logic? After all, it would make the so-called Protestant numbers rise, further lessening the impact of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:30:26
So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

I don't agree with the methods by no means.  But I recognize the Inquisitions took place during a brutal and barbaric time.  Man was clearly less civilized in those days.  This is called "historical context" and cannot be ignored.

History—and its lessons—should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

The Inquisition is classic proof that the Church includes sinners who do sinful things, and that good people can make wrong decisions. It is also a classic example of what happens when those who represent the Church are caught up in the norms and ethics of the society in which they live. They can far too easily judge the Gospel with the eyes of culture, rather than the culture by the Gospel.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:49:27
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Christians, as well. Does that mean we should lump any and all atrocities committed by them under the umbrella of Protestantism? Furthermore, should we not also count Jim Jones group, and the Jamestown massacre as a Protestant atrocity, according to such logic? After all, it would make the so-called Protestant numbers rise, further lessening the impact of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

Well since you asked.......It would seem that Mormonism and JWs and all the other groups that resulted from Luther's invented doctrine of sola scriptura, might weigh an a person's conscious from time to time.

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:50:18

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:30:26
So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

I don't agree with the methods by no means.  But I recognize the Inquisitions took place during a brutal and barbaric time.  Man was clearly less civilized in those days.  This is called "historical context" and cannot be ignored.

History—and its lessons—should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

The Inquisition is classic proof that the Church includes sinners who do sinful things, and that good people can make wrong decisions. It is also a classic example of what happens when those who represent the Church are caught up in the norms and ethics of the society in which they live. They can far too easily judge the Gospel with the eyes of culture, rather than the culture by the Gospel.

Broach

If you realized how little your defense of the inquisition is valued, you probably wouldn't waste so much time at it.


CRP

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:55:51

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:50:18

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:30:26
So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

I don't agree with the methods by no means.  But I recognize the Inquisitions took place during a brutal and barbaric time.  Man was clearly less civilized in those days.  This is called "historical context" and cannot be ignored.

History—and its lessons—should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

The Inquisition is classic proof that the Church includes sinners who do sinful things, and that good people can make wrong decisions. It is also a classic example of what happens when those who represent the Church are caught up in the norms and ethics of the society in which they live. They can far too easily judge the Gospel with the eyes of culture, rather than the culture by the Gospel.

Broach

If you realized how little your defense of the inquisition is valued, you probably wouldn't waste so much time at it.


CRP

I am not defending it.  Obviously, you haven't read my posts.

I find it interesting that I have condemned the Inquisition and methods used but none of you have condemned the actions of your fellow Protestants throughout history.  Interesting indeed.

: ConsideringCatholicism  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:53:06

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:49:27
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Christians, as well. Does that mean we should lump any and all atrocities committed by them under the umbrella of Protestantism? Furthermore, should we not also count Jim Jones group, and the Jamestown massacre as a Protestant atrocity, according to such logic? After all, it would make the so-called Protestant numbers rise, further lessening the impact of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

Well since you asked.......It would seem that Mormonism and JWs and all the other groups that resulted from Luther's invented doctrine of sola scriptura, might weigh an a person's conscious from time to time.

To use your logic, the church you are supposedly "considering" should have an even weightier conscious, then. After all, if it weren't for a torrent of abhorrent, unscriptural and unchristian doctrines and practices such as indulgences, there would have been nothing for Luther to protest, and thus, no Reformation...

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:56:49

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:55:51

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:50:18

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:30:26
So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

I don't agree with the methods by no means.  But I recognize the Inquisitions took place during a brutal and barbaric time.  Man was clearly less civilized in those days.  This is called "historical context" and cannot be ignored.

History—and its lessons—should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

The Inquisition is classic proof that the Church includes sinners who do sinful things, and that good people can make wrong decisions. It is also a classic example of what happens when those who represent the Church are caught up in the norms and ethics of the society in which they live. They can far too easily judge the Gospel with the eyes of culture, rather than the culture by the Gospel.

Broach

If you realized how little your defense of the inquisition is valued, you probably wouldn't waste so much time at it.


CRP

I am not defending it.  Obviously, you haven't read my posts.

The article you posted defends the Inquisition.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:57:39

: ConsideringCatholicism  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:53:06

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:49:27
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Christians, as well. Does that mean we should lump any and all atrocities committed by them under the umbrella of Protestantism? Furthermore, should we not also count Jim Jones group, and the Jamestown massacre as a Protestant atrocity, according to such logic? After all, it would make the so-called Protestant numbers rise, further lessening the impact of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

Well since you asked.......It would seem that Mormonism and JWs and all the other groups that resulted from Luther's invented doctrine of sola scriptura, might weigh an a person's conscious from time to time.

To use your logic, the church you are supposedly "considering" should have an even weightier conscious, then. After all, if it weren't for a torrent of abhorrent, unscriptural and unchristian doctrines and practices such as indulgences, there would have been nothing for Luther to protest, and thus, no Reformation...

Assuming Luther was right.  I do not.

: ConsideringCatholicism  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:01:21

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:57:39

: ConsideringCatholicism  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:53:06

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:49:27
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Christians, as well. Does that mean we should lump any and all atrocities committed by them under the umbrella of Protestantism? Furthermore, should we not also count Jim Jones group, and the Jamestown massacre as a Protestant atrocity, according to such logic? After all, it would make the so-called Protestant numbers rise, further lessening the impact of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

Well since you asked.......It would seem that Mormonism and JWs and all the other groups that resulted from Luther's invented doctrine of sola scriptura, might weigh an a person's conscious from time to time.

To use your logic, the church you are supposedly "considering" should have an even weightier conscious, then. After all, if it weren't for a torrent of abhorrent, unscriptural and unchristian doctrines and practices such as indulgences, there would have been nothing for Luther to protest, and thus, no Reformation...

Assuming Luther was right.

Actually, using your logic, that is even irrelevant.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:58:51
The article you posted defends the Inquisition.

No..this is what it aims to do...

"Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves."

It does not defend the actions of those involved...the articles clearly states...

"No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike."

He refers to those involved as cruel, foolish, and misguided.  I don't think you would use these words if you were defending something.

I'll repost this, in case you missed it earlier:

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:45:03

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:30:20

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:22:11
So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

Nope...just trying to clear up some misconceptions...that's all.

By posting this article, it appears that you are trying to defend it. After all, that is what the author was doing:

It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:03:53

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:58:51
The article you posted defends the Inquisition.

No..this is what it aims to do...

"Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves."

It does not defend the actions of those involved...the articles clearly states...

"No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike."

He refers to those involved as cruel, foolish, and misguided.  I don't think you would use these words if you were defending something.

Your attempts to justify Romanist crimes by comparing to protestant crimes are missing one important detail. No man-made proclamation in Protestantism ever claimed infallibility. Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Either the pope is not infallible thereby dismantling Romanism in its entirety or the inquisition was right and just, take your pick.


CRP

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22

Your attempts to justify Romanist crimes by comparing to protestant crimes are missing one important detail. No man-made proclamation in Protestantism ever claimed infallibility. Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Either the pope is not infallible thereby dismantling Romanism in its entirety or the inquisition was right and just, take your pick.


CRP

Say what?  Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:03:53

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:58:51
The article you posted defends the Inquisition.

No..this is what it aims to do...

"Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves."

It does not defend the actions of those involved...the articles clearly states...

"No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike."

He refers to those involved as cruel, foolish, and misguided.  I don't think you would use these words if you were defending something.

Your attempts to justify Romanist crimes by comparing to protestant crimes are missing one important detail. No man-made proclamation in Protestantism ever claimed infallibility. Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Either the pope is not infallible thereby dismantling Romanism in its entirety or the inquisition was right and just, take your pick.


CRP

LOL, no seriously.....

Every single one of those Reformers / Protestants that killed Catholics, did so under the claim of infallibility!  It is a question of personal infallibility or Papal.

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:43:54

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

I am not sure you know what a papal bull is.  And I definitely don't think you understand papal infallibility.

Actually, I know more than you would ever like to admit... After all, I too, am not a "cradle Catholic".

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

Charles, your statement that I'm "trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition" is ludicrous and out of line.    You need to take a serious step back. 

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 19:42:24

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

I thought about what you wrote, but am still at a loss as to how pointing to the KKK somehow makes your point that "Protestants have done essentially the same thing", and "given the chance, we would do so again" (the "same thing", of course, being a reference to the Inquisition).

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:58:39
The inquisition is what happens when Religion becomes institutionalized and that institution gains secular power.  I have no doubt that some of my CoC brethren would behave the same way if given the opportunity, and I don't think we're the only church you could say this about by a long shot.

Personally, I think the article makes too much of an attempt to explain away, if not excuse, the inexcusable, but it does rightly make the point that Protestants have done essentially the same thing in their history.

Marc you are right.  The Mennonites and other Anabaptist groups left Europe because they were being persecuted and killed by Protestants.  Many Protestants have been proponents of racism.  It's not a pretty history. 

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:54:24

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:43:54

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

I am not sure you know what a papal bull is.  And I definitely don't think you understand papal infallibility.

I can spot papal bull a mile away..... when their lips are moving, you can be certain the bull is coming forth.

CRP

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:25:04

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:54:24

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:43:54

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

I am not sure you know what a papal bull is.  And I definitely don't think you understand papal infallibility.

I can spot papal bull a mile away..... when their lips are moving, you can be certain the bull is coming forth.

CRP

funny thing is... and don't take this personally, when I look at your initials I see 'Bull' CRP.  ;)

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 19:42:24

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

Charles, your statement that I'm "trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition" is ludicrous and out of line.    You need to take a serious step back. 

I think your comments comparing Protestants to the KKK is just as ludicrous and out of line.

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:33:26

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 19:42:24

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

Charles, your statement that I'm "trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition" is ludicrous and out of line.    You need to take a serious step back. 

I think you're comments comparing Protestants to the KKK is just as ludicrous and out of line.

Not comparing at all.  The KKK was comprised of Protestant Christians, or folks who considered themselves such.

Man, anything flys as long as I'm not the one saying it.

: w8ing4daybreak  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:29:17

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:25:04

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:54:24

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:43:54

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

I am not sure you know what a papal bull is.  And I definitely don't think you understand papal infallibility.

I can spot papal bull a mile away..... when their lips are moving, you can be certain the bull is coming forth.

CRP

funny thing is... and don't take this personally, when I look at your initials I see 'Bull' CRP.  ;)

If you think my initials look excremental, you should see me in person. ::geek::

CRP

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:37:08

: w8ing4daybreak  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:29:17

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:25:04

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:54:24

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:43:54

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 18:18:22
Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

Thus, Roman Catholic apologists must find a way to defend the Inquisition.

I am not sure you know what a papal bull is.  And I definitely don't think you understand papal infallibility.

I can spot papal bull a mile away..... when their lips are moving, you can be certain the bull is coming forth.

CRP

funny thing is... and don't take this personally, when I look at your initials I see 'Bull' CRP.  ;)

If you think my initials look excremental, you should see me in person. ::geek::

CRP

Thanks for taking that lightly.  I noticed that when I was reading one of your posts earler today, and then with all the talk about bull.... I just couldn't help myself.

: Gary  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:34:43

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:33:26

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 19:42:24

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

Charles, your statement that I'm "trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition" is ludicrous and out of line.    You need to take a serious step back. 

I think you're comments comparing Protestants to the KKK is just as ludicrous and out of line.

Not comparing at all.  The KKK was comprised of Protestant Christians, or folks who considered themselves such.

To be put on the same level as the KKK is not only preposturous, but highly insulting. Why don't we lump in Jim Jones, and all of the cults of the world, for that matter? After all, by doing so, we could increase the numbers for "Protestant Atrocities", which in turn, would also seemingly lessen the severity and the enormity of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

Don't you see that this is exactly what you are doing with the Catholics? All are painted with the sins of a few.

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 22:08:50
Don't you see that this is exactly what you are doing with the Catholics? All are painted with the sins of a few.

All are painted with the character of the leader. The leader and ultimate authority of Catholicism (or any other man centered religion for that matter) whether pope or priest, is man, and because all men are sinful the paint of a pope is naught but a whitewash of sin on a tomb of sin.

The leader and ultimate authority of a Christian is Christ, but his paint not only covers our sin, but displaces it in favor of His righteousness.


CRP

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 22:08:50
Don't you see that this is exactly what you are doing with the Catholics? All are painted with the sins of a few.

Apples and oranges. Roman Catholics are a part of the actual church which dictated and orchestrated the Inquisition. The last time I checked, I am not a member of the KKK, nor am I a member of the Jim Jones cult.

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 21:59:12

: Gary  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:34:43

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 20:33:26

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 19:42:24

: jmg3rd  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:43:13

: Charles Sloan  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:21:31

: marc  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:14:53
Serious.  And given the chance, we would do so again.  Calvin.  Elizabeth I.  The Puritans.  The New York Nativists.  The KKK. Etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps we should all look for shorter horses.

I don't understand how you could even consider the KKK apart of Protestants, let alone Christianity.

I don't think it's about what Marc thinks.  Many members of the KKK have considered themselves to be "fine, upstanding Christians" as ludicrous as it may seem.

Sure they did; it was even a part of their reason for doing what they did.  They didn't burn crescents, you know. 

When I typed this, I thought, "watch; someone will sieze the KKK bit to avoid thinking about the rest of it."

Charles, your statement that I'm "trying to justify murder by the millions during the Crusades and the Inquisition" is ludicrous and out of line.    You need to take a serious step back. 

I think you're comments comparing Protestants to the KKK is just as ludicrous and out of line.

Not comparing at all.  The KKK was comprised of Protestant Christians, or folks who considered themselves such.

To be put on the same level as the KKK is not only preposturous, but highly insulting. Why don't we lump in Jim Jones, and all of the cults of the world, for that matter? After all, by doing so, we could increase the numbers for "Protestant Atrocities", which in turn, would also seemingly lessen the severity and the enormity of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

I did no such thing of putting anyone on any level.

To me the difference between the Inquisition and atrocities committed by Protestants, is that Protestants can't find in the New Testament (and Protestants are sola scriptura), any backing for that kind of behavior.  The Inquisition was Pope ok'd.

: Circuitridingpreacher  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:55:51

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:50:18

: James Rondon  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 17:30:26
So, you defend the intentions, which led to the Inquisition. Intellectual honesty would take that into consideration, and recognize that such is ultimately a defense of the indefensible.

I don't agree with the methods by no means.  But I recognize the Inquisitions took place during a brutal and barbaric time.  Man was clearly less civilized in those days.  This is called "historical context" and cannot be ignored.

History—and its lessons—should never be ignored. There can be no denying that the inquisition courts existed. As described in the papal apology of Pope John Paul II at the beginning of the New Millennium, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

The Inquisition is classic proof that the Church includes sinners who do sinful things, and that good people can make wrong decisions. It is also a classic example of what happens when those who represent the Church are caught up in the norms and ethics of the society in which they live. They can far too easily judge the Gospel with the eyes of culture, rather than the culture by the Gospel.

Broach

If you realized how little your defense of the inquisition is valued, you probably wouldn't waste so much time at it.


CRP

Not that it matters, but I really valued and appreciated the article. I thought it was both fair and balanced.

How is it fair and balanced? Its focus isn't the Inquisition its focus is fundamentalists.

I've been wondering why this isn't in the history forum?

Because only about five people on the board even know there is a history forum?

It seems every religious organization out there has run up a body count some time or another.  Getting carried away in supposedly God-inspired violence is, perhaps, the premier ecumenical exercise.

I appreciate broach's initial post. I myself have posted similar material here before. I don't think he was/is defending what the Inquisition did, only trying to view it as objectively as possible and to clear up some misconceptions.

As both a medievalist and a Protestant Christian, it has been my experience that most people who criticize the Catholic Church for the Inquisition have never studied it in any great depth so really don't know a lot about what they're decrying so loudly. They usually don't know much about it only that it was really bad. And then there's the fact that you have to specify what you're talking about, rather than lumping everything together under the broad term "Inquisition."

One of the best books on the Spanish Inquisition is Dr. Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition. Here's a bit of material from his book.


The Holy Inquisition was summoned to Spain by their Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478, in other words, by the State. Its alleged aim there was to find and prosecute suspected Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism (conversos and Moriscos respectively), who had relapsed into Judaism or Islam while pretending to be Christian and who were suspected of secretly teaching their native religions. However there is no evidence of widespread Judaizing, and neither Ferdinand nor Isabella were especially anti-Jewish, having Jews in their cabinet and previously taking pains to protect their Jewish vassals and servants, so other reasons must be sought. King Ferdinand, who was the guiding force in its establishment in Spain, may have wished to use the Inquisition as a tool to consolidate his power. Regardless of the reasons, there is much evidence to support the idea that Ferdinand only intended the Inquisition in Spain to be a temporary measure. It was originally intended only to insure religious orthodoxy in Andalusia. (Kamen, pp. 45-46; 67) As it was, it never enjoyed widespread popular support. Many Spaniards felt that the whole thing was unjust, even and especially many Spanish clerics. For example, Archbishop Hernando de Talavera, Queen Isabella's confessor, would not allow "New Christians,

Lee,

I am not going to argue that either side was shrouded in glory, but it doesn't seem to me that the piece you quoted does much to paint the inquisition in favorable light.  It seems to take the position that it was really the state [Ferdinand and Isabella] that was responsible by calling the inquisitors in, presumably for their own political purposes.  However true that may be, it seems to overlook the fact that it also shows that the Church was allowing itself to be used in that manner.  While the total deaths may not be as great as some have alleged, it also seems to excuse the mass expulsion of the jews from Spain, undoubtedly placing them in locations where they were victims of later persecutions.  I also was amused by the comment:

the good thing about the Inquisition [including the Sp. Inq.] is that, contrary to later protestant myth, the papal inquisitors were not normally sadists and maniacs thirsting to turn over victims to the state for execution by burning. This extreme penalty occurred, but it was rare. . . . Most of the sentences handed down by the papal inquisition were relatively mild forms of penance. For those who recanted their heresy and then went back to it, there was imprisonment and loss of property. The death penalty was for repeated backsliders and persistent resisters.

I.e. we only killed you if you refused to give up whatever alleged heresy you were accused of.  And that was the "good" thing about the inquisition.  I am not a "medievalist" but I took classes in undergraduate school from a professor whose speciatly was the 14th-15th century France.  He related some stories from the reformation wars that are enought to persuade me there were thugs on both sides.  But the "protestant myth" comment in this piece makes me wonder if this work is not somewhat mythical itself.

[by the way, lets discuss More's actions with regard to Tyndale sometime befire you give him to much credit]

: Dennis  Fri May 23, 2008 - 09:45:17
Lee,

I am not going to argue that either side was shrouded in glory, but it doesn't seem to me that the piece you quoted does much to paint the inquisition in favorable light.  It seems to take the position that it was really the state [Ferdinand and Isabella] that was responsible by calling the inquisitors in, presumably for their own political purposes.  However true that may be, it seems to overlook the fact that it also shows that the Church was allowing itself to be used in that manner.  While the total deaths may not be as great as some have alleged, it also seems to excuse the mass expulsion of the jews from Spain, undoubtedly placing them in locations where they were victims of later persecutions.  I also was amused by the comment:

the good thing about the Inquisition [including the Sp. Inq.] is that, contrary to later protestant myth, the papal inquisitors were not normally sadists and maniacs thirsting to turn over victims to the state for execution by burning. This extreme penalty occurred, but it was rare. . . . Most of the sentences handed down by the papal inquisition were relatively mild forms of penance. For those who recanted their heresy and then went back to it, there was imprisonment and loss of property. The death penalty was for repeated backsliders and persistent resisters.

I.e. we only killed you if you refused to give up whatever alleged heresy you were accused of.  And that was the "good" thing about the inquisition.  I am not a "medievalist" but I took classes in undergraduate school from a professor whose speciatly was the 14th-15th century France.  He related some stories from the reformation wars that are enought to persuade me there were thugs on both sides.  But the "protestant myth" comment in this piece makes me wonder if this work is not somewhat mythical itself.

[by the way, lets discuss More's actions with regard to Tyndale sometime befire you give him to much credit]

Like I you said, and I said earlier, there were "thugs" on both sides.

As for the Cantor quote, I believe he was Jewish. He was certainly a noted medievalist, and as far as I know was not an apologist for Christianity, let alone Roman Catholicism. But I believe his quote is accurate. Both Catholics and Protestants waged propaganda campaigns to paint the other side in as negative a light as possible.

And there IS a lot of myth surrounding the medieval Catholic Church-mostly negative. I had one girl in a medieval forum argue to me that the Medieval Catholic Church was the worst villain in history (over such unsavoury characters as Caesar Borgia, Gilles De Rais, Richard III, Philip IV, Vlad Dracula, etc.). When asked for facts to support her assertion, she couldn't give me any-all she could do was repeat the usual stereotypes and urban myths about how nasty the church was during the Middle Ages and how it ruthlessly oppressed everyone.

So, yes, the medieval Catholic Church did some terrible things. But so did Muslims, Protestants, several monarchs, etc. But the medieval Catholic Church also did many good things. Without the stabilizing and civilizing influence of the Church, the Middle Ages really would've been the Dark Ages.

But again, there were bad apples on both sides.

Pax.

I think that the symptoms (the Spanish inquisitions and the inquisitions of certain Reformers) don't matter nearly as much as the cause - the mind-disease that produces the mindset which teaches mere men that they are God, and have the right to take away the God-given will of man and right of man to obey his own conscience.  The mindset which seeks to "Lord it over" everyone who dares to disagree with the demand for obedience to man instead of to God.

Ananias

: ananias laos  Sat Jun 07, 2008 - 09:24:27

I think that the symptoms (the Spanish inquisitions and the inquisitions of certain Reformers) don't matter nearly as much as the cause - the mind-disease that produces the mindset which teaches mere men that they are God, and have the right to take away the God-given will of man and right of man to obey his own conscience.  The mindset which seeks to "Lord it over" everyone who dares to disagree with the demand for obedience to man instead of to God.

Ananias

That cause hasn't gone away, and it won't go away until Jesus comes back. This is why it's only a matter of time before the ugly, foul symptoms show up again.

There is NO defense or excuse to justify any of this. I don't care if your catholic, protestant, muslim, buddist, athiest, democrat or just a plain Christian.  If you hunt down, hurt or even kill someone just because they disagree with you then you are engaged in evil, a worker of iniquity, a murderer and a hypocrite.

Stand before a righteous God and defend that.

This is a great post:

: broach972  Fri Apr 18, 2008 - 16:18:27
The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."

The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition's bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

Don't Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.
 
Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer's sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe's population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

What's the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.

Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists' beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition's lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

the bottom line is...the catholic church is nots gods church. what this guy is doing is to minimise the murders and tortures to convince himself that gods really works thru his church. he babbles about there being several inquistions. so what! did the guy on the rack being pulled apart care which inquisition it was? anyway, the inquisition started around 1150 and ended around 1798.  so, tell me how the holy spirit was guiding his beloved church. id be upset too if i was counting on my religion to get me into heaven and that religion was a murderous blood soaked harlet.

: jb728b  Wed Jun 11, 2008 - 10:24:43
There is NO defense or excuse to justify any of this. I don't care if your catholic, protestant, muslim, buddist, atheist, democrat or just a plain Christian.  If you hunt down, hurt or even kill someone just because they disagree with you then you are engaged in evil, a worker of iniquity, a murderer and a hypocrite.

Stand before a righteous God and defend that.

What about inflicting pain or "assassination" by words?

: zoonance  Sat Jul 04, 2009 - 16:54:00

: jb728b  Wed Jun 11, 2008 - 10:24:43
There is NO defense or excuse to justify any of this. I don't care if your catholic, protestant, muslim, buddist, atheist, democrat or just a plain Christian.  If you hunt down, hurt or even kill someone just because they disagree with you then you are engaged in evil, a worker of iniquity, a murderer and a hypocrite.

Stand before a righteous God and defend that.

What about inflicting pain or "assassination" by words?

well, you didnt have anything to do with the inquisition. no one is blaming you my friend.

: wayne  Sat Jul 04, 2009 - 18:46:20

: zoonance  Sat Jul 04, 2009 - 16:54:00

: jb728b  Wed Jun 11, 2008 - 10:24:43
There is NO defense or excuse to justify any of this. I don't care if your catholic, protestant, muslim, buddist, atheist, democrat or just a plain Christian.  If you hunt down, hurt or even kill someone just because they disagree with you then you are engaged in evil, a worker of iniquity, a murderer and a hypocrite.

Stand before a righteous God and defend that.

What about inflicting pain or "assassination" by words?

well, you didnt have anything to do with the inquisition. no one is blaming you my friend.

All christians are lumped together when discussing the inquistion.  Just ask a non believer about christianity.  Our history is our history - good or bad.

              In order to get the real truth ask the descendants of the Aztecs and some other unpronounceable named tribes.
                                                                                                               Walker

: walker starr  Thu Jul 23, 2009 - 22:06:35
In order to get the real truth ask the descendants of the Aztecs and some other unpronounceable named tribes.
                                                                                                               Walker

Why?  Did those fleeing the inquisition end up here in N.America?

   The inquisition is indefensible in spite of many attempts to do so well meaning or not.  The entire ugly procedure was based on greed and certainly not love of GOD.

    A brief reply to wycliffe the inquisition was brought to America by the so called conquistadors.  Their destruction
    of the Aztecs and many many original inhabitant civilizations by the Spanish in their lust for gold ,slaves and so
called converts to Christianity is no secret.   

I wonder if the Salem witch trials can be spun to sound like something other than what is was? 

   


Cisco it was the same thing.  " Repent or burn.  You repented?  Well burn anyway we need the excitement."
All this in the name of GOD.  This was in the northern part of America.  Meanwhile in the far south whole PEOPLES were destroyed.
It cannot be denied there are too many records.
     

So...is there no time or place in history where "convert or die" is legitimate?

How bout, "convert, leave, or die" ??

::stirringthepot::

W:

Whatever are you suggesting?

: Wycliffes_Shillelagh  Mon Sep 21, 2009 - 19:13:47
So...is there no time or place in history where "convert or die" is legitimate?

How bout, "convert, leave, or die" ??

::stirringthepot::

Was just reflecting on the religious practices of the Aztecs, Mayans, and various Carribean peoples.  You know...human sacrifice, cannibalism, an agricultural-base built on slave labor.

Was "convert or die" worse?

Also, AFAIK, the vast bulk of those who were "wiped out by the conquistadors" actually died of the smallpox they brought over on their boats.

I generally view that as an act of God.  Perhaps twas for the best?

    ?

[How bout, "convert, leave, or die" ??]

:[:stirringthepot::

  WYCLIFFES The Aztecs abd other native american tribes were not given that choice.  They were told to convert and be slaves.  trhey were told to convert and die. They were told to give up their Gold and die.  It would be much the same if I and my sons went to your house in the nighy and said give us your money, your wife and daughters and then killed you.  Today its called
HOME INVASION  What if we did it in the name of Satan?  Would you be so quick to defend the procedure ? Just askin.
That is what was done except in the name of GOD.








[/quote]

I can't say that isn't pretty horrible, but...

What was their other option here?  Eat each other to survive?  Earn their right of passage by killing their peers?  Be a sacrifice?  Be a slave anyway?

That doesn't mean the Spaniards did right by them, but on the whole, as I said before, it was smallpox that decimated the natives, not horses and swords.

       Wycliffes the small pox came later to finish the job.  The small pox was just another tool. the small pox was distributed through donated contaminated blankets.  Read a book written by one Bernal Diaz del Castile ho was an officer in Cortez's army.'The book is The TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO  The book in translation still exists.  Its interesting reading no matter what stand you take on the subject.    ::smile::

When are you all going to get to the matter of God telling the Israelites to totally wipe out certain nations of the land of Canaan? I want to see how you all judge God on that one.

Deut 20:16-18
16   But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17   But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18   That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
(KJV)

: walker starr  Tue Sep 22, 2009 - 02:45:09
     Wycliffes the small pox came later to finish the job.  The small pox was just another tool. the small pox was distributed through donated contaminated blankets.  Read a book written by one Bernal Diaz del Castile ho was an officer in Cortez's army.'The book is The TRUE HISTORY OF THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO  The book in translation still exists.  Its interesting reading no matter what stand you take on the subject.    ::smile::

Downloaded it, though I don't know where I'm going to find time to read it right now.