The Real Truth about the Inquisition

[broach972]

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.

[James Rondon]

So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

[broach972]

So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

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

[spurly]

"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

[Charles Sloan]

So, are you seriously trying to defend the Inquisition?

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

By demonizing the opposition.

[James Rondon]

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]

By demonizing the opposition.

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

[marc]

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.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Gosh, I wasn't expecting this.

[Charles Sloan]

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.

You can't be serious.

[DCR]

[marc]

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.

[James Rondon]

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

[marc]

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

[broach972]

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.

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?

[James Rondon]

Still defending the Inquisition, broach?

[Charles Sloan]

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.

[broach972]

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.

[James Rondon]

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.

[Jimbob]

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.

[James Rondon]

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.

[broach972]

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.

[ConsideringCatholicism]

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.

[Circuitridingpreacher]

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

[broach972]

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.

[James Rondon]

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...

[James Rondon]

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.

[ConsideringCatholicism]

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.

[James Rondon]

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.

[broach972]

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.

[James Rondon]

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

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.

[Circuitridingpreacher]

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

[broach972]

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?

[ConsideringCatholicism]

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.

[James Rondon]

Catholicism crumbles on the infallible bulls of the popes regarding the inquisition.

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