Inquisition

[Oik]

Total pacifism was NOT the law of the day during the Inquisition, so placing today's values in the times of the various Crusades and Inquisitions does not do any good. It was a different time with different laws and different ways of understanding the world.

[Oik]

[quote]but if someone gets executed simply for being a Protestant, Jew or Muslim, then that's just as bad as what the Romans did to Catholics when Christianity started becoming coming (only the Inquisition didn't have lions and bears going after the accused, they just burned them, which probably is just as bad) [/quote]

So many things must be considered when considering these happenings in History.

For instance, was the person guilty of a legitimate crime under religious and/or secular law?

What was the law of the land?

What was the legal system of the time?

What the person given a just trial?

Did the individual, through ignorance, unlearnedness, or other factors, intentionally aggraivate (sp) the law (ex. If they were Muslims, expelled by the King or Queen from there land, did they "convert" to shirk deportation)?


I am certainly not down-playing the atrocities commited in God's name. I think that it is important however, to second the fact that there was god and bad and that the history shows that these events are more complicated (as some have mentioned) than just a black and white scernario.

[Mikhail]

Whoa, debating two extremely controversial issues in one thread.

No loss of liberty? One of the main things the founding fathers wanted to be absolutely clear was this: they were sovereign states, coming together for their mutual protection. If the founding fathers had known that the rights of the states were going to be so ruthlessly trampled on by the federal government, they would have put restrictions on the federal government. Since it was common knowledge that the states were to remain sovereign states, the thought that the federal government would become stronger than the states never crossed their minds. The federal government is too strong today. Lincoln set us down the path towards losing our freedoms, and we have been losing them one by one ever since.

As for slavery, slavery was being outlawed in every civilized nation in the world one by one. It was only a matter of time until it had happened in the US as well. The importation of slaves had already been outlawed. It is plausible that Lincoln's actions caused the slaves even more suffering, with a century of hardship from the bitter southerners who were forced to reliquish their slaves at gunpoint, until the 1960s.

As for the inquisition, it seem that instead of defending what the inquisition did, you are trying to justify it by stating that the times were horrible and showing similar or worse atrocities commited by other governments. This seems rather pointless. We know that times were horrible. We know worse or similar atrocities were commited by others. That doesn't justify it.

[Oik]

This country has progressed ever since it's formation. We are the United States now.

There were many controveries and things debated that have now been settled (and probably in a way and direction that some founding fathers would agree with and some that they would disagree with).

Let's not forget the long agruments bitter resentments, and closed-window, not allowed to leave the room meetings that forged our Nation.


as for the Inquisitions, I am indeed defending parts. I don't beleive in a general blanket condemantion of it, especially when in most cases, legitimate "temporal" authority was used in exercising it. It was indeed a different time with different laws and a different understanding of thw world.

How many were guilty? How many were innocent?

It's it also important to ask how we are judging it and by what criteria? There are many angles at which to view the Inquisitions and just as many position to take, considering the scenarios involved.

In Short: there was good and there was bad, right and wrong.

[Oik]

I would also like to add that I am not trying to justify, nor in pointing out the legitimate actions do I justify, the atrocities and morally corrupt actions that occurred.

I will, however, stand by those actions that were morally acceptable in were not in offense to God, but to safeguard His Church on Earth.

[LittleLes]

"when people get into sources from the time period itself, it becomes clearer that the inquisition was not all that bad."

RESPONSE:

Yes, the Institution can be viewed as "Catholic Action" take against anyone suspected of deviating from the established Catholic party line.

Pope Innocent IV, Ad Extirpanda, 1252:

"The ruler is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their accompolices by torture........."

And if they confessed that they were heretics and implicated others, then all could be burned at the stake hopefully with much pain and screaming. That would stiffle any dissent and root out those who were not true believers.

And they "would know we are Christians by our love."

Yeah. The Inquisiton was not all that bad.

[Oik]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm"]Ahhh...New Advent on Inquisition[/url]


Easy enough to read.

[LittleLes]

And from Malleus Maleficarum, 1486, written by Father James Sprenge and Father Henry Kramer, both Dominicans, empowered by the pope to conduct an inquistion.

Part 3 Question 15

"If he ( the Judge) wishes to find out whether she is endowed with a witch's power of preserving silence, let him take note whether she is able to shed tears when standing in his presence, or when being tortured."

Someone said those interested in history should read the documents written by participants. Of course, this will be a bit different than you will find at Catholic Answers which will pretend that the inquisitions were not
really that bad after all.

And it was for a good cause!

[url="http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/"]http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/[/url]

LittleLes

[Mikhail]

Joh 18:36* Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Mt 13:27-30 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

There were many people who watched the burnings of the Anabaptists (not Protestants) who wondered about these people who would go so cheerfully to the stake and would end up leaving the church because of it. So even if the Church is the "one true church", then they have disobeyed the direct command of Jesus not to "pluck the tares" lest they damage the wheat. And when they did, what happened? They damaged the wheat.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 24 2005, 02:10 PM']I am an amateur historian who has studied history for years. One thing that holds true of any history: History is written by the victors. i.e. whoever was in power wrote history and leaned in favor of whoever was writing it. Therego, when trying to get an objective view of history, one must find the right sources. Three different kinds of sources are the required norm before you can get an objective opinion.  Get a source from one view, then they opposing view, and finally, an unbiased source. This last one is the most difficult to find and the most important one of all. One must compare the first two sources with each other. In aspects where they come close to same conclusion, one may reasonably be sure they are factual. However, in the case of military history (my main field of study) the commanders of armies always tend to overestimate the number of troops and advantages their enemy had and underestimate their own, whether the outcome was victory or defeat. In that case, it's best to choose an average. Also, the eyewitness accounts are invaluable in these cases. The eyewitness accounts would be the common soldier in the ranks; the civilian who's home the army passed, the person that has nothing to gain from either side winning.

In the case of the Inquisition, I suggest you follow the same course. Read the Catholic viewpoint by all means and then the Protestant ones. The Catholic sources are going to underestimate the cruelty and deaths and the Protestants overestimate. Then go find the account by the Spanish citizen; find the account by a person who barely escaped with his life. Look at all the information objectively and try to come to an objective conclusion. Don't try to gloss over the bad parts, but also try to see the good that always exists in every situation.

I personally don't see what the big focus on the Inquisition is. In those days pursecution for religious beliefs was common and one had about the same chance of being charged with religious crime as a civil crime. Protestants killed Catholics and Anabaptists, and Catholics killed Anabaptists and Protestants. The number of deaths on both sides was comparable. It is useless for either side try to downplay their own part since it doesn't matter anymore. All those involved are dead and it's not happening anymore. The Inquisition got more than it's share of bad history, while some of the other horrid things that went on, espeically in Protestant England, are forgotten or glossed over.

And one final thing. People too often try to make the issues of the past black and white, as plain as day. They were right and they were wrong, cut and dry. However, history repeats itself in a vicious cycle. In case anyone took the time to notice, things aren't black and white today. One merely needs to look at this forum to see all the controversy that exists. If it exists today, you can be sure it did back then. Historians change history to fit their agenda. That's why the American Revolution is called a Revolution and the Civil War is called a rebellion. The victors record history. Try and get past that and find the truth, if you really care to know it.
[right][snapback]697293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ok, so if I follow your train of thought then I am at an impass.
There is no Protestant point of view in reference to the Inquisition.
Protestant p.o.v. happened centuries later and of course would be an opposition to that of the Church anyway.

So your theory on finding all sources is hampered extensively.

There are those who were there.
And then there are those who studied it centuries later. Time makes all the difference.




I am curious what will be said about 9-11, twenty, thirty, even a century later.

Pax

[Quietfire]

[quote]The Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analysed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. However, he points out that the Inquisitors activities were heavily slanted towards Jewish and Moslem communities who would have suffered far more than most from their activities. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals.[/quote]

This info is from Wikipedia, which I dont think is pro-Catholic.
I honestly think many people dont understand the Inquisitions at all, and view them as another Holocaust.
In order to study history, you need to get into it. A true historian will attempt to put themselves in that era. To understand the dynamics of the peoples of the time. To try and figure out the mindset of the people of a particular era.
Many people during the Inquisition wilfully stepped foward to be investigated, after being accused(usually by an enemy of that person) so that they could clear their name.
This makes perfect sense if you think about it. There is a massive Inquisition going on, someone who dislikes you very much has accused you of being part of a cult that not only denies Christ, but also claims that you and your 'brethren' refuse to cooperate with God in creating new life and wholeheartily believe in suicide. In essence, you believe that you are also a god.
Now this may seem like nothing to you. But keep in mind that you are here, they were there. Also, I left out alot of the wierder details and the extent of those above for charities sake.

As far as the Spanish Inquisition. Jews and Muslims had 'converted' to Christianity (remember there was only one).
They 'converted', to obtain positions within the Church. All the while still secretly practicing their original faith. Once it became known that there were many within the Church who did not hold to her truths, then it became obvious that they needed to go.
In simpler terms, you dont get a job at a car factory and then attempt to do nothing but build washing machines. Its a mockery.

Oh, dont worry theres more than that. That is why it is suggested that you truly study it.
Even before I studied the Church I had done some reading on it and I still cant see how the Church is to blame.

If we simply judge the actions of peoples a thousand years ago with our own 21st century mindset, then you may as well consider anyone born before the invention of motorcars as barbaric.

Pax

Edited August 28, 2005 by Quietfire

[LittleLes]

There are those who were there.
And then there are those who studied it centuries later. Time makes all the difference.

RESPONSE:

The best record would be the writings of those who were there. In the case of the Malleus Malleficarum (1486), we have the writings of the two principals.

But actually there were three principles. The Pope set up and approved the whole thing.

That would be Pope Innocent VIII's Summis desiderantes (1484), the so called "Witches Bull."

"And, for the greater sureness, extending the said letter and deputation to the provinces, cities, dioceses, territories, places, persons, and crimes aforesaid, we grant to the said inquisitors that they or either of them joining with them our beloved son Johannes Gremper, cleric of the diocese of Coonstance, master of arts, their present notary, or any other notary public who by them or by either of them shall have been temporarily delegated in the provinces, cities, dioceses, territories, and places aforesaid, may exercise against all persons, of whatsoever condition and rank, the said office of inquisition, correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising, according to their deserts, those persons whom they shall find guilty as aforesaid. "

Chastising means torturing.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

If we simply judge the actions of peoples a thousand years ago with our own 21st century mindset, then you may as well consider anyone born before the invention of motorcars as barbaric.

Pax


RESPONSE:

Obviously it was only 500 years ago. And the Holocaust was almost 100 years ago.

I think most would realize that both were barbaric and inexcusable.

I wonder if apologists will try to downplay the holocoust any time soon?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Aug 28 2005, 06:49 AM']Ok, so if I follow your train of thought then I am at an impass.
There is no Protestant point of view in reference to the Inquisition.
Protestant p.o.v. happened centuries later and of course would be an opposition to that of the Church anyway.

So your theory on finding all sources is hampered extensively.

There are those who were there.
And then there are those who studied it centuries later.  Time makes all the difference.
I am curious what will be said about 9-11, twenty, thirty, even a century later.

Pax
[right][snapback]702538[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Do you suppose that since these events happened in the 15th century and the Portestant Reformation in the 16th century, the fact that there weren't any Portestants yet to write about the Inquisition(s) was the reason for the lack of Protestant writings for that period?.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 28 2005, 08:46 AM']If we simply judge the actions of peoples a thousand years ago with our own 21st century mindset, then you may as well consider anyone born before the invention of motorcars as barbaric.

Pax
RESPONSE:

Obviously it was only  500  years ago. And the Holocaust was almost 100 years ago.

I think most would realize that both were barbaric and inexcusable.

I wonder if apologists will try to downplay the holocoust any time soon?
[right][snapback]702561[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am not downplaying anything.
And yes, the S.I. may have ended 500 years ago, but there still werent cars then.
The Holocaust was not 'almost' 100 years ago, it ended 53 years ago.
It was designed to elimate Jews out of hatred. As well as Poles. And that was the just the beginning in Hilters mind.
DO NOT CONFUSE THE INQUISITION WITH THE HOLOCAUST.
There is no commonality between them and only shows that you are grabbing at straws.

The S.I. was designed to remove Jews and Muslims from places of influence WITHIN the Church.
At that time the purity of the Catholic Faith in Spain was in great danger from the numerous Marranos and Moriscos, who, for material considerations, became sham converts from Judaism and Mohammedanism to Christianity.
It was the Marranos especially who had, by then, great wealth and power within the Church. There goal was to Judiaze the Church from within.

Barbaric? Compared to what? Today?
Obviously you have never been (falsely) accused of a crime, taken to a police station, put in a tiny room and physcologically been torn apart.
What is the difference?
One carries physical scars (to boot)
One carries them within.
Obviously, you still study history with a 21st century mindset.

Im not getting into detail here. It is too far involved and would require too much time. That is why I asked that studying must be done with an open mind.
Littleles,
It is obvious that you are against everything and anything Christian.
Without accusing, I sense that same Marrano attitude in you that was the reason for the S.I.

There is no answer that will satisfy you here and therefore a waste of time.

Pax.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Aug 28 2005, 08:37 AM'] The Pope set up and approved the whole thing,
LittleLes
[right][snapback]702555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes. The Pope.
In Rome.

Where did the Spanish Inquistion take place again????

Maybe His Holiness should have checked his emails more frequently. Or at least stayed by the phone. And the fact that he ignored the tv news reports is downright disgraceful.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

Written by David Goldstein's 1943 book, "LETTERS Hebrew-Catholic to Mr. Isaacs".
Mr. Goldstein was Jewish who later converted to the Church.

[quote]To properly understand this question, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the Inquisition was instituted in Spain for persons who professed to be [u]Catholics and not for practicing Jews[/u]. It was to unearth, and to bring to penance, not merely heretics, as many Jews believe, but also bigamists, adulterers, blasphemers, and other violators of the principles of the Church to which they, as baptized men and women, were obligated to be true. George E. Sokolsky, publicist, of New York City, says in "We Jews,"[/quote]

In other words, It was from within the Church. Not some random openly practicing and obvious Jewish faithful.

[quote]"The task of the Inquisition was not to Persecute Jews but to cleanse the Church of unorthodoxy. The Inquisition was not concerned with infidels outside the Church but with heretics within it" (N.Y., 1935, p. 53).[/quote]



Pax.

[Quietfire]

To continue:

[quote]The Spanish Inquisition was instituted to weed out those baptized Jews and Moslems who pretended to be sincere Catholics, while they secretly adhered to the practices of Judaism and Mohammedanism, which is a most serious sacrilegious offense. They were also enemies of the State, which was Christian in principle and carried the Cross in battle against the Crescent.

As further evidence, consider what Dr. Salo Wittmayer Baron, one of America's foremost Jewish historians, has to say about this matter. I quote from "A Social and Religious History of the Jews" (N.Y., 1937, VOL 2 p. 58) -

"It appears to be a fact as well as a theory that Jews who never ceased professing Judaism were, on the whole, left undisturbed. - In the fourteen years of the activity of the Spanish Inquisition, from its establishment in 1478 to the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, we hear of only [b]one[/b] persecution directed against a Jewish community, where the Jewry of Huesca was accused in 1489 of having admitted conversos (pseudo-converts from Judaism to Christianity) to the Jewish fold. It was precisely the inability of the inquisitorial courts to check Jewish influence on the conversos that served as a decisive argument for the Catholic monarchs in banishing Jews from Spain...... [/quote]

So so far all inquiries taken place during the S.I. were Catholic on Catholic. That sounds like cleaning house to me.

Although yes, the Jewry of Huesca were accused and were expelled from Spain, a Christian society, but this was ultimately done by the King. Of course, the King was almost bribed by them to allow them to stay undisturbed.

Pax.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

and of course...

[quote]Properly to understand this question, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that Spain was at war for more than a half dozen centuries against the Mohammedans with whom the Jews were lined up against the Spaniards. It was a battle of the Cross against the Crescent. This is vouched for by Graetz's "History of the Jews," the "Jewish Encyclopedia," the "Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge," "Vallentine's Jewish Encyclopedia," and other authorities of foremost standing in Jewry. The two last named say,

"The Spanish Jews welcomed, it is even said that they invited, the Arab invasion. Under the Caliphate (Mohammedan ruler) of the West, with its capital at Cordova, their members (the Jews) grew and they attained great influence in the State" (Dr. Cecil Roth, in Vallentine's J.E., p. 612).

"It is admitted that the African Jews aided the Arabs in the capture of Cordova, Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo and these cities were placed under Jewish control by the conquerors" (Ency. J. Knowledge, p. 531).[/quote]


Dr. Roth is Jewish btw.


Pax

[LittleLes]

Quietfire argues,

"DO NOT CONFUSE THE INQUISITION WITH THE HOLOCAUST.
There is no commonality between them and only shows that you are grabbing at straws."

RESPONSE:

No commonality you say! Really ?

Both were directed against people who were thought not to be in agreement with those in power.

Both involved belief systems.

The "out group" was killed by both "in groups."

In both, the "out group" was demonized.

In both cases those conducting the suffering were told that they were doing God's will by those in power.

No commonality, you say?

LittleLes

But I'd agree that there was one major difference in that the accused underwent much more pain and suffering under the Church.