The Myth Of The Spanish Inquisition

[Budge]

So is he a myth too?

[url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/TorquemaT.html"]TORQUEMADA[/url]

[img]http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rantpix/torquemada.gif[/img]

[quote]Torquemada became confessor to future Queen Isabella, but declined higher office when she rose to the throne. Instead, as Pope Sixtus IV had established the Inquisition in Spain in 1478, in 1483 Torquemada accepted appointment as Grand Inquisitor of Castile and Aragon. With the Pope's blessing, Torquemada was completely in charge of the Spanish Inquisition until his death in 1498.

Never has a man so enjoyed his work! Torquemada developed and employed an elaborate network of spies and secret police to root out heresy. His favorite methods for extracting confessions, nevermind the truth, were to hang the accused by the arms so that the arms were pulled from their joints, to force the swallowing of gallons of water, and to have the joints dislocated on the rack. His methods made him generally unpopular — he had to travel with bodyguards — but no one dared oppose him. Even the Pope could not reign him in: when Sixtus issued a bull absolving conversos of any wrong they might have done, Ferdinand, under Torquemada's influence, refused to enforce it.

The least of his crimes was his twisting of jurisprudence: In 1490 Torquemada oversaw the LaGuardia trial, in which eight Jews and conversos were accused of crucifying a Christian child. No victim was identified, no body ever discovered, but all eight were convicted nevertheless on the strength of confessions obtained by torture. And all were burned at the stake.
[b]
In sum, Torquemada had over 2,000 heretics, Jews and Muslims burned by auto-da-fé, and perhaps 9,000 punished in other ways. The Catholic Encyclopedia tries to mitigate Torquemada's cruelty, saying[/b]:[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

We are defending the TRUTH about the Inquisition, and exposing the myths perpetrated by anti- catholics such as yourself.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103145' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:02 PM']
Whatever happened to..."We're sorry this ever happened"? instead of constant whitewashes of history? Ive noticed a [b]drop[/b] in the Inquisition numbers claimed by Catholics within the last TWO YEARS of dealing with Catholics online.
[/quote]
If we defend it, you will attack us for defending evils; if we apologize, you will say our Gospel is wrong for having committed evils.

The fact is that we defend what needs to be defended and apologize for what needs an apology and both of those are Christian things to do.

[CatholicCid]

Your link seems to be broken... I click it and it leads me to a different page then the one you quoted. Could you fix it?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103154' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:19 PM']
So is he a myth too?

[url="http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/TorquemaT.html"]TORQUEMADA[/url]

[img]http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rantpix/torquemada.gif[/img]
[/quote]
so what are you quoting now, your link only says this:

(tmäs´ d tôrkmä´thä) (KEY) , 1420–98, Spanish churchman and inquisitor. A Dominican, he became confessor to Ferdinand II and Isabella I and in 1483 was appointed inquisitor general of Castile and Aragón, charged with the centralization of the Spanish Inquisition. He was largely instrumental in bringing about the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. His great authority was contested by colleagues and was diminished in some measure by the pope, but he remained preeminent until his death. Torquemada owes his reputation for cruelty to the harsh rules of procedure that he devised for the Inquisition and to the rigor with which he had them enforced.

[Budge]

[quote]

If we defend it, you will attack us for defending evils; if we apologize, you will say our Gospel is wrong for having committed evils.[/quote]

Why not apologize?

I think the Prots {calvinists, puritans} who burned people at the stake also were wrong. They followed the messages of Satan rather then the commandments of Christ.

How hard is that to say?

The Catholic church always seems more intent on protecting and defending ITSELF rather then TRUTH. That is one of the most disturbing qualities about it.

[CatholicCid]

You missed the rest of his post: The fact is that we defend what needs to be defended and apologize for what needs an apology and both of those are Christian things to do.

I know you like to choice which questions you address, but choosing to read only half of other's post is kind of silly and ruiins a debate.

Might you also post the correct link.

Edited October 28, 2006 by CatholicCid

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103165' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:31 PM']
Why not apologize?

I think the Prots {calvinists, puritans} who burned people at the stake also were wrong. They followed the messages of Satan rather then the commandments of Christ.

How hard is that to say?

The Catholic church always seems more intent on protecting and defending ITSELF rather then TRUTH. That is one of the most disturbing qualities about it.
[/quote]
apologize for what??? the sins of individuals?
are you apologizing for all the sins committed by non-catholics??

so its ok for you to separate out act of individual prots and fundies and say they don't rep their Church, but as soon as a catholic does something its up to the Church to apologize??

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103165' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:31 PM']
Why not apologize?

I think the Prots {calvinists, puritans} who burned people at the stake also were wrong. They followed the messages of Satan rather then the commandments of Christ.

How hard is that to say?

The Catholic church always seems more intent on protecting and defending ITSELF rather then TRUTH. That is one of the most disturbing qualities about it.
[/quote]
You took me out of context and left out the second half of my post. I clearly said that we apologize for that which demands an apology, but defend that which demands defense.

[Budge]

So do you consider the Inquisition and its related acts to be SINS?

{some on here dont, I still remember the 76% vote FOR THE inquisition}

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103180' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:44 PM']
So do you consider the Inquisition and its related acts to be SINS?

{some on here dont, I still remember the 76% vote FOR THE inquisition}
[/quote]
I'm certain that some sins were committed, but I don't know that I would make such sweeping generalizations.

[Budge]

Ill make this easy for you.

When they burned people at the stake was it a sin?

When they tortured people was it a sin?

Yes or No? to both.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103200' date='Oct 28 2006, 12:58 PM']
Ill make this easy for you.

When they burned people at the stake was it a sin?

When they tortured people was it a sin?

Yes or No? to both.
[/quote]

You're still overgeneralizing. Capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral, so it would depend on the crimes. As for torture, I would say that the things they did were demeaning to the human person and I would consider them all together immoral, but I do not speak with the authority of the Church.

[Winchester]

Budge,

The trial you describe in the supposed Torquemada article violates the inquisitional procedure, which required witnesses, required that they not be enemies (in some years, cases with a known enemy of the accused were dismissed immediately.) So if TQ did do this, he violated the rules.

Honestly, Budge, could you try to approach honesty? You're in OJ land, here.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103145' date='Oct 28 2006, 09:02 AM']
Do you seriously think God is going to cut a break on the fact it may have been 2,000, instead of 200,000 or 2 million?
[/quote]

If you can't tell the difference between 2,000 and 2 million then I would say you are the one playing the numbers game.

[Budge]

[quote]Capital punishment is not intrinsically immoral, so it would depend on the crimes. As for torture, I would say that the things they did were demeaning to the human person and I would consider them all together immoral, but I do not speak with the authority of the Church.[/quote]

Do you believe captial punishment based on religious beliefs [ie no violent crime etc] is warranted?

Is that immoral?

Calling torture demeaning to a human person is a bit of an understatement, being tripped in the hallway at high school by the bully or whistled at by a construction worker in the street is demeaning, being put on the rack and pernamentaly disabled, is something entirely different.

[Winchester]

I put forth that the word demeaning has been devalued.

[Budge]

no demeaning has kept the same meaning.

Humilitation is a different thing then having your hip and arm sockets ripped apart.

[Winchester]

So you're switching to humiliation, now?

To be demeaned is a terrible sin against the dignity of man. I put forth that there can be degrees. You are treading with lead weights around your ankles.

Terribly sorry, but to repeat and clarify, I have put forth that demean has been devalued. It has the same definition, but that definition is not considered severe enough by you to cover the idea that religion can be as important as other facets of life to particular societies. Devalue is a change, certainly, but in this case, it is more a change in perception.

[Budge]

None of that made any sense.

Try and be serious instead of joking around, diverting and wasting space.

Do you believe torture is evil or not?

yes or no...