[TruthSetsFree]

The Inquisition was not as bad as the antiCatholic nut cases would have you believe

criminals used to ASK to be tried by the Inquisition court. They knew the clergy would give them justice

The Church declared whether someone was an OBSTINATE heretic. We are all heretics at some time or other (especially in YOUTH... yikes!!!)

but when presented with truth, most of usback down from our heretical views and accept orthodoxy

if one does not do that, one is a heretic.

the Church is the only "one" who can rightfully declare anyone an obstinate heretic and excommunicte him.

But when that was done in the middle ages, the Church did not then execute the heretic. That was a decision made by the king or ruler..

and many priests and bishops interceded to try to STOP the execution. The Church has always taught that it is WRONG to try to FORCE people to believe (anything).

[Cruciform]

+ THE INQUISITIONS +

Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth (commonly known as the Black Legend, popularized in imaginative literature and the press during the 19th century). The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.

Heresy was a capital offense against the state. It was considered a type of treason. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, which very few possessed. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using reason and laws of evidence, and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

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

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities with pleas for mercy that were frequently ignored. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

__________

For more information, see:

The Real Inquisition, By Thomas F. Madden, National Review (2004): [http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...406181026.asp]
Inquisition, by Edward Peters (1988)
Religious Dissent in the Middle Ages (1971), edited by Jeffrey B. Russell
The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of Its Establishment (1932), by Hoffman Nickerson
Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error (1978), by LeRoy Ladurie
Seven Lies About Catholic History (2010), by Diane Moczar

Adapted from: http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...2184933AA3jNYE

[Sealeaf]

I would not try to hard to prove that that church is innocent of all blood shed. It's just logic cropping and is an unworthy tactic. I think it is just better to accept that the church and, more properly, various people in the church, have done wrong, have been mistaken, and have been people of their own time, not ours, and have sometimes done things that they saw as right that we in our time do not see as right.

Some inquisitors may have been righteous, but humans being what they are, we can be certain that not all were. Nasty prople are drawn to nasty jobs, and that was a nasty job.

The church only judged people to be "obstinate heretics"? True, but the church did it in a civil society that had being a heretic listed as a capital offense. That does not make the church innocent of the spilled blood, just hypocritical and dishonest.

[Daedalean's_Sun]

“They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion”

~Thomas Hobbes

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Daedalean's_Sun

“They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” ~Thomas Hobbes

Sorry, but that's merely Hobbes's private opinion...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Sorry, but that's merely Hobbes's private opinion...



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

As was the Roman Catholic Church's concept of heresy.

Which basically amounted to little more than "If you disagree with the church then you're a heretic". Just ask the Hussites!

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Daedalean's_Sun

As was the Roman Catholic Church's concept of heresy.

Except that the term "private" does not apply to the Church, since it is not a single person who privately---i.e., in separation from the corporate Magisterium (teaching office comprised of the bishops) of the Church---formulates binding Christian doctrine for all Christians, but rather the Magisterium as a whole which does so in light of the Church's already-established and authoritative teachings.

Which basically amounted to little more than "If you disagree with the church then you're a heretic".

Yes, if you're a baptized Catholic, and you willingly and knowingly reject the formal doctrines of the Catholic Church, you are by definition a heretic. If one rejects the defining tenets of any belief system, one can hardly consider himself a genuine proponent of that system. That's just how it works.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Yes, if you're a baptized Catholic, and you willingly and knowingly reject the formal doctrines of the Catholic Church, you are by definition a heretic.

Except the majority of the victims from the Spanish Inquisition in particular were Jews. After the Alhambra Decree, which started the expulsion of Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile & Aragon (Spain) of the 80,000 or so estimated Jews that lived there at the time roughly half were forced out of their homes (about 40,000), the Jews that remained chose conversion rather than face torture or expulsion. Many of the converted Jews, only pretended to be christian while keeping their faith in private, these Conversos (converts) were the main focus of the Inquisition. Those that were suspected of being Jews were put on trial

"The Inquisition was extremely active between 1480 and 1530. Different sources give different estimates of the number of trials and executions in this period; Henry Kamen estimates about 2,000 executed, based on the documentation of the autos-da-fé, the great majority being conversos of Jewish origin. He offers striking statistics: 91.6% of those judged in Valencia between 1484 and 1530 and 99.3% of those judged in Barcelona between 1484 and 1505 were of Jewish origin."

-Citation


"While the accused heretics were on strappado or the rack, inquisitors often applied other torture devices to their bodies. These included* heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices. Although mutilation was technically forbidden, in 1256, Pope Alexander IV decreed that inquisitors could clear each other from any wrongdoing that they might have done during torture sessions."

-Citation

Nearly half of the Jews that were expelled from Spain escaped to Portugal only to face a similar Inquisition in Portugal a few years later.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Daedalean's_Sun

Except the majority of the victims from the Spanish Inquisition in particular were Jews. After the Alhambra Decree, which started the expulsion of Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile & Aragon (Spain) of the 80,000 or so estimated Jews that lived there at the time roughly half were forced out of their homes (about 40,000), the Jews that remained chose conversion rather than face torture or expulsion. Many of the converted Jews, only pretended to be christian while keeping their faith in private, these Conversos (converts) were the main focus of the Inquisition. Those that were suspected of being Jews were put on trial

"The Inquisition was extremely active between 1480 and 1530. Different sources give different estimates of the number of trials and executions in this period; Henry Kamen estimates about 2,000 executed, based on the documentation of the autos-da-fé, the great majority being conversos of Jewish origin. He offers striking statistics: 91.6% of those judged in Valencia between 1484 and 1530 and 99.3% of those judged in Barcelona between 1484 and 1505 were of Jewish origin."

"While the accused heretics were on strappado or the rack, inquisitors often applied other torture devices to their bodies. These included* heated metal pincers, thumbscrews, boots, or other devices designed to burn, pinch or otherwise mutilate their hands, feet or bodily orifices. Although mutilation was technically forbidden, in 1256, Pope Alexander IV decreed that inquisitors could clear each other from any wrongdoing that they might have done during torture sessions."

"But once again we must stress the chronological track, because the bloody reputation of the Spanish Inquisition–though it formally existed for more than three centuries–was earned during its first decade and a half, even before, that is, the capture of Granada. During this unhappy period perhaps as many as 2000 persons were burnt as heretics. Though this number is only a small fraction of what the Black Legend routinely alleged, it is nevertheless sobering enough. Almost all those executed were conversos or New Christians, converts, that is, from Judaism who were convicted of secretly practicing their former religion. It should be borne in mind that the Inquisition, as a church-court, had no jurisdiction over Moors and Jews as such. But, ironically, once such persons accepted baptism they became capable of heresy in the technical sense of the word. Thus the early savagery of the Spanish Inquisition contributes another chapter to the sad history of anti-Semitism, motivated on this occasion, however, more by politico-religious expediency than by racial hatred. It was in any event an enormous and unforgivable miscalculation. Far from constituting a danger to the nation, the Jewish conversos of previous decades had already been admirably blended into the larger community. As Professor William Monter has pointed out, the New Christians 'represent the first known large-scale and long-term assimilation of Jews into any Christian society. Although the process included many painful adaptations, some severe backlash and even a decade of brutal persecution under the Inquisition, it ended with their general integration into Spanish society. Their descendants quietly flouted racist codes and contributed to the vibrant Catholicism of Golden Age Spain; St. Teresa of Avila was the granddaughter of a New Christian penanced by the Inquisition.'"

"The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction"

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities with pleas for mercy that were frequently ignored. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

So if our nation falls to such tyranny some time in the future, can we count on the catholic church to again intercede in this manner? Trying and convicting under laws it recognizes are unjust? Turning those found guilty under those unjust law over to the tyrants responsible for it? You know, streamlining things so that more people aren't executed unjustly?

Seriously? This is your argument? That the church made things less horrible by actively participating in something it recognizes as unjust and immoral?

[Eeset]

The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The leader of the crusaders, Simon de Montfort, resorted to primitive psychological warfare. He ordered his troops to gouge out the eyes of 100 prisoners, cut off their noses and lips, then send them back to the towers led by a prisoner with one remaining eye. This only served to harden the resolve of the Cathars.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by MaryContrary

So if our nation falls to such tyranny some time in the future, can we count on the catholic church to again intercede in this manner?

There were complex interrelated cultural dynamics during the Middle Ages that are unlikely to be repeated in the modern world. Past events have to be viewed and evaluated in their own unique social and philosophical contexts, rather than anachronistically imposing 21st-century perspectives upon the occurances of history.

Seriously? This is your argument? That the church made things less horrible by actively participating in something it recognizes as unjust and immoral?

No, that is not my argument, but merely your Straw Man misrepresentation of what is simply a straightforward outline of the facts.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

"But once again we must stress the chronological track, because the bloody reputation of the Spanish Inquisition–though it formally existed for more than three centuries–was earned during its first decade and a half, even before, that is, the capture of Granada. During this unhappy period perhaps as many as 2000 persons were burnt as heretics. Though this number is only a small fraction of what the Black Legend routinely alleged, it is nevertheless sobering enough. Almost all those executed were conversos or New Christians, converts, that is, from Judaism who were convicted of secretly practicing their former religion. It should be borne in mind that the Inquisition, as a church-court, had no jurisdiction over Moors and Jews as such. But, ironically, once such persons accepted baptism they became capable of heresy in the technical sense of the word. Thus the early savagery of the Spanish Inquisition contributes another chapter to the sad history of anti-Semitism, motivated on this occasion, however, more by politico-religious expediency than by racial hatred. It was in any event an enormous and unforgivable miscalculation. Far from constituting a danger to the nation, the Jewish conversos of previous decades had already been admirably blended into the larger community. As Professor William Monter has pointed out, the New Christians 'represent the first known large-scale and long-term assimilation of Jews into any Christian society. Although the process included many painful adaptations, some severe backlash and even a decade of brutal persecution under the Inquisition, it ended with their general integration into Spanish society. Their descendants quietly flouted racist codes and contributed to the vibrant Catholicism of Golden Age Spain; St. Teresa of Avila was the granddaughter of a New Christian penanced by the Inquisition.'"

"The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction"

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

What you have posted here is true to the best of my knowledge and seems to be in perfect agreement with what I posted, however I don't see how it supports your first post which claims rather boldly that: "The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions." or about "sheep leaving the flock" as those don't really seem to be the case.

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree

They knew the clergy would give them justice

The Church declared whether someone was an OBSTINATE heretic. We are all heretics at some time or other (especially in YOUTH... yikes!!!)

but when presented with truth, most of usback down from our heretical views and accept orthodoxy

Except as I pointed out to Cruciform most of these "Obstinate Heretics" were Jews trying to practice Judaism, and were tortured until they gave up their Heretical (i.e. Jewish) ways.

But when that was done in the middle ages, the Church did not then execute the heretic.

No they just tortured them, and handed them over to the genocidal monarchs: Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile.

The Church has always taught that it is WRONG to try to FORCE people to believe (anything).

History has shown otherwise.

[MaryContrary]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

There were complex interrelated cultural dynamics during the Middle Ages that are unlikely to be repeated in the modern world. Past events have to be viewed and evaluated in their own unique social and philosophical contexts, rather than anachronistically imposing 21st-century perspectives upon the occurances of history.

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by Cruciform

No, that is not my argument...

Yes, it is.