Lol
I suspect that what this person knows about the Inquisition is what Protestants and antiCatholics have said about the Inquisition. Most of that is what we now term “disinformation.”
My understanding is that pimping your own blog is grounds for being banned from FR.
Would really like to see her numbers on this claim.
A sterling example of how the Democrats (and Socialists in general) operate.
Not really. While all Catholics were on the Cavalier side, the great majority of Cavaliers were Anglicans of various types.
The Stuarts weren't as a dynasty Catholic. Mary Queen of Scots was Catholic, but never ruled England. James I and Charles I were both aggressively Anglican and Protestant. Charles II was a sort-of Anglican most of his life, converting to RC on his deathbed. James II was Catholic, but only ruled something like 4 years before being kicked out.
Why would any Pro-Lifer defend the Inquisition?
Why would anyone defend the inquisition?
The best I’ve heard anyone say is “it wasn’t that bad”. But no one wants to be on the receiving end.
Its one thing to recognize that people are human and the totalitarian tendencies run deep. Its another to imagine that the guy lighting the fire under the stake is doing so under the urgings of the Holy Spirit.
Uh...how was the Inquisition *genocide*, exactly?
You're joking right? You must be joking.
Let me ask you one question that will tell me much of what I need to know going forward.
Did the Inquisition go after Jews for being Jews? Answer me that question.
Nobody defends the Spanish Inquisition!
I’d say no, of course not. I’d also say, if it came up in the context of a pro-life/pro-abortion discussion: You brought the Inquisition up like it excuses abortion? [cue Sam Elliott] Yer a special kind of stupid, aren’t ya?
My understanding of the Inquisition is the stated goal was a molehunt, not genocide.
Common Jews were not targeted, and had nothing to fear. All those brought before the Inquisition were officials in the Spanish government, because the king wanted only Catholics in official positions. Still, there never is a reason for torture.
The Church did not condone the torture. You had a situation similar to the Vietnam war where local officials acting in the name of the Church went off the deep end, but it was not a general policy of the Inquisition. The Church is still responsible because it put them in that position, and that is why the pope apologized.
There is a huge difference between saying torture happened during the Inquisition and saying it was the purpose of the Inquisition. Even during the Inquisition, those brought forth preferred the Church courts to the State courts, because they had better rules of evidence and had a better chance of getting out unscathed.
Also, the difference between the Holocaust and the Inquisition is in the original documents that survive from the times. No serious researcher depends on an edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as their source because it is subject to editorializing. The original documents trump any encyclopedia or a stack of PhD opinions, and the original documents do not bear out the Inquisition as a death campaign against the Jews.
Indeed, the Holy Office in the Vatican today is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the Inquisition. The whole point, and the only point, is to determine who is Catholic and who is not. Torture is not part of the program.
Because I tried to read your article and I have no idea what the heck you were trying to convey.