Posted on 05/07/2007 10:42:12 AM PDT by NYer
On May 9 and 16, PBS will air a four-part docudrama called “The Secret Files of the Inquisition.” Catholic League president Bill Donohue raised some concerns today:
“PBS will not air a movie that its officials say paints Muslims in a bad light, ‘Islam vs. Islamists,’ but it has no qualms about showing a flick that Catholics have every right to question. This film is advertised on PBS’s website with an eerie black background depicting all the ‘T’s’ as crosses. All that is missing is Dracula’s voiceover. ‘For over half a millennium a system of mass terror reigned,’ it says, and ‘Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment.’ This is plainly dishonest.
“As British historian Henry Kamen has shown in his magisterial work, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, almost all the conventional wisdom about the Inquisition is wrong. By comparison with secular courts at the time, the Inquisition’s methods were more humane, e.g., defendants could be represented by an attorney. Edward Peters, another student of the period, says, ‘Modern historiography has completely blown the old Inquisition propaganda out of the water. No one seriously contends that hundreds of thousands or millions were killed, or that the Protestant countries were any more humane than Spain was.’ Indeed, scholars today refer to the old school mythology as ‘the Black Legend,’ a tale of lies spun by Elizabethan England. No wonder that in 1994, BBC/A&E aired ‘The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition.’
“Here’s what we know. Of the approximately 125,000 cases tried by the Spanish Inquisition, 1 percent resulted in the death penalty. Of the so-called witch hunts, where women were burned at the stake, secular courts executed 50,000 (not all of whom were women); less than 100 were killed by the Inquisition. Solzhenitsyn once compared the killings that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937 and 1938 to the killings that took place during the Spanish Inquisition and found that 20,000 were killed per month in the U.S.S.R. and 10 were killed per month during the Inquisition. But don’t look for such comparisons on PBS. To do so might get in the way of the truth.”
When Henry VIII’s daughter Mary was on the English throne, peace & tranquility prevailed & all of that nasty persecution business took a rest...
I don't have a problem with heresy being criminalized, at least in theory. Heresy leads to death, both spiritually and physically, so it falls within the competence of the State, whose primary duty is the protection of the lives of its citizens. In practice, the usefulness of prosecution has passed, since it is literally impossible to slow the spread of heresy given our modern means of communication.
One important distinction between the acts of Catholic and Protestant rulers regarding the prosecution of heretics is that there was no distinction between State and Church in Protestant lands. Those suffering from abuse at the hands of the Protestant State could not appeal to the Protestant Church, since there was no distinction between the two.
Protestantism evolved into national churches from its inception, in direct conflict with the universal mission of Christ's Church (John 17:21).
Do you think Christ had enough power to eliminate all heresies from the country he lived in, so that only his correct teachings would be the ones spread?
You wrote: “If you were a Protestant living in a Catholic state during the Reformation, I’m sure you’d see that “totalitarian” question differently.”
Maybe you would, but none of the Catholic states of Europe - not even Spain with the inquisition - was as totalitarian as Protestant Europe. This has been proven in spades by Henry Kamen.
“If you believed any of the earlier heresies & had the Church offer up all of your stuff to any prince willing to deal with you, you might see that “totalitarian” question differently too.”
Doubtful. There were no executions in western Europe for heresy before the 11th century. Protestants had no slow development of their oppression. It was there immediately.
“Think there could have been a Holy Roman Empire if the Church hadn’t dabbled in the affairs of men?”
The Church doesn’t dabble in the affairs of men - it serves men and is staffed by men. And yes, I believe that the Holy Roman Empire would have existed anyway just not with a particularly Christian character. Why? Because it already did. It was called the Frankish Empire, and that empire was already in the process of forming BEFORE the Franks were even Christian.
“Despite the Monarchs’ & Church’s differences, they often worked together.”
Yes, they did, but they were never one in the same as happened in Protestant countries. Who is the founder and leader of the Anglican Church historically? The monarchy of Britain. There is nothing like that in the history of the Catholic Church.
“The Church has been pretty vocal about “correcting” the history.”
Nope. The Church has always been vocal about non-Catholics getting it right. The reason is simple: truth is truth and should always be pursued. Protestants, or secularists, have only recently started to put aside their ingrained prejudices and examine the real history of things like the inquisition.
The Church courts also served to establish legal process because of the frontier conditions of medieval Euope. That process was more uniform because they had to meet the requirements of canon law. By contrast, the manorial courts were dependent on the whil of the nobility and local custom. In England the royal courts took much from church court procedures and led to an establishment of a common law throughout the realm.
Reformers got some things wrong, saw a speck & missed a mote. More later, because I have to step out for a bit.
Well... DUH!!!!
The Vatican’s slaughters were done by the potentates it controlled. If the pope, a cardinal or bishop, even a parish priest wanted a result, they pronounced their judgments and looked to the local government authority to carry out the sentences.
The clergy seldom soiled their pretty dresses with the blood of the martyrs. But as with Pontius Pilate, allowing others to carry out an evil deed doesn’t absolve one of the guilt, no matter how many times one washes one’s hands.
Thank you.
However, I must admit to my bias. I am VERY pro Bible.
Others may disagree, but I try to be an equal opportunity disrupter. The only reason the RCC gets more of my disruption is the volume of RCC-related posts.
On this particular thread, I was not intending to attack catholics. My original goal was to point out that regardless of actual history, the PBS program will undoubtedly be intended to undermine all Christ-based faiths. However, when the Inquisition Denier dredged up his obtuse sources and put forth his ridiculous “the RCC has always been gentle and loving” routine... well, you’ve seen the posts.
Translation: Astronauts from the Houston area.
;-o)
Either that, or really BIG ants.
LOL!
;-o)
ummm... he wasn’t complimenting you.
Ah yes. Funny how it NEVER starts out that way. I didn't INTEND to fire that gun, officer. I just walked into the rim with my finger on the trigger and the hammer pulled back, and I don't know WHAT happened!
Then you must be very much in favor of its chief editor, the Catholic Church.
Let's see... a lifetime spent without the sacraments, or being burned at the stake... I'll take burning at the stake.
Did I mention I go by the name "Clouseau"?
Memo to self: No coffee after 5 PM. Good night, all.
May God grant you the mercy to awake in the morning to another day, and another chance to hear His Word and obey His Gospel.
You wrote: “Reformers got some things wrong, saw a speck & missed a mote.”
Got some things wrong? The proper understanding of God, the Bible, human nature, the redemption, salvation, the role of the state, et al. - yeah, I’d say they got some things wrong.
Not everywhere, but certainly within His Church. Christ's Church can only spread correct teachings, since Scripture calls Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," which the gates of hell will not prevail against. We have Christ's promise.
Nevertheless, heresies have abounded in Church history, even from the earliest times. The greatest early heresy was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was created in time by the Father. This heresy roiled the Church for almost 100 years. In fact, at one time, St. Athanasius believed that the majority of bishops were Arians. Nevertheless, the heresy was eventually quelled in a series of Church Councils.
But the greatest heresy to date is Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone," a teaching which appears nowhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition, but which has succeeded in breaking off 1/4 of Christendom from the Church that Christ founded.
I have to admit, you've shocked me. I can't wrap my mind around Jesus Christ having limits to his power. That He didn't choose to use all of His power, that I can understand, but not having it? WOW!
Christ's Church can only spread correct teachings, since Scripture calls Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth," which the gates of hell will not prevail against. We have Christ's promise.
You sign a contract with a builder & pay him to build a magnificent building. He lays down the foundation & the framing and then quits. He tells you he has fulfilled as much of the contract as he can in good conscience. If you want any more than he has given to you, you must go through him, but he has a few ideas of his own that he wants to put into the project. A foundation & pillar are not a whole building.
Nevertheless, heresies have abounded in Church history, even from the earliest times. The greatest early heresy was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was created in time by the Father. This heresy roiled the Church for almost 100 years. In fact, at one time, St. Athanasius believed that the majority of bishops were Arians. Nevertheless, the heresy was eventually quelled in a series of Church Councils.
Quelled within the Church, mostly yes. It's never been totally "quelled", tho it has been rejected as official Church teaching. That heresy caused quite a bit of bloodletting, before all was said & done.
What's your opinion of the Church's handling of the Albigensian heresy?
But the greatest heresy to date is Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone," a teaching which appears nowhere in Scripture or Sacred Tradition, but which has succeeded in breaking off 1/4 of Christendom from the Church that Christ founded.
We don't see ourselves as separated from His Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.