Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
When the sins of the Catholic Church are recited (as they so often are) the Inquisition figures prominently. People with no interest in European history know full well that it was led by brutal and fanatical churchmen who tortured, maimed, and killed those who dared question the authority of the Church. The word "Inquisition" is part of our modern vocabulary, describing both an institution and a period of time. Having one of your hearings referred to as an "Inquisition" is not a compliment for most senators.
But in recent years the Inquisition has been subject to greater investigation. In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition's (the institution's) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed. As one headline read "Vatican Downsizes Inquisition."
The amazed gasps and cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?
To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.
The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them 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 or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.
The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using 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.
As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or 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. 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.
During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.
Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened. Why then are people in general and the press in particular so surprised to discover that the Inquisition did not barbecue people by the millions? First of all, when most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition. After 1530, however, the Spanish Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth.
By the mid 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Europe's Protestant areas, including the Netherlands, northern Germany, and England, may not have been as militarily mighty, but they did have a potent new weapon: the printing press. Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous "Black Legend" of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil.
Protestant propaganda that took aim at the Spanish Inquisition drew liberally from the Black Legend. But it had other sources as well. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had difficulty explaining the 15-century gap between Christ's institution of His Church and the founding of the Protestant churches. Catholics naturally pointed out this problem, accusing Protestants of having created a new church separate from that of Christ. Protestants countered that their church was the one created by Christ, but that it had been forced underground by the Catholic Church. Thus, just as the Roman Empire had persecuted Christians, so its successor, the Roman Catholic Church, continued to persecute them throughout the Middle Ages. Inconveniently, there were no Protestants in the Middle Ages, yet Protestant authors found them there anyway in the guise of various medieval heretics. In this light, the medieval Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to crush the hidden, true church. The Spanish Inquisition, still active and extremely efficient at keeping Protestants out of Spain, was for Protestant writers merely the latest version of this persecution. Mix liberally with the Black Legend and you have everything you need to produce tract after tract about the hideous and cruel Spanish Inquisition. And so they did.
In time, Spain's empire would fade away. Wealth and power shifted to the north, in particular to France and England. By the late 17th century new ideas of religious tolerance were bubbling across the coffeehouses and salons of Europe. Inquisitions, both Catholic and Protestant, withered. The Spanish stubbornly held on to theirs, and for that they were ridiculed. French philosophes like Voltaire saw in Spain a model of the Middle Ages: weak, barbaric, superstitious. The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance. A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.
Now a bit more of the real Inquisition has come back into view. The question remains, will anyone take notice?
— Thomas F. Madden is professor and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. He is the author most recently of Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice and editor of the forthcoming Crusades: The Illustrated History.
The Spanish Armada was defeated of course. The Spanish and Austrian armies in Germany faired much better. It was only Swedish intervention, and specifically Gustavus Adolphus, combined with French money that saved the Protestants in Germany in the 30 Years War.
Again, one invites the accuser to point out a lie. You haven't yet in the last two threads you've been on. You've merely stood by hurling false accusations. Oh, wait, sorry, I should keep quiet and let you lie about me so the crowd can judge for themselves..
No it doesn't, unless you leave out the part where I stated that His will was sometimes determined on the field of battle.
The title "Holy Roman Emporer" was given to any king who was deemed worthy from Rome.
Did Rome ever elevate anyone without any claim to a royal bloodline? If not, why not? If they did, what would lead any noble to follow them?
It did not imply that the greatness of Imperial Rome had been re-established, or even that the Vatican had chosen that one king as its secular ruler.
I agree. I'd have to say Rome "saw" God's will involved in the choosing, which would hardly make the ruler a "secular" ruler.
In fact, there were times when the H.R.E. ruled a very meager territory, far removed from Central Italy, and times when there was more than one H.R.E. All it mean was the formal approval of Rome. And H.R.E.s were very rare, indeed!
True
Not even "Defender of the Faith," Henry VIII was made H.R.E. (Probably because Rome recognized his value as a political ally, but also recognized he was a louse.)
Henry VIII's skills as a warrior were poor, but his ego needed stroking, so awarding him a title made perfect sense. It was a gift to a child to keep him from feeling bad about the loss of his territories in France & getting good Christians killed if he wanted to try to win them back again.
No, Dave screwed up what they meant by quoting what was to be done to those that listened to heretics and saying that was what was to be done with heretics. He misapplied what was said and was corrected for it by someone who did bother to read it in advance. One doesn't need be a genius to read and understand the full of the Canon. But it's worth noting that you didn't bother reading it yourself but fall to what Dave said instead of quoting the document yourself.. so you can safely hide behind Dave in your reasoning perhaps.. lol
I'd bet the publishers were ignorantly repeating what they had heard
Oh give us a break. The publishers of what! These are your own documents. We aren't talking about misprint or mistranslation. We're talking about you guys lying about the record and Dave not even being able to get his own counciliar document straight in what it says. Any bleatin english major could set Dave on his ear for his mistatement. .. as well as any good latin major. The language matters not. He's wrong. You're wrong and the document is posted right here on the thread in post 66 for everyone to read and see you're both wrong. If you stabbed someone to death in broad daylight at this point with 1000 witnesses, I'm now sure you'd try to pin it on someone else though everyone saw it because it's exactly what you're doing now. Man I'd love to have you guys on video for other Christians to see. It's incredible.
I haven't needed any. Nor do I imagine I shall. You're the one sniping from the sidelines. You've had your shots and you keep missing. I'd recommend getting your personal problem off your chest in the appropriate venue on this forum. I'd further recommend you reread the forum rules.
The "authority" of the same organization that had a system for protecting child molesters? True authority is never arbitrary but adheres to a real standard. The KJV is at the least better than the Vulgate which is both authorized and erroneous.
This is not a minor point.
All translations have minor differences in wording that make no difference in meaning when viewed in the larger context of the bible. If you are going to parse scripture to that extent, a lot of the poetry and prophecy contains grievous errors. Since it is obvious scripture is not so errant, it is clear that God did not intend it to be a legalese trap to prevent Clintonian weaseling of obvious intention.
Ping! You gotta see 66 and 116, just beyond belief.
Where can I go to find all these errors detailed? I use several different translations including KJV, while there are some differences in wording none is erroneous by the standards of rational adults.
The focus of the Inquisition after Torquemade came on board was on the "Judizers"in part because of Jewish support for the Muslim state Ferdinand and Isabella were trying to overthrow. Kamen contends that the Jews who had converted were for the most part sincere, but that the "old" Catholic familes were jealous of them.
This has nothing fo with moral relativism. He goes on to explain that medieval Christians took heresy as seriously we, for instance, take radical Islam.
Counter assertion: In the context of all history, for a 1000 years the morally worst Mediaeval rulers were the Popes; far worse that the average contemporary secular monarch.
ping
Their conclusions are based on the documents in the archives. No different from Von Sybel's investigation of the Prussian archives. Of course it is one-sided. but before you can conclude that those documents are false, you would have to show that by referring to contrary evidence. Lawrence of Arabia is famoiusly credited with saying that documents lie. But we have to have some way of knowing this. You are simply brushing this research aside because it goes against your beliefs.
If the Catholic Church believes people will be contaminated makes it mandatory for those people to be exposed to the entire Bible, at least every three years. (It's considered a mortal sin otherwise.) Sorry if that gets in the way of your hatred and intolerance.
"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons." Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii.
This means that anyone excommunicated from the Roman church whome a catholic in good standing chooses to murder is fair game and the charge of murder will not fall upon them. It doesn't even bother to reach the extent of pronouncing them a heretic which is only done under Lateran IV after a year of thoughtful time to recant. Even a mere excommunicant is at risk of their life. There's more. Innocent III & IV, Honorius III, Gregory IX from whome the Decreti above derives all had some to say on this.
Innocent IV is the one who gave the world Ad Exterpanda - the defining of the authority to torture someone to the point just short of killing them. I think most are aware of the devices used by the inquisition that are recorded today and still available for viewing to this day. It is rightly recorded that not killing one with torture didn't mean that the person might not have been better off dead by the time the inquisitors were finished. For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, try here
Killing these folks was exactly what was sought. When the Constitution of lombardy came up, it became law of Rome - not just Germany, the Pope made it law in Rome. There is no doubt - none - exactly what Rome meant by "extirmination"
Innocent also gave us Cum adversus haereticam I believe, and down the road, Boniface VIII gave us the Liber Sextus. Every pope practically had something to offer in tweeking the extent to which torture might be applied. Extirmination did not mean chasing people out of Roman or Catholic lands, Again, I remind everyone of Groups like the Waldenses who were chased to the ends of the earth practically and slaughtered wherever they might be found. If extirminate merely meant to remove from Catholic lands, the example of the Church should demonstrate that - it does not. Quite the contrary it demonstrates just what the text says Exterminate - murder - in the territories nobles occupy anyone found to be a heretic.
No need. Anyone who reads this thread can see your many mistatements and on a macro level decide if they could possibly be accidental, or if in fact they as a group and on whole must be intentional.
Wallow on.
How many people would OJ Simpson have to kill to be guilty of murder?
Answer: More than two, obviously.
How many people must the atheist Soviet Union put to death to be an unforgiveable atrocity?
Answer: The masses were put to death by merciful atheist elites, thus saving them from meaningless lives. It isn't the quantity of death, so much as the quality the redeems.
Unless, your Jewish.
Oh, to the contrary, I'd offer that there is every need. You've slandered me at this point and do so without evidence of any kind. As it stands, you are guilty of bearing false witness and to this point of sniping. The forum rules are quite clear about your behavior. If it's a personal problem, there is a place to settle it and it isn't on the thread. If it is something with any factual ground, you are bound by scripture to correct me. That's called chess, you are in check - move or shut up.
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.