The Real Inquisition: Investigating the popular myth.

National Review Online ^ | June 18, 2004 | Thomas F. Madden

[Cap'n Crunch]

oh boy is this gonna be a good one.

[dangus]

>> The only thing that would convince me a 99% survival rate is good, would be New Testament justification for one execution for the sin/crime of heresy.<<

I can't find a new testament justification for death sentences for sedition, treason, terrorism, etc., either. Did you ever think that 99% of the heretics were NOT killed that maybe the 1% that were were involved in something along the lines of sedition, treason, incitement to riot, etc.?

[Antoninus]

What gave the Catholic Church a rightful claim to ownership of the properties "stolen" by those who chose to remove themselves from the power of Rome? Did they not have any claim to the property, as it had been their ancestors who had "donated" it?

Hey, did you write speeches for Mao? Or Castro? Or Ortega? Or Allende?

[dangus]

>>>> Now THERE'S an impartial, level-headed sort *eyeroll*<<<<
>> Um, excuse' but how impartial does one need to be to list the torture devices used by the inquisition? <<
I'm not even going to deny that they were used or not. I don't know. I do know that people could be tortured only once and for only up to fifteen minutes, but I do imagine that fifteen minutes probably felt like a lifetime. I'm just saying your source is notorious for slander.

>>The guy happens to be accurate. <<

Well, that's where the issue of impartiality comes in. Is he?

>> Ah, so murder in defense of the church isn't counted as a murder. <<

*KILLING* in defense of legitimate government is not called murder. In primitive times, justice was difficult to establish. Basically, all this was saying was that defense of the legitimate authority constituted a valid defense in court. Not advisable in today's society, but not exactly horrific, or unique to the Catholic church.

>> It is noteworthy that Lateran IV Canon 3 is still the Law of the Church and that it is still lawful in the church of Rome to murder heretics.. or should we qualify that and say "people whom Rome deems to be heretics". <<

That is ridiculous. It is not lawful in the Church to disobey civil authority.

>>It only excommunicates people from your religious organization for listening to heretics. If they recanted, they could be brought back in - just as with the nobles; but, if after a year they had not recanted, then they were deemed heretics and their lives were then considered forfeit. <<

Before there was a separation of Church and state, sedition and heresy blur together. As the article makes clear, 99% of the time, the people accused of heresy were NOT put to death. You apparently read this statement as if there was no distinction, just 1% were randomly chosen for death. I would submit that although primitive justice can be rather capricious, there was some *reason* why 99% were spared, and only 1% executed.

Is this justice acceptable in modern society? No. But please don't pretend that such severe justice was limited to the Catholic Church, or that Protestants never imposed the death penalty for heresy. Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists... there is no branch that did not spill great quantities of blood, or align themselves with the Muslim horde.

Members of the Catholic Church *did* commit great sins, and no-one denies that. The Church never claimed to be inerrant. But the Church was fighting to preserve unity and civilization itself, while the Protestants joined forces with the Armies of the Dark Prophet, Muhammed, himself.

This article exposes how the ugly deeds of the church were exaggerated many times over. It reminds me of the liberals who claim hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and make the abuses of Abu Ghraib seem like the standard policy.

[dangus]

By the way Havoc, I'm still looking for your brilliant rebuttals.

[Havoc]

Still handwringing I see.

[GoLightly]

I can't find a new testament justification for death sentences for sedition, treason, terrorism, etc., either.

Now we're getting somewhere. Has the RCC taken a position on them?

[Oztrich Boy]

You can say that the Inquisition was "enlightened." if one confines oneself to the field of jurisprudence. I think its rules of procesure was an advance over the Civil Law. Still I can justify it only by remembering that sometimes it was dealing with people as rabid in their rejection of convention

I Have seen the future and it works!

You sound like a Westerm "progressive" in the thirtes defending Stalinism on the basis of the test of the Soviet Constitution, and the danger of the "counter-revolutionary elements"

[GoLightly]

LOL Good one. Bet you were one of the kids on the playground when I was a kid, telling me I was going to hell & couldn't play on their swings.

[RobbyS]

And you are saying that the execution of heretics, as defined by the Church, could not be a good thing. Since the reason for the execution of heretics was to protect civil society, then I say it would depend on what danger the heretics presented to society. You think that heresy can never be a crime under any circumstances. I think this is a delusion.

[NYFriend]

So what's the harm of printing in English, German, French, etc.? The NT was written in what, Aramaic and Greek? The Church was OK with translating to Latin. How come? My theory is to make it harder for common people to read the Bible.

[GoLightly]

Joan of Arc. Saint or sinner deserving death?

[synwojciecha]

Of course execution leads you dead. The point is that Lateran 4 did not result in mass executions of heretics, because that's not what it was calling for. There were 3 tools: calling to repentence, imprisonment, and execution. The latter was the least-used option.

[edsheppa]

If there is anything I've ever seen that is heretical, it is what you just said.

Doesn't one have to be a believer in order to be a heretic?

So you don't think you should stand in judgement over your fellow humans, eh? Doesn't it give you pause that others Christians who believe just as passionately as you, and maybe more, have a different conclusion? It's historical fact that standards and beliefs have changed dramatically over time and from place to place. To me that is powerful evidence that absolute values, should they exist, are unknowable by us.

[edsheppa]

Nice to believe in inevitable progress but that is a matter of faith.

I didn't say it is inevitable; it's conceivable that things and people could start getting worse and keep on doing so. By that's not the historical pattern and as a conservative I bet with the history, not against it.

Only in retrospect do things always "come out right."

Isn't that what history is all about? The long view, lessons learned and all that?

I should think that after looking at the events of the 20th Century that you might see that things can turn out very badly indeed.

And amazingly, in the end they didn't - again. Hitler was defeated. The Jews have a country. The Soviet empire defeated. China is still an issue but I'm hopeful on that front. Islamic terror will be overcome also.

It is certainly true that events often take a turn for the worse. That's historical fact too. With some ingenuity and effort perhaps we can reduce the severity and frequency of those setbacks as we appear to have done with the economic cycle.

[Havoc]

lol. Right, I've never been a catholic but these guys think me a heretic. As Catholicism goes, I am. As Christianity goes, I'm not.

As far as standing in judgement, sorry, try again. You essentially have done what others always do - you've abused the standard and misconstrued it to mean something it doesn't.
Something a Christian would understand.

As far as what is believed - there is One belief. Christ said in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
There are two ways to read this; but, only one is right. There are two baptisms listed in the New testament - water baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. John's Baptism was of water. Jesus' baptism was of the Holy Spirit. To say that they are interchangeable is fallacy. It is not a matter of who's interpreting it. Nor can one say that believeing either makes one right.

Now, can people look at that and get it wrong legitimately - yep. And that is why Christ spoke in parables - knowing that those who weren't of him would misread what he said, get it wrong and thusly betray themselves simply by opening their mouths to pronounce the misunderstanding. This is why we look to Scripture as the final authority.

You're empassioned plea that other "christians" believe somethin different is begging the question and on it's face faulty. Simon Magus was born again and yet believed he could buy the Holy Spirit. That didn't make his belief valid and he was duly rebuked. And there are plenty of people out there claiming Christianity that haven't the first clue what it is. Christianity is not a matter of diverse opinions. Christianity is an agreement penned by God and handed to us to accept or decline. Failing to accept it doesn't mean that interpreting it a different way than was intended becomes the norm. And there is no matter in language in normal daily life where such a standard is applied accept in investigation - trying to use one's intellect to figure out something that is not a blatent given.

I don't know where you got your notions of understanding truth; but, they aren't spiritual and they sure aren't christian.

Saying that standards and beliefs have changed is suspect on it's face. Christianity was handed us as a completed work. Christianity is unchanging. Other religions might change based on fads; but, God isn't into fads. God is consistent.
And Christianity as a covenant was delivered as the promise of his original covenant with Israel. There may be a bunch of sects out there that have changed over time because they've been following philosophy instead of Christ. But Christianity is the same covenant it was when it was delivered and sealed by the blood of Christ.

It's hilarious to sit on a thread where we hear that getting something wrong is heresy worth putting someone to death over and at the same time, one can sit and beg reason over the ability to interpret something differently and it should be "ok". It's not ok. But at the same time, it's also not ok to murder someone for being wrong. That we get from scripture. And no, there isn't another way to interpret it.

Finally, absolute values are knowable to us because God gave us his word on it in scripture. If you don't have the capacity to believe his word, then this is all elementary - you've failed the first requirement of being Christian - that is believing God.

[Havoc]

Hey, psst, remember, they rewrote history on Joan - blamed her death on the civil authorities and then made her a saint. We even get goofy movies about it now...

[GoLightly]

Just the thought of pork with clams turns my stomach. I think I woulda been a goner.

"Your Holiness, the Queen does not believe in God."

ROTFL From some of the stuff I've read, dare I say he could have just said, "Your Holiness, the Queen is a de' Medici."?

Okay, ducking for cover, cuz I'm pretty sure that might not be taken too kindly by some around here.

[VOA]

I appreciate Madden's article, as well as his articles on The Crusades that appeared
in the wake of 9-11.
But, from my amateur and naive standing, I do take a little issue with this passage:

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.

I get the feeling that the truth was between the reality of the Opulent Spain
and the atrocities that the Conquistadors and other Spanish adventurers were
visiting on the New World. Weren't some of these even graphically recoreded in
a famed manuscript by some priest?
And even my friends from Mexico complain that the Spanish authorities made
bribery part of the governmental system in their New World holdings in order
to keep a tighter leash on their New World administrators.

I'm not running down the Spain of that time...at that point it may have been unfairly
criticized by the competitors in the emerging Protestant realm.

I'm just throwing this out there as "grist for the mill" because I think Madden
maybe didn't give "the rest of the story".

(and I admit that the when the Protestants came to North America...they repeated some of
the mistakes of the Spaniards, for sure)

[edsheppa]

And there are plenty of people out there claiming Christianity that haven't the first clue what it is.

Well, from where I sit, their symmetric claim about you is just as valid, which is to say not at all or at least not knowably so.

Saying that standards and beliefs have changed is suspect on it's face. ... God isn't into fads. God is consistent.

It's amazing that you think standards and beliefs have not changed over history and geography. Even within Christianity they have done so. And the tensions between the Old and New Testaments is plain - in the one it's smite thy neighbor and in the other love him as yourself.

On this judging thing, didn't Christ authorize his disciples to judge the sinfulness of men? My recollection is that the authority was unconstrained.

Oh well, that's enough for me. Feel free to have the last word.