The Real Inquisition: Investigating the popular myth.

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

[SoothingDave]

Scripture?

Titus, "all authority," you know the drill.

SD

[Havoc]

Cause your answers to them would reveal exactly how much you are just blowing smoke and how consistent you are. That's why I don't expect you to answer. Are you a pacifist? An anarchist? Is the use of force always wrong?

Again, What does scripture say, Dave? I've given you my answer already, you're looking for a way to avoid scripture based on reason. What does scripture say. Put down the sword, Drop the rock - Though the law demands her life, you have no right to take it - we are under GRACE.

[SoothingDave]

Why don't you point out exactly where you have answered my questions? Or even better, just answer them in a clear and unequivocal way?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Titus, "all authority," you know the drill.

Titus 2:
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Does this mean if one "disregards" you it is ok to kill him?

[RobbyS]

Then you will be interested in reading what the recent report has to say and compare that with what you have read already. I would like to have your impression. Heresy trials and witchcraft trials, need to taken separately, if only because witchcraft was regarded by many learned men as a secular matter (e.g. Cotton Mather) The witch-craze is certainly one of the strangest social phenomenon of European history.

IAC, What seems to ring true from what I have read above in the article is that the Church did at least bring jurisprudence to the process of trying heretics, a kind of recovery of the sort of due process that was in effect in late Roman times. I think that torture is allowed under the civil law, so our current practice of prohibiting it is a welcome new invention.

BTW, Those who have "gone ape" about the ABU Graib incident don't know that Iraqis in particular and Middle eastern people in general don't in principle condemn torture . The world norm today is closer to Our old wild west justice or to to English Star Chamber trials then we would like to think.

[Havoc]

I gave scripture and have alluded back to it over and over again. That is your answer. Or did you think I could disregard scripture to give you an answer other than Christ allowed. See, you aren't asking what God says about it. You're specifically asking me to form an opinion apart from what God has said - the very thing you would accuse me of to abuse me with.

[perform_to_strangers]

You brought out this quote as an example of St. Thomas Aquinas using the word "to exterminate" to mean "to kill." If you were right, an equivilent reading of the sentence would be "...to be killed thereby from the world by death." That sentence makes no sense and thus fails to support your assertion.

OTOH, if TA used "to exterminate" to mean "to drive out," the sentence would read "...to be driven out thereby from the world by death." If I'd never heard the word exterminate before, this second interpretation is the one I'd conjecture from the context.

[ought-six]

The Church did indeed bring order to the trials. But it also championed the use of torture, as it reasoned that a confession was necessary to save the souls of the accused (not a confession in the sense that someone confessed to committing a crime or a civil wrong, but in the way of a mea culpa); and the Church opined that for such serious offenses as heresy, the confession must be particularly heartfelt, and the surest way of enacting true contrition was by suffering pain (i.e., torture). The Church realized
-- correctly -- that an accused would gladly confess to almost any crime in order to escape torture, thus such a confession was not valid. In order for the confession to be true, the Church reasoned that it must be "confirmed" by torture and pain and suffering.

[OLD REGGIE]

You brought out this quote as an example of St. Thomas Aquinas using the word "to exterminate" to mean "to kill." If you were right, an equivilent reading of the sentence would be "...to be killed thereby from the world by death." That sentence makes no sense and thus fails to support your assertion.

OTOH, if TA used "to exterminate" to mean "to drive out," the sentence would read "...to be driven out thereby from the world by death." If I'd never heard the word exterminate before, this second interpretation is the one I'd conjecture from the context.

I brought out two quotes of Thomas Aquinas, one of which you choose to ignore because it doesn't satisfy your twisted logic.

In the event you still question how Aquinas thought "heretics" should be treated I'll post the one you keep forgetting:

Aquinas.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Perhaps you should study what Aquinas meant by "put to death." and "severed from the world by death."

Do you suppose he meant to kill them and then ship their bodies elsewhere?

[RobbyS]

Which gets us down to the particulars of what constituted torture, which could be anything from being racked to punishment that a monk might take on voluntarily, and how many accused were severely tested as the prisoner in Poe's "Pit and the Pendulum "and how many were simply " punished." Torture would serve the salutary purpose of discouraging the heretic from lapsing. In an age where the pain and pleasure calculus is regnant, and where the euthanasia movment has taken hold because pain has become the only evil to avoided absolutely,
it is hard to understand an age in which cardinals dressed in silk also wore hairshirts.

[SoothingDave]

I gave scripture and have alluded back to it over and over again. That is your answer.

I can only take that to mean you are indeed a pacifist and an anarchist. It would seem to fit, since you are not man enough to even declare what it is you believe, and instead engaging in guessing games and hiding.

SD

[Havoc]

I can only take that to mean you are indeed a pacifist and an anarchist. It would seem to fit, since you are not man enough to even declare what it is you believe, and instead engaging in guessing games and hiding.

I stated what I believe, Dave. And I have made it clear that my position is that of the scriptures I quoted. Personal opinion and reason do not trump what God has clearly stated. Therefore my reasoned opinion is a moot issue. I have to stand on what Christ said. And that I have quoted already, then alluded to and paraphrased a number of times. I'm sorry you respect neither scripture nor Christ's word on the subject; but, you need not lie about me because of it..

[SoothingDave]

I stated what I believe, Dave.

No, you haven't. You have weaseled your way out of answering what are quite simple questions. Why won't you answer?

Are you an anarchist? Are you a pacifist?

Just answer. Be a man.

SD

[Havoc]

I am a Christian, Dave. And as I've stated so many times it isn't funny, I believe precisely as Christ taught.

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I don't think that is in any way unclear, Dave. but we can inject you into the John passage if you like for example

[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

---insert Dave's revised standard -- [7a] Then saith Dave to him, Why shouldn't I. Are you an anarchis? Are you a pacifist? Just answer. Be a man. --- end insert -- [8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

[SoothingDave]

What is it that makes you incapable of answering? Are you ashamed?

Just be a man and answer the question. Yes, if you really are an advocate of paifism and anarchy, you will lose even more of my respect. But that isn't something you regard anyway.

So why not answer?

It is hardly standard Christian understanding that either of thses passages requires an absolute prohibition on the use of force and on the keeping of civil order. So I am trying to get you to clarify if you are deviating from the normal understanding of these. Are you meaning to make it sound as absolute as you are.

You make the familiar mistake to think that when I question you I am questioning Jesus. You are not Jesus. You are not above questioning. Especially when you are being deliberately unclear.

SD

[Havoc]

Again, Dave, do we need hand puppets and diagrams for you?
Christ said you have no right to stand in mortal judgement over someone for their sin. None. End of statement. I don't see an enumerated list of exceptions. We live under Grace - not the law. Jesus was in no way unclear. Read my prior statement.. several times until hopefully it sinks in. Jesus' words are the final authority. End of it.

[SoothingDave]

Again, Dave, do we need hand puppets and diagrams for you?

Just answer the questions. It's not too much to ask, though I've had to, what?, 6 times now?

SD

[Havoc]

Just answer the questions. It's not too much to ask, though I've had to, what?, 6 times now?

Though I be not the savior as I assume your next charge will dally with, I follow him and I don't find that following him is accomplished in turning from his command and his word and seeking the reason of myself or other men in place of what he has clearly leveled as his measure of justice. Grace, not the sword is the rule of the day. You made to yourselves a rule of the sword and you were put to it. Who then must speak to you to get you to heed the word of Almighty God? I find it no robbery to speak in his stead in saying Not my will; but, God's. Not my word but God's. Not my opinion or reason; but, God's. Your clergy has set itself above God in this matter and others. Tempt me no further on the matter. If you can't accept the Word of the living God, then there is no answer in the universe for you and nowhere to turn. You follow another master. I'm sticking with mine.

[perform_to_strangers]

I didn't address the first quote because it doesn't contain the word "exterminate." If we were arguing that these passages support the death penalty for heresy, then there'd be no argument. It's clear that's what they say. But you didn't write, "Thomas Aquinas supported the death penalty for heresy." You wrote that Thomas Aquinas used the word "exterminate" to mean "kill" and used these quotations to support your assertion; however the example you chose demonstrates the opposite of your argument, that he had to expand on the word "exterminate" to get the meaning across. Your first example, that you've reposted here, reinforces this understanding; this time the word used is "to sever." Again, he has to expand on the word; severed from what? Not from the Church, not from society, but "from the world, by death."

[OLD REGGIE]

If it is ever necessary for you to hire an Exterminator because of a bug or rodent problem be certain the exterminator is fully aware you don't want the problem solved by "killing" those creatures. You simply want them moved to your neighbor's house.