Not at all. The Church was asked by the state to determine if a person claimed to be Catholic yet held heretical beliefs. What do you suggest the Church do, lie?
The parallel with crimes against the state that are recognized today is correct. You would not accuse a witness in a trial of a spy a murderer if his expert opinion is correct?
What did I "obfuscate"? You want an apology for the Holy Inquisition? Not from me, Sir.
I won't have access to the Internet for a week or so. I trust Vladimir can give you further explanations, if he be so kind.
BroJoeK,
you wrote:
“For many centuries, an accusation of “heresy” by the Church was a death sentence. That’s a fact.”
No, it isn’t. The vast majority of people accused of heresy or even convicted of heresy were never tortured nor ever executed. This is clearly shown in every record ever found in record to every inquisition trial or series of trials. Out of 930 persons tried by inquisitor Bernard Gui 42 were turned over to the secular arm and executed. Three more would have been turned over if they had not died of natural causes. That’s just under 5%. Clearly the facts stand against you. Care to try again?
“My example of Jan Hus was only one of many, indeed thousands, I could have selected. Note again the trial scene here:”
What about it? Václav Brožík was a Czech nationalist who painted several scenes calculated to enflame Czech nationalism. So?
“So, if the charge of “heresy” was a death sentence, and if on occasion the charge itself was false, then was not the charge an act of murder?”
If it was deliberately falsely made, yes. And you know what the penalty was for that? Death. There was an inquisitor in Spain who was discovered to be trumping up charges against people. He was caught, tried, convicted and executed.
“I think it was, and was just one of many crimes the Church must atone for.”
There was no crime on the part of the Church. If someone acted inappropriately, then that person is responsible. The Church, however, did nothing wrong.
“The Church might begin its atonement (at-one-ment) by being very circumspect about the use of the word “heresy” — especially relating to those who insist that scripture takes precedence over Church doctrines & traditions, no matter how ancient.”
The Church is extremely circumspect and careful with the use of the word “heresy”. Sola scriptura is a heresy nonetheless.
“I’d say, a serious and legitimate interpretation of scripture cannot, by any definition, be “heresy.””
The Church taught that long before you came along. Sola scriptura is not a “serious and legitimate interpretation of scripture”.
“Surely the text itself is rich enough to allow for more than one precise understanding?”
On some things, no. On others, yes. In any case, there is nothing in scripture that supports sola scriptura.
“No, I do NOT suggest the Catholic Church abandon even one of it’s beliefs & traditions. I do suggest the Church acknowledge there may be other legitimate ways of interpreting scripture while still remaining accepted within the apostolic and catholic body of Christ’s spiritual Church.”
Sola scriptura is not acceptable and is not practiced by any orthodox Christian.