05 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOK, the conjunction of these two claims is rather amusing.
Even if you didn't have the time to read the whole article, surely you had something to say about the two paragraphs I quoted from the article.
"As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them."
"Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities."
If they had a duty to protect the sheep, why did they end up turning them over to be burned? Even if they didn't have such a duty, how could the Church in good conscience turn somebody over to an executioner for committing a thought crime?
05 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe acts committed by the Inquisition are incompatible with the notion that the instituion was good for humanity.
Says you.
No, really - what evidence have you provided that the conclusion was false?
Not that I need to, but for fun, I'll fight fire with fire and cite some propaganda of my own to demonstrate this.
Here's an article which claims: "The Inquisition goes down in history as one of the most horrible crime against humanity."
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/inquisition.html
The difference, however, is that I don't need to resort to propaganda to find such claims, while you need to in order to find people who say that the Inquisition was a blessing.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf they had a duty to protect the sheep, why did they end up turning them over to be burned? Even if they didn't have such a duty, how could the Church in good conscience turn somebody over to an executioner for committing a thought crime?
OK, the conjunction of these two claims is rather amusing.
"As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them."
"Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities."
If they had a duty to protect the shee ...[text shortened]... e Church in good conscience turn somebody over to an executioner for committing a thought crime?
Because public heresy is not merely a "thought crime". It threatened the stability of Medieval European society. As I mentioned in another thread, the rise of heresies in the first 15 centuries of Church History was almost always accompanied by violent rebellion and/or civil war. The duty to "protect the sheep" meant that heretics were given the opportunity to repent and rejoin society; at some point the risk posed by a persistent heretic (and hence the Bishops' duty to the rest of their flock) takes precedence.
05 Oct 05
While we're dishing out propaganda for each other to read, try this one:
http://www.reformation.org/inquisit.html
"But most people don't know that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and an instrument of the Holy Office. Hitler was never excommunicated for his crimes against humanity and causing the deaths of millions of people; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for translating the Bible into German!!"
Shall we continue in this vein, or will you admit that insisting that one's opponent read and react to propaganda is not a productive debate technique?
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S: " ... in order to find people who say that the Inquisition was a blessing."
The acts committed by the Inquisition are incompatible with the notion that the instituion was good for humanity.
Not that I need to, but for fun, I'll fight fire with fire and cite some propaganda of my own to demonstrate this.
Here's an article which claims: "The Inquisition goes down in history as one of the most horrible crime against s, while you need to
Where does the article that I gave claim such a thing ? Can you give a quote ?
Be carefull not to add another fallacy, the fallacy of Strawman-reasoning, to the ones you are allready and still are committing.
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere are several. Here's a good one:
Dr.S: " ... who is claiming that the Inquisition was a blessing"
Where does the article that I gave claim such a thing ? Can you give a quote ?
Be carefull not to add another fallacy, the fallacy of Strawman-reasoning, to the ones you are allready and still are committing.
"The Spanish people loved their Inquisition. That is why it lasted for so long. It stood guard against error and heresy, protecting the faith of Spain and ensuring the favor of God."
And the Jews loved their swimming pools.
Here are a couple more:
"The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community."
"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."
05 Oct 05
5 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt seems you are completely missing the point. I get the impression you didn't read the article to get a grip of what the author is trying to communicate. You read it with quite a different intention.
There are several. Here's a good one:
"[b]The Spanish people loved their Inquisition. That is why it lasted for so long. It stood guard against error and heresy, protecting the faith of Spain and ensuring the favor of God."
And the Jews loved their swimming pools.
Here are a couple more:
"The Inquisition provided a means for here ...[text shortened]... en not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule."[/b]
One instance just to make clear the author does not consider the Spanish Inquisition "a blessing" as you seem to be claiming:
" Everywhere they looked, the inquisitors found more accusers. As the Inquisition expanded into Aragon, the hysteria levels reached new heights. Pope Sixtus IV attempted to put a stop to it. On April 18, 1482, he wrote to the bishops of Spain:
In Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves, and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many .... "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"That was the end of the papacy’s role in the Spanish Inquisition. It would henceforth be an arm of the Spanish monarchy, separate from ecclesiastical authority."
"Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus’s successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos—but to no avail."
PS 1: Take good notice of the fact that the Spanish Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabell was an instrument in the hands of the Spanish secular authorities.
PS2: Take good notice of the fact that the Inquisition as such cannot be equated with the Spanish Inquisition.
You seem to be ignoring these two fundamental points completely.
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo what is your claim? Is it that the Inquisition had no responsibility in the matter? They created a monster.
It seems you are completely missing the point. I get the impression you didn't read the article to get a grip of what the author is trying to communicate. You read it with quite a different intention.
One instance just to make clear the author does not consider the Spanish Inquisition "a blessing" as you seem to be claiming:
" Everywhere they look ...[text shortened]... ith the Spanish Inquisition.
You seem to be ignoring these two fundamental points completely.
Do you believe it is the case that the Spanish people loved their Inquisition?
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeCreated and put there by the Pope.
PS 1: Take good notice of the fact that the Spanish Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabell was an instrument in the hands of the Spanish secular authorities.
The concentration camps of the holocaust were instruments in the hands of Nazi soldiers, not Hitler. Does that absolve him or mitigate his responsibility in the matter?
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S: "Do you believe it is the case that the Spanish people loved their Inquisition?
So what is your claim? Is it that the Inquisition had no responsibility in the matter? They created a monster.
Do you believe it is the case that the Spanish people loved their Inquisition?
I don't know. I consider this a statement that can only be understood within the context of the article and in context with the following:
My claims:
- Firstly, creating the medieval Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial field combatting mob rule, combatting arbitrary decisions by secular rulers and other injustices.
- Secondly, the Inquisition as such should not be equated with the practises of the Spanish Inquisition created and lead by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. You could say that the initial Inquisition was turned into a political instrument, which in effect was a return to arbitrary decisions and mob rule.
- Thirdly, the ecclesiastical and secular responsibilities should be investigated carefully and should not be conveniently mixed up, in particular in the case of the Spanish Inquisition.
- Fourthly, the developments and situations should be placed in their historical and cultural contexts. They should be placed in their own time. Inquisition practises then should be compared to secular practises then and not to practises now in modern Western democratic countries adhering to the Declaration on Human Rights.
05 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeCouldn't you have claimed these things without leading me on a wild goose choose through fantasyland where the street signs read "The Spanish loved their Inquisition"? Surely if these claims are true, you could find a more respectable article to support them.
My claims:
- Firstly, creating the medieval Inquisition was an improvement in the judicial field combatting mob rule, co ractises now in modern Western democratic countries adhering to the Declaration on Human Rights.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerLucifershammer,
Because public heresy is not merely a "thought crime". It threatened the stability of Medieval European society. As I mentioned in another thread, the rise of heresies in the first 15 centuries of Church History was almost always accompanied by violent rebellion and/or civil war. The duty to "protect the sheep" meant that heretics were given the o ...[text shortened]... a persistent heretic (and hence the Bishops' duty to the rest of their flock) takes precedence.
I am astonished by your position here. Whereas we know that Ivanhoe
has been drifting on the lunatic fringe for months, I never thought
that you, who have demonstrated a capacity and interest in reason,
would ever step to defend the indefensible.
The purpose of the Inquisition was for the Church to maintain control
as a signficant political force in Europe, one they saw diminishing in
the face of Protestantism and, increasingly, secularism. It was a bull-
dog tactic. It was an effort by the Church to rule by fear instead of
by Love.
Using the Wikipedia article, we can conclude that, significanly fewer
people died in the Inquisition than the romanticized reports from
earlier research asserted, a great many people died (even your source
said 3 to 5 thousand, more than in the fall of the World Trade Center).
Additionally, 125,000 were tried as heretics: fear at work.
It was an abominble practice, trying to compel people to covert
by fear, intimidation, manipulation, and, if that didn't work, being
handed over to the authorites for 'relaxed' torture.
Any attempt to paint the Church as anything other than a co-conspiritor
in this effort to maintain political control is propaganda which reinvents
and rewrites history.
I was under the assumption (perhaps misguided) that the Church has
repented of her actions and that she recognized the spiritual invalidity
of her approach to getting people to join her fold, that compelling
people by any means other than complete and voluntary complicity
was unacceptable.
I see that I was too idealistic about it. And I remain as astounded by
what I've read here as I've ever been by anyone who has claimed that
the Holocaust didn't happen.
Nemesio
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe acts committed by the Inquisition are incompatible with the notion that the instituion was good for humanity.
The acts committed by the Inquisition are incompatible with the notion that the instituion was good for humanity.
Not that I need to, but for fun, I'll fight fire with fire and cite some propaganda of my own to demonstrate this.
Here's an article which claims: "The Inquisition goes down in history as one of the most horrible crime against ...[text shortened]... s, while you need to in order to find people who say that the Inquisition was a blessing.
First question - acts committed by which Inquisition? The mythical Inquisition that sent hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to death, or the real Inquisition(s) where a few thousand people were killed over roughly four centuries? The mythical Inquisition that routinely tortured the accused, or the real one where about 2% of the cases were tortured (and about 1% tortured more than once)?
Even with the real Inquisitions - which one? The Medieval, the Roman or the Spanish? The first two were under Church control - the third wasn't.
Second question - what does 'good for humanity' mean to you? 'Good' can be used in two senses - in terms of moral rightness and in terms of societal benefits (e.g. peace, prosperity, freedom etc.)
In another thread, BdN argued that, on the balance, the French Revolution brought greater benefits (in particular, with respect to social reform) than harm. Given the undisputed acts of violence that followed the French Revolution, would you consider it 'good for humanity'?
Third question - relative to what? What Prof. Madden claims is that "the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics". Do you interpret this statement to be false relative to the conditions we experience [in Western society] today, or in terms of the conditions that existed before and during the period of the Inquisition?
The difference, however, is that I don't need to resort to propaganda to find such claims, while you need to in order to find people who say that the Inquisition was a blessing.
prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.*
Nearly everything you and I write on this forum is propaganda. Such material are still arguments, and must be refuted as such. Simply calling it "propaganda" and refusing to refute it is just a cop-out - we won't really have any meaningful discussion if we revert to this excuse every time. Certainly, once a particular argument has been refuted there is no need to address it again and again - but that is not the case here.
The articles you've cited are also propaganda. I intend to respond to them (but first, I must have dinner).
---
* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda