Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter eichenb2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eichenb2

Guest
Has there ever been a death penalty imposed by the Catholic church for apostasy?
 
:rolleyes:

You should learn a little more about it before drawing such a childish comparison between Islam and Christianity.
 
Well, well, well…It seems that up until not too long ago, a Christian could be executed for apostasy. Oh, it gets better…they could tortured and THEN executed for apostasy. Islam is not alone!
Click to expand...
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnapos.htm
Click to expand...
Uh…Reading through that link, I saw one mention of the death penalty:
To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De JudÊis; “Corpus juris romani ante-JustinianÊi” (Bonn, 1840), 1521 - 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61].
Click to expand...
One must keep in mind that for a very long time, there was little seperation of Church and State. Catholicism was the national religion in a great many places, and to preach heresy or to draw people away from the faith was not a far cry from revolting against the State.
And there was nothing in the article about people being tortured and then executed for apostacy. Unless you’re drawing from their mention of the Inquisition and slapping on the historical falacies regarding that point in time.
 
eichenb2 said:
Well, well, well…It seems that up until not too long ago, a Christian could be executed for apostasy. Oh, it gets better…they could tortured and THEN executed for apostasy. Islam is not alone!

ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnapos.htm
Click to expand...
Will you provide documents showing actual proof of your statement. Was this at the explicit order of the Church? Was this an isolated event?

How long ago did this take place?
Who was involved? What were their names? What was the acusation? What was the actual penalty imposed?
 
FanChan said:
Uh…Reading through that link, I saw one mention of the death penalty:

One must keep in mind that for a very long time, there was little seperation of Church and State. Catholicism was the national religion in a great many places, and to preach heresy or to draw people away from the faith was not a far cry from revolting against the State.
And there was nothing in the article about people being tortured and then executed for apostacy. Unless you’re drawing from their mention of the Inquisition and slapping on the historical falacies regarding that point in time.
Click to expand...
As in Islamic history, there was no separation of church and state. What historical fallacy would you be suggesting. I know that over 3000 people were killed; most after being tortured. The bottom line is that Islam’s apostasy penalty is not far-fetched and, in fact, is very similar to Christian apostasy in history.
 
eichenb2 said:
As in Islamic history, there was no separation of church and state. What historical fallacy would you be suggesting. I know that over 3000 people were killed; most after being tortured. The bottom line is that Islam’s apostasy penalty is not far-fetched and, in fact, is very similar to Christian apostasy in history.
Click to expand...
Let’s see…the Inquisitions took place over a period of four or five hundred years, from the Medieval Inquisition in 1184 in response to Catharism until the Roman Inquisition that started in 1542. The Spanish Inquisition was between them, starting in 1478, in order to indentify conversos, or Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity in order to gain power. It also had the responsibility to clear the names of people who’d been falsely accused of heresy.

I apologize for suggesting you were one of those who still believed millions were killed by the Inquisition, but to suggest that 3000 people being executed over half a millenia as being severe is somewhat naive. The truth is, the Inquisition was incredibly fair in its judgement, and so just in its treatment of the people on trial that many criminals would commit heresy solely in order to be judged by the Inquisition rather than the government courts. And while it is true that a few of the rooms the questionings took place in did have torture devices in them, they were more often just for show, to encourage the truth out of the one being questioned. There’s little evidence that people were tortured. If you can find sources that show evidence of it, I’d be interested to see them.

Lastly, the heretics that were executed were dangerous to the faithful. These were people that not only dissented from the faith but wanted to bring others with them. The value of the soul meant a great more in those days than it does today. The shepherds were protecting their sheep. While execution isn’t necessary today with a world of information, the same could not be said of those times. An antidote for a poisoned mind was not so readily at hand.
 
KestrelRose said:
Will you provide documents showing actual proof of your statement. Was this at the explicit order of the Church? Was this an isolated event?

How long ago did this take place?
Who was involved? What were their names? What was the acusation? What was the actual penalty imposed?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of books about it. By the way, it was an isolated event for each of the people killed! I know that the Church and Popes have sanctioned murder, as do most historians. Don’t reply to me with a bunch of questions, when you haven’t taken any time to read about it. Go to your local library and read! You will probably compartmentalize the information and keeping accusing Muslims of being barbarians. But, made you will, at least, feel guilty.
 
FanChan said:
Let’s see…the Inquisitions took place over a period of four or five hundred years, from the Medieval Inquisition in 1184 in response to Catharism until the Roman Inquisition that started in 1542. The Spanish Inquisition was between them, starting in 1478, in order to indentify conversos, or Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity in order to gain power. It also had the responsibility to clear the names of people who’d been falsely accused of heresy.

I apologize for suggesting you were one of those who still believed millions were killed by the Inquisition, but to suggest that 3000 people being executed over half a millenia as being severe is somewhat naive. The truth is, the Inquisition was incredibly fair in its judgement, and so just in its treatment of the people on trial that many criminals would commit heresy solely in order to be judged by the Inquisition rather than the government courts. And while it is true that a few of the rooms the questionings took place in did have torture devices in them, they were more often just for show, to encourage the truth out of the one being questioned. There’s little evidence that people were tortured. If you can find sources that show evidence of it, I’d be interested to see them.

Lastly, the heretics that were executed were dangerous to the faithful. These were people that not only dissented from the faith but wanted to bring others with them. The value of the soul meant a great more in those days than it does today. The shepherds were protecting their sheep. While execution isn’t necessary today with a world of information, the same could not be said of those times. An antidote for a poisoned mind was not so readily at hand.
Click to expand...
You need to visit the museums of inquisition in Spain and South American. travel.webshots.com/album/553407069tAprzO
By the way, your last paragraph is the EXACT same justification for killing apostates in the Muslim world. 👍
 
eichenb2 said:
There are plenty of books about it. By the way, it was an isolated event for each of the people killed! I know that the Church and Popes have sanctioned murder, as do most historians. Don’t reply to me with a bunch of questions, when you haven’t taken any time to read about it. Go to your local library and read! You will probably compartmentalize the information and keeping accusing Muslims of being barbarians. But, made you will, at least, feel guilty.
Click to expand...
I have not made any accusations. You have made accusations, the burden of proof is in your court.

Give me the names of the books, their authors, their credentials.
 
I know that the Church and Popes have sanctioned murder, as do most historians.

__

Please give the name of one pope who sanctioned murder during his pontificate.

Would you be so kind?
 
eichenb2 said:
:crying:
Click to expand...
That’s hardly an intelligent response to a perfectly valid statement, one I was going to make as well.

I have done plenty of reading regarding the Inquisitions. I was taught all about the common notion that they were terrible, evil things in school - a Catholic school at that - and it is through further education that I have come to the understanding that they were not terrible at all. At the very least, they can hardly be compared to the Islamic executions. It still stands that a great many criminals in France, Spain, and the various other locations of the Inquisitions requested to be tried by the Inquisitors, or purposefully did something to ensure they would be tried by them, solely because the Inquisitors were so much more just and kind than the government courts.

So, again, if you can give me specific citations for historical sources that show how terrible the Inquisition was, I’ll gladly look at them. But if all you can do is say there are plenty, or point me towards a source that consists of nothing more than opinion or slanted history - written by such people as those who have a vendetta against the church - then I can’t take any of it seriously. I certainly won’t be made to feel guilty. No Catholic should feel guilty about the Inquisition.
 
:eek:
FanChan said:
That’s hardly an intelligent response to a perfectly valid statement, one I was going to make as well.

I have done plenty of reading regarding the Inquisitions. I was taught all about the common notion that they were terrible, evil things in school - a Catholic school at that - and it is through further education that I have come to the understanding that they were not terrible at all. At the very least, they can hardly be compared to the Islamic executions. It still stands that a great many criminals in France, Spain, and the various other locations of the Inquisitions requested to be tried by the Inquisitors, or purposefully did something to ensure they would be tried by them, solely because the Inquisitors were so much more just and kind than the government courts.

So, again, if you can give me specific citations for historical sources that show how terrible the Inquisition was, I’ll gladly look at them. But if all you can do is say there are plenty, or point me towards a source that consists of nothing more than opinion or slanted history - written by such people as those who have a vendetta against the church - then I can’t take any of it seriously. I certainly won’t be made to feel guilty. No Catholic should feel guilty about the Inquisition.
Click to expand...
Gee…a Catholic school taught you that the Inquisitions were innocent, huh? What a shocker!!!
 
eichenb2 said:
:eek:

Gee…a Catholic school taught you that the Inquisitions were innocent, huh? What a shocker!!!
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. I said the Catholic school taught me that the Inquisition was evil and terrible and tried to make excuses for why the Church wasn’t bad because of it. It was my own study outside of school that brought me to understand that there is no need for excuses, as the Inquisition wasn’t nearly as terrible as history makes it out to be.
 
There are a number of good books on the various inquisitions, like

Michael Tavuzi. “Renaisance Inquisitors: Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy, 1474-1527.” Brill, 2007.

Edward Peters “Inquisition.” University of California Press, 1989.

William Monter. “Frontiers of Heresy” Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Richard Kieckhefer “The Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.” University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979.

To name a few. By and large historical sholars have agreed (and this is what Peter’s great book is about) that the historical inquisitions operated in a far more judicious and humane way than polemical literature makes out. However, inquisitions did use judicial torture (usually the strapado) to elicit confessions. I know William Monter wrote a statistical article on the “how many” question of tortured and “relaxed to the secular arm” for execution. The bibliographic information eludes me, but the numbers were much smaller that the millions polemical literature has proposed.
 
It was not William Monter, but here is the ref.

Jamie Contreras, Forty-Fpoour Thousand cases of the Spanish Inquisition (1540–1700): Analysis of a Historical Databank, in “The Inquisition in early modern Europe: studies on sources and methods” edited by Gustav Henningsen, John A. Tedeschi, Charles Amiel.Northern Illinois University Press, 1986.
 
statimsciens said:
There are a number of good books on the various inquisitions, like

Michael Tavuzi. “Renaisance Inquisitors: Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy, 1474-1527.” Brill, 2007.

Edward Peters “Inquisition.” University of California Press, 1989.

William Monter. “Frontiers of Heresy” Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Richard Kieckhefer “The Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.” University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979.

To name a few. By and large historical sholars have agreed (and this is what Peter’s great book is about) that the historical inquisitions operated in a far more judicious and humane way than polemical literature makes out. However, inquisitions did use judicial torture (usually the strapado) to elicit confessions. I know William Monter wrote a statistical article on the “how many” question of tortured and “relaxed to the secular arm” for execution. The bibliographic information eludes me, but the numbers were much smaller that the millions polemical literature has proposed.
Click to expand...
Confessions drawn out by torture…:hmmm: I wonder how truthful they were? So, it appears that the Church has, in fact, authorized the use torture and execution (by the state, of course) for heresy and apostasy. Also, Popes have had armies and announced crusades to eradicate the same. What is the problem with Islam, then???
 
eichenb2 said:
Confessions drawn out by torture…:hmmm: I wonder how truthful they were? So, it appears that the Church has, in fact, authorized the use torture and execution (by the state, of course) for heresy and apostasy. Also, Popes have had armies and announced crusades to eradicate the same. What is the problem with Islam, then???
Click to expand...
First of all, these things happened quite a while ago. While that in and of itself is a weak defense, it should still be kept in the back of your mind. Things were different then. The Church today would never sanction execution or the building up of armies in order to stamp out non-believers.

Second, Islam isn’t just about executing apostates and heretics. The Church executed people who were actively opposing the faith and creating civic unrest. Islam calls for the execution of anyone who disagrees, any and all infidels.

Third, try to remember that some of the things that happened regarding the Crusades were not so much ordered by the Church as they were ordered by a certain person or people. The Church, in its foundation, does not require going to war. There is no Catholic equivelant to Jihad in Church doctrine. Whereas Jihad is part of the Islamic faith. It’s not just a leader or two saying they should do this, it’s their faith requiring it.

Hopefully that gives you something to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top