N
NorthTexan88
Guest
I was having a talk with my aunt who was telling me that the “Popes” burned and hung Christians for centuries. Is this true?
- Status
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Short answer…no.
Now ask her for her sources.
Protestants and Catholics usually attach blame to the other side for deaths
when it was the Civil Authorities who did the burning, hanging, draw and quartering, drowning etc.
Back when the State religion identified with the Ruler, to oppose the religion was to oppose
the ruler. In Germany and at one time England, you needed a score card to keep up.
I forgot the exact term, but it was as this…so goes the prince, so goes the people. Meaning if your prince was protestant you were protestant, if catholic you were catholic.
Now if she is talking about the various heretics over the last 2000 years, like the Arians etc.
Sorry, the rulers did the deposing and killing. Once again, those who rebelled against the authority of the Church were thought to be disloyal to the local crown.
Mark
Now ask her for her sources.
Protestants and Catholics usually attach blame to the other side for deaths
when it was the Civil Authorities who did the burning, hanging, draw and quartering, drowning etc.
Back when the State religion identified with the Ruler, to oppose the religion was to oppose
the ruler. In Germany and at one time England, you needed a score card to keep up.
I forgot the exact term, but it was as this…so goes the prince, so goes the people. Meaning if your prince was protestant you were protestant, if catholic you were catholic.
Now if she is talking about the various heretics over the last 2000 years, like the Arians etc.
Sorry, the rulers did the deposing and killing. Once again, those who rebelled against the authority of the Church were thought to be disloyal to the local crown.
Mark
M
midori
Guest
There have been plenty of times in history when people were persecuted and massacred for being the wrong brand of Christian. Think of Cromwell and the English Civil War, or the persecutions that flopped back and forth during the times of Henry VIII/Mary/Elizabeth, where you could get your estate confiscated (or worse) for worshiping in the wrong church. Or think of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, which was just a tiny part of the French Wars of Religion, which stretched for over 35 years. Or heck, even think of the French Revolution-- the clergy were persecuted and executed just as freely as the nobility. Why do you think so many people immigrated to America and Australia? Europe was rife with religious persecution, and it had more to do with the State being so wrapped up in making sure everyone conformed to whatever the State Religion du jour was, rather than a series of Popes going on some bizarre centuries-long rampage. 
I’d ask your Aunt to cite her source if she’s going to make that kind of claim.
“Wow, I’d never heard of that before. I’m a little concerned and want to find out more. Can you recommend a book that covers that subject? Or can you give me the names of some of those guys, so I can read up on them?”
I’d ask your Aunt to cite her source if she’s going to make that kind of claim.
“Wow, I’d never heard of that before. I’m a little concerned and want to find out more. Can you recommend a book that covers that subject? Or can you give me the names of some of those guys, so I can read up on them?”
F
followingtheway
Guest
Well Catholic is a type of Christian and many other people were burned by other Churches such as in the Anglican church, the Calvinist Church and in Eastern Orthodox countries.
God bless :byzsoc:
David
P
puzzleannie
Guest
ask her for proof. since it did not happen that will be hard to come by. The burden of proof, just like in a court of law, is on the person who makes the accusation.
R
razredge
Guest
Well, there was the Albigensian Crusade in 13th Century France where Pope Innocent III said of the Cathars - ‘these Christians are worse than Muslims’ and subsequently thousands of them, man, women or child were killed or burnt at the stake by Crusaders.
D
dcdurel
Guest
The Popes never taught that people were to tortured or put to death for their beliefs. It was the secular governments of those times who introduced torture, death, etc, for heretical beliefs. The Church always taught that no one is forced to follow the Catholic faith.
G
GraceSofia
Guest
No. I highly recommend you get this book: Seven Lies About Catholic History.
Welcome to the Church, by the way; I see you are starting RCIA.
G
Gregarious
Guest
What a convenient way to avoid the issue altogether by claiming it was the state authorities who did it, you’re absolutely right, the Church itself didn’t physically perform the tortures or executions, they did all the convictions and handed people over
Considering the influence of the Church on the state, that old saying “friends in high places” applies here, it was every bit the Church manifesting its fake brand of authoritarianism where it shouldn’t have been, and people have the gall these days to try and defend the bloody works of that era. Despicable, the long and short of it is, yes they did.
If they didn’t, then John Paul II was apologizing needlessly then, he must have been making things up.
Considering the influence of the Church on the state, that old saying “friends in high places” applies here, it was every bit the Church manifesting its fake brand of authoritarianism where it shouldn’t have been, and people have the gall these days to try and defend the bloody works of that era. Despicable, the long and short of it is, yes they did.
If they didn’t, then John Paul II was apologizing needlessly then, he must have been making things up.
G
Gregarious
Guest
To people continuously claiming that the Vatican had no involvement or is guilt free from executions should see this list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See
Not all of those people’s deaths are connected to heresy, I think until the 17h century is where most of the deaths connected to heresy are relevant. The vast majority appear to be for other things.
There are some cases where some death penalties carried out have had a Pope intervening to extraditing people to another province to carry out the death sentence, so much for the innocence of the clergy.
These things would flow so much smoother if people didn’t try to hide or justify the actions of the Church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See
Not all of those people’s deaths are connected to heresy, I think until the 17h century is where most of the deaths connected to heresy are relevant. The vast majority appear to be for other things.
There are some cases where some death penalties carried out have had a Pope intervening to extraditing people to another province to carry out the death sentence, so much for the innocence of the clergy.
These things would flow so much smoother if people didn’t try to hide or justify the actions of the Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
FWIW, no body is trying to ‘hide’ the actions of the Church. “Justify” --hey, that is a reasonable thing to do. If actions have a legitimate reason at the time, they are ‘justified’ and there is nothing ignoble or wrong.To people continuously claiming that the Vatican had no involvement or is guilt free from executions should see this list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the_Holy_See
Not all of those people’s deaths are connected to heresy, I think until the 17h century is where most of the deaths connected to heresy are relevant. The vast majority appear to be for other things.
There are some cases where some death penalties carried out have had a Pope intervening to extraditing people to another province to carry out the death sentence, so much for the innocence of the clergy.
These things would flow so much smoother if people didn’t try to hide or justify the actions of the Church.
Also, with respect, WIKIPEDIA? As in, ‘anybody’ can write this article, without having to provide proof that meets academic, unbiased standards?
Your problem (or one of them) is that you’re trying to retroactively put 21st century understandings back into 16th/17th century people and institutions. Concepts like nationalism and individualism were just starting to be thought of then, certainly they weren’t considered the norm or the ‘right’ of a given person, country, or institution.
You could say (and you probably would) that an ‘average’ Southern landowner living in 1812 and owning slaves was engaged in a moral wrong. I wouldn’t argue. But to that man, at that time, his ownership would be legal, ethical, and moral according to the understanding of the vast majority of society, and ‘justified’ by centuries of precedent and teachings.
But that man would not know of any other way for his society to FUNCTION.
Cut forward to an average Southern landowner in 1912. To even THINK of owning slaves then would be a moral wrong, legal wrong, ethical wrong, according to the understanding of the vast majority of society and ‘justified’ by some 50 years of precedent and teachings.
That man would not of himself ‘know’ of any other way for his society to function than ‘without slaves’, though his father and grandfather if alive WOULD know.
And this man’s (1912) children and grandchildren wouldn’t know any other way and would be appalled at the idea of slavery.
Can’t you POSSIBLY understand that a person who had never ‘known’ an airplane, let alone lived to see them become mass produced and ubiquitous, might live a life where he couldn’t IMAGINE people being ‘able to fly?’ Do you think he’s STUPID because he’s not prescient enough to know that ‘some day’ these things will be possible?
G
GraceSofia
Guest
First of all, look again please at the OP. I was responding to the sub-text of the question, which concerns the usual anti-Catholic bashing of exaggerated numbers and straw demons of inquisitors and popes, conjuring up the image of the Big Bad Evil Church torturing and killing millions, no, let’s make it hundreds of millions, of people down through the centuries.
In perspective and with better recent history, the numbers have been proven to be way less so that where anti-Catholic writers said millions, it is down to hundreds or thousands. Perspective is everything, and in one post, it is impossible to explain every situation. It needs time and reading on the part of anyone who wishes to understand history. So the best short answer to the OP is “no.”
The long answer is that members of the Church have sinned throughout the centuries. Is that earth-shattering news? However, Catholics need to inform themselves about the Black Legends and anti-Catholic lies that abound.
Blessed John Paul’s apology was not a political but a religious and spiritual act, addressed first of all to God; it was an examination of conscience and preparation to enter the third millenium. In that document, called Memory and Reconciliation, it was noted that there was a danger that “the simple admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church.”
In perspective and with better recent history, the numbers have been proven to be way less so that where anti-Catholic writers said millions, it is down to hundreds or thousands. Perspective is everything, and in one post, it is impossible to explain every situation. It needs time and reading on the part of anyone who wishes to understand history. So the best short answer to the OP is “no.”
The long answer is that members of the Church have sinned throughout the centuries. Is that earth-shattering news? However, Catholics need to inform themselves about the Black Legends and anti-Catholic lies that abound.
Blessed John Paul’s apology was not a political but a religious and spiritual act, addressed first of all to God; it was an examination of conscience and preparation to enter the third millenium. In that document, called Memory and Reconciliation, it was noted that there was a danger that “the simple admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church.”
M
midori
Guest
Okay… let’s grab a random century and see what we find.
Pietro Bernardino, follower of Savonarola (1502)
Cardinal Alfonso Petrucci, convicted of plotting against Pope Leo X (July 16, 1517)
**- He fought for these guys, fought for those guys, fought for the Pope, fought for himself, fought for the Pope again, the Pope made him a Count three years before his death. He was accused of an assassination attempt in Rome (victim not stated), was beheaded. No real surprises here…
**Cardinal Carlo Carafa and Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano, nephews of Paul IV, sentenced to strangulation in prison and beheading, respectively, by Pius IV, as his first public act (March 5, 1561)
**- Carlo Carafa, another condottiero mercenary with an “insatiable thirst for power”, who massacred Spaniards during the course of wars and did other nice things like that. Uncle Paul IV made him a Cardinal, but his “government was unpopular in Rome and he developed a reputation for avarice, cruelty and licentiousness, as well as for sodomy” to the point that Uncle Paul IV had to send him into exile, partly because his incompetence nearly resulted in another sack of Rome. Pius IV gave him a nine-month-long trial for political abuses, at the end of which he was executed, although “[h]is execution was considered at the time to have been motivated primarily by political factors as his pro-French, anti-Spanish policies.” Giovanni was mostly just along for the ride, living in Carlo’s shadow, but “[t]he sentence was overturned under the next pope, Pius V, in 1567, after a petition by their surviving brother, and their prosecutor was executed for having deceived Pius IV.”
Pietro Bernardino, follower of Savonarola (1502)
Yeah, I can see that trying to incite people to violent revolt and getting yourself set up as Pope of a secret society aren’t a good recipe for a long life during his time period.
Cardinal Alfonso Petrucci, convicted of plotting against Pope Leo X (July 16, 1517)
- A Borghese involved in a conspiracy? Perish the thought. Yes, people who were involved in plots against prominent Roman citizens generally were killed.
**- He fought for these guys, fought for those guys, fought for the Pope, fought for himself, fought for the Pope again, the Pope made him a Count three years before his death. He was accused of an assassination attempt in Rome (victim not stated), was beheaded. No real surprises here…
**Cardinal Carlo Carafa and Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano, nephews of Paul IV, sentenced to strangulation in prison and beheading, respectively, by Pius IV, as his first public act (March 5, 1561)
**- Carlo Carafa, another condottiero mercenary with an “insatiable thirst for power”, who massacred Spaniards during the course of wars and did other nice things like that. Uncle Paul IV made him a Cardinal, but his “government was unpopular in Rome and he developed a reputation for avarice, cruelty and licentiousness, as well as for sodomy” to the point that Uncle Paul IV had to send him into exile, partly because his incompetence nearly resulted in another sack of Rome. Pius IV gave him a nine-month-long trial for political abuses, at the end of which he was executed, although “[h]is execution was considered at the time to have been motivated primarily by political factors as his pro-French, anti-Spanish policies.” Giovanni was mostly just along for the ride, living in Carlo’s shadow, but “[t]he sentence was overturned under the next pope, Pius V, in 1567, after a petition by their surviving brother, and their prosecutor was executed for having deceived Pius IV.”
M
midori
Guest
Pomponio Algerio, civil law student at the University of Padua (1566)
So… 100 years… eleven people… how many of their fates were a surprise to anyone? Especially anyone who’s read half a book on Italian history?
- No sources cited in the article. Needs more background.
- He “wholeheartedly accepted Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith, though he repudiated a policy of schism.” Not bad. It’s only been 67 years into this century, and we finally come across someone who’s at least a little sympathetic, except for the fact that maybe a Papal nuncio should be a little more cautious about who he chooses to hobnob with. Fourteen years and three Popes pass. He has a few clues that maybe he’s not on a healthy road-- two (ignored) summons before a Roman tribunal might be cited. A de’ Medici decided to turn him in to win brownie points for himself; Carnesecchi sat in jail for a year, and was eventually executed.
- Sketchy article. Not much detail. Taught Greek, Hebrew; was part of Leo X’s literary circle. Wrote a poem-in-three-books containing proofs of the divine existence, etc. Not bad. Eight years later, wrote a tract that caused the Roman Inquisition to come down on him— but he successfully defended himself against charges of heresy. Good for him. Wrote a far less innocuous tract afterwards-- but it didn’t get published until 30+ years after his death. As far as the causes of his death, the article only says his enemies renewed their attacks on him in 1566; he was accused in 1567; he was tried in 1569; executed in 1570. Since there’s no details, we can’t really make any judgment calls.
- A miller. “His philosophical teachings earned him the title of a heresiarch during the Inquisition”. A heresiarch is basically a person who spins off their own doctrine while claiming to maintain orthodoxy— such as Arius (Arianism), Henry VIII (Anglicanism), etc. Needs some extra citations… the article is pretty vague and sketchy when it comes to details.
- Beatrice, her siblings, and her stepmother bludgeoned her sexually abusive, violent father to death and threw him off the balcony to make it look like an accident-- no one was fooled, of course. Not the best way to handle a bad family situation, but okay. People notice, “Hey! He’s missing! Where did he go?” Beatrice’s lover gets tortured for information, but doesn’t spill the beans, and dies instead. A family friend in the know, however, ordered the murder of one of her father’s vassals, and of course, that plot got exposed. Beatrice & Co. were arrested, found guilty, sentenced to death. The ordinary citizens of Rome knew what a lousy guy her father had been, and knew the background behind the second murder attempt— they wanted the tribunal to delay any executions. But y’know, there had been a bunch of family murders in the area recently, and Clement VIII wasn’t in the mood to be lenient. Killing family members just isn’t kosher, and they were executed, except for her 12-year-old brother, who just had his family’s property confiscated and was condemned to be a galley slave for the rest of his life (after watching his family’s execution). He was freed a year later, though. The common people still thought fondly of Beatrice and how she had stood up to the arrogant nobility by murdering her rotten father.
- Executed for heresy on pantheism. During his trial, defended the Arian heresy (God the Son is subordinate to God the Father). Charges included:
Not so great for a priest to run around saying, “Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician.”
So… 100 years… eleven people… how many of their fates were a surprise to anyone? Especially anyone who’s read half a book on Italian history?
G
Gregarious
Guest
Be my guest, please justify some of those killings. Go ahead, you pick one (preferably one of the names with some historical background so we can all investigate it)
No no, the onus is on you to provide the proof that somebody is lying or making unacademic claims, wikipedia is getting more and more accepted to the point that I do a lot of university level research references from there without any problems, if it’s good enough for an academic institution, it should be good enough for you here. Please tell me which of those people listed there has been wrongly listed, if you can’t, then stop twisting and shouting.
Your problem is that the deliberation you’re implying is that morality would then be relative, if it was OK for the Church to kill those people back in history therefore it would imply it’s all relative right? So it could be OK in this day and age too if the Church so wills it, hasn’t the Church taught what is objectively immoral remains always so? What you’re propositioning here is in stark contrast to the Church’s own teaching. Also you’re forgetting JPII apologized for all of these things, why would he apologize if people like me aren’t “Retroactively” understanding the status quo of time?
It is who you are not aware of what you’re alluding to, retroactively analyzing events in history is only really relevant when it’s something to do with matters not directly related to morality, i.e. subjective things, such as differences in dating now and then, when we deal with morality, the Church holds that morality is objective, so you can’t retroactively analyze morality, if it’s immoral now, it should have been immoral then. You can’t have a double standard because that contradicts the Church’s own position, before attempting to give me a lesson on historical analysis, please consider learning something about it yourself.
G
Gregarious
Guest
Here is an interesting case:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponio_Algerio
halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/28/37/91/PDF/Santarelli_Pomponio_Algieri.pdf
Unfortunately my level of Italian is not that great to understand such a document properly, it appears to be well cited.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponio_Algerio
A reference is given to:
halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/28/37/91/PDF/Santarelli_Pomponio_Algieri.pdf
Unfortunately my level of Italian is not that great to understand such a document properly, it appears to be well cited.
G
Gregarious
Guest
Here are more clown trials that I’m not “retroactively analyzing”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola
G
Gregarious
Guest
15 minute claim to fame:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Bugatti
Clearly these are more things I’m not retroactively analyzing.
M
midori
Guest
The thing about the Inquisitions is that their focus wasn’t so much on massacring heretics as it was to get them to recant and fall back in line with dogma. There’s a lot more to the Pompiono story than just his feelings about humanity being corrupt, but it’s hard to find the details in English to get the big picture about his specific case. Since your Italian is a lot better than mine is, can you tell me what the big kerfluffle was over whatever it was he was talking about with the Eucharist? I can’t make heads or tails of it-- Italian wasn’t one of my languages.
R
razredge
Guest
That is by far the most inane thing i’ve heard in a long while - the Church may ‘only’ have declared someone to be a heretic but they knew full well what the punishment for heresy was, if they did not force the secular authorities to enact the death sentence for heresy in the first place.
This is exactly what the Jewish Sanhedrin did to Jesus, condemning him as a heretic and blasphemer and demanding the Roman authorities execute him.
I’m afraid you are simply indulging in either wishful thinking or worse, historical revisionism on the many atrocities the Church has committed over the centuries. Such an attidude is no better than Holocaust denial.
- Status