Copernicus Persecuted?

[grannymh]

Also, as I asked in a response to Axion, is a person’s theological beliefs a reason to torture and murder them?

Peace to you.

This is a direct question to Chaunceygardner and anyone else who posts about the Inquisition in any manner.

What teachings of Jesus Christ have been changed by the Catholic Church because of the Inquisition?

Please notice that the question asks what teachings have been changed which is extremely different than what has been ignored.

For those in doubt as to how to answer the question, here is a link. Hint: when using the Catholic Catechism check footnotes.


Blessings,
granny

Jesus Christ is the source of all truth.

 

[diggerdomer]

In his book, Dialogo, published in 1632.

This also appeared in Dialogo. In that book he tried to interpret Holy Scripture. That is the book that got him into all the trouble.

Further, Galileo did indeed teach his (at the time) hypothesis as a fact. But he was not a complete fool. He did not so much do this in his books, thought his disclaimers at the beginings were generally considered inadequate based on the standards of the time, but pincipaly in his public presentations, which could more easily be dismissed as “some muisunderstood me”.

Thanks. I am trying to locate a copy so I can read it for myself. Do you have a more specific reference, within the work, you could point me toward? I would prefer to go right to the places you are referring to rather than having to read the whole thing (actually, I would like to read the whole thing, but in the interest of this Thread I’d prefer to go to the specific excerpts you are referring to).

Thanks again.

 

[chaunceygardner]

This is a direct question to Chaunceygardner and anyone else who posts about the Inquisition in any manner.

What teachings of Jesus Christ have been changed by the Catholic Church because of the Inquisition?

Please notice that the question asks what teachings have been changed which is extremely different than what has been ignored.

For those in doubt as to how to answer the question, here is a link. Hint: when using the Catholic Catechism check footnotes.


Blessings,
granny

Jesus Christ is the source of all truth.

I will readily admit that I do not know what church teachings have been changed. I tried to use your reference and could not find anything in the catechism about “inquisition” but did find a few things about “heresy”. Nothing that I saw would appear to help me answer that question. I am a slow learner, so I would appreciate another hint or two.

It is an interesting question. I would bet that very little, if anything, has changed. I would expect that the approach to dealing with heresy HAS changed, back to what it was prior to the start of the inquisitions (plural, since there were more than one).

That is the best I can come up with at the moment. I look forward to learning more.

 

[chaunceygardner]

To Grannymh:

In response to your question directed at me I did some more research. My answer to your question of “What teachings have changed” is that none have changed as a result of the Inquisitions. The problem was not the Church’s teaching, it was in applying those teachings, and the extreme abuse of power. Pope John Paul II said as much in giving the Church’s “mea culpa” for those events.

The one paragraph (2298) that I found in the Catechism that comes closest to addressing your question said this (emphasis mine):

“In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

So, The Church did not abide by its own teachings, as commanded by Jesus. In 1998, Pope John Paul II confessed that the Church’s actions were wrong, and said:

**"Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” **(Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35)

I then made the mistake of reading Innocent IV’s Bull *Ad exstirpanda *(1252) before lunch. I immediately lost my appetite. Here is some of it what it said.

Civil authorities were required to immediately start naming heretics. Those charged with performing the duties of the Inquisition were ordered to investigate and interview whole neighborhoods, if necessary, and to “compel” witnesses to identify heretics and anyone helping heretics. There was no trial or hearing. In fact, no one could come to the defense of an accused heretic without incurring the same punishments. They were not allowed counsel of any kind. They were arrested and chained, all of their money and property confiscated, and their home and any other dwellings they owned were destroyed. This was all to be done within 10 days of the day the heretic was identified.

The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them.

So torture was okay, as long as you didn’t break arms or legs, or kill them. As we know, that rule was not followed very carefully. And nothing was said about determining actual guilt or innocence. If you were accused, you were guilty!

The victims were without hope of leniency or forgiveness:

None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall, either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular out cry, or the innate humanity of those in authority, be in any way waived or pardoned.

So even if an official had even a small amout of Christian love within him, it would have been to no avail.

One can see how people might want to protect themselves and get back at their enemies by being the first on their block to point the finger. And then there is the profit motive. One third of the fines and “profits” from the disposition of the heretic’s assets went to the state or district government; one third to the officials who handled the case; and one third to the Church (including the inquisitors themselves, who also were paid by the civil government). So there were some big bucks to be made here, especially if you could nab a wealthier “heretic”.

What amazes me is the total audacity and unbelievably un-Christian actions taken under the guise of protecting the faith. The propagation of fear and hate instead of love and forgiveness. It still turns my stomach to think about it. And then I wonder why it took hundreds of years to recognize and admit the grievous mistakes that were made. No wonder so many people switched to Protestantism (although some of those churches had their own inquisitions and witch hunts as well).

Thanks, Grannymh, for “forcing” me to learn a little more Church history, as terrible as it is. All I can say is: No wonder Copernicus withheld publishing his theory and Galileo “recanted”. He got off easy!

 

[Axion]

I see Chauncey is adopting the usual anti-Catholic fundie tactic of: when your arguments have been refuted on the original issue - change the subject and introduce other scatter-gun accusations, while failing to acknowledge your initial error.

We started off on Science and the Church, now it’s changed to “torture is bad”. Yes. Torture is bad, however its been practiced by protestants as much as Catholics, in fact by all religious pursuasions and none - so what’s the point being made?

In fact limited torture was re-introduced into the judicial system around 1200 ad for many reasons. The major one was the move from Trial by Ordeal - itself a form of torture - to trial by inquiry (inquisition) and evidence.

Previously accused had to hold a red hot iron or perform some other task, and if you survived you were innocent. If you died or were badly injured, you were guilty. This was banned by the Church at the 4th Lateran Council, and the banning led to inquisitorial procedures being used - the taking of evidence, including strictly limited torture of some accused who were thought to be devious or concealing evidence. It is in this context that forms of torture were used to a limited extent in civil and heresy investigations.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I see Chauncey is adopting the usual anti-Catholic fundie tactic of: when your arguments have been refuted on the original issue - change the subject and introduce other scatter-gun accusations, while failing to acknowledge your initial error.

We started off on Science and the Church, now it’s changed to “torture is bad”. Yes. Torture is bad, however its been practiced by protestants as much as Catholics, in fact by all religious pursuasions and none - so what’s the point being made?

In fact limited torture was re-introduced into the judicial system around 1200 ad for many reasons. The major one was the move from Trial by Ordeal - itself a form of torture - to trial by inquiry (inquisition) and evidence.

Previously accused had to hold a red hot iron or perform some other task, and if you survived you were innocent. If you died or were badly injured, you were guilty. This was banned by the Church at the 4th Lateran Council, and the banning led to inquisitorial procedures being used - the taking of evidence, including strictly limited torture of some accused who were thought to be devious or concealing evidence. It is in this context that forms of torture were used to a limited extent in civil and heresy investigations.

Good to hear from you, Axion. I thought that my post might cause a reaction like yours, so let me try to clear this up a bit.

First, the post you are referring to was a result of a question, directed to me, from “grammymh”, regarding what would have changed in the Church’s teachings as a result of the Galileo affair and the Inquisitions. It “forced” me to do some reading about the Inquisitions, which I had not done to any great extent previously. Contrary to your first statement, I was NOT trying to use an “anti-Catholic fundie” approach; instead I was responding to the question by directly quoting from two Popes and the Catechism. Certainly not anti-Catholic sources by any definition.

My conclusion, based on the info I found, was that the Church’s teachings were basically unchanged, and that it was some of the people who were entrusted with implementing those teachings who had grievously strayed. That also is not anti-Catholic, since that is what John Paul II told the world and what the Catechism says.

My post WAS pertinent to the original question about Copernicus. My earlier posted responses were (1) stating that Copernicus was not persecuted by the Church; (2) that he delayed publishing his results for unknown reasons (but the possibilities are that he did not have the physical evidence to back up his theories, and that he was concerned about backlash from the Church and Inquisition); (3) that Galileo did expand on and provide some evidence for the heliocentric theory proposed by Copernicus, but mostly got into trouble for mocking the Pope. Then there was some discussion about the role of the Church and the Inquisition in the control of and dissemination of scientific ideas and writings, and in punishing scientists who proposed physical theories that did not agree with the religious doctrines of that time.

So I ended up reading some history and other information, including that provided by the Church itself, about the Inquisitions. And some of what I read was upsetting, as it still is when I think about it. Spreading blood and gore in the name of piety does not change the inherent evil of it (as the Church now readily admits). To excuse it on the basis that others did the same, as you seem to say, has never been an accepted defense, whether in civil courts or in the court of God.

And I too pointed out that the Catholic Church is certainly not alone in having that black mark. As we know, the world today is still full of religious zealots who have no qualms over killing and destroying in the name of their god. It does not benefit the Catholic Church, or any other church that did similar things, to try to downplay the reality of what happened, or to talk around the monstrous evil that the Inquisitions truly were. As the Pope and the Church has done, we should all admit that it was wrong and misguided, we are sorry for it, we have learned from it, and we will never let it happen again. That is what Jesus would expect us to do.

Finally, no one has ever called me a “fundamentalist” before. I am fairly certain that I am less fundamentalist than you, Axion. And I am not trying to be anti-Catholic, just trying to discuss and learn more about God in these forums.

 

[VociMike]

The topic of punishment of heretics is a touchy one, largely because so many people aren’t interested in truth and understanding, but only in clubbing the Church. But an honest Christian must try and view the matter historically. In the Old Testament, God ordained severe punishments, including death, for heretics. But of course non-Catholic Christians don’t club the Jews for that. Why, then, do they (some of them, at least) club the Catholic Church for what must be seen as a logical and historical extension of those punishments?

It goes without saying that the Church no longer condones such punishments, nor do governments mete them out. But historically it should be perfectly understandable that the same reasoning and motives that justified the OT punishments would be offered to justify the Catholic (and Protestant, let’s not forget that) punishments. Honesty demands that this be understood.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The topic of punishment of heretics is a touchy one, largely because so many people aren’t interested in truth and understanding, but only in clubbing the Church. But an honest Christian must try and view the matter historically. In the Old Testament, God ordained severe punishments, including death, for heretics. But of course non-Catholic Christians don’t club the Jews for that. Why, then, do they (some of them, at least) club the Catholic Church for what must be seen as a logical and historical extension of those punishments?

It goes without saying that the Church no longer condones such punishments, nor do governments mete them out. But historically it should be perfectly understandable that the same reasoning and motives that justified the OT punishments would be offered to justify the Catholic (and Protestant, let’s not forget that) punishments. Honesty demands that this be understood.

Fair and reasonable comments. It is not proper to judge what people did in the past based on today’s standards and understanding.

We are a New Testament people, however, not Old Testament. In the OT there was a lot of punishment, war, and killing, sometimes ordered or sanctioned by God. Although Jesus discusses death and punishment, I don’t think He ever advocated or sanctioned it, other than when talking about it in a spiritual way, as coming from God. The punishment of unrepentant sinners, heretics and such is rightfully in His hands.

 

[rpp]

I see Chauncey is adopting the usual anti-Catholic fundie tactic of: when your arguments have been refuted on the original issue - change the subject and introduce other scatter-gun accusations, while failing to acknowledge your initial error.

We started off on Science and the Church, now it’s changed to “torture is bad”. Yes. Torture is bad, however its been practiced by protestants as much as Catholics, in fact by all religious pursuasions and none - so what’s the point being made?

I am not convinced that torture is inherently bad or sinful. I will concede that it is often abused.

In fact limited torture was re-introduced into the judicial system around 1200 ad for many reasons. The major one was the move from Trial by Ordeal - itself a form of torture - to trial by inquiry (inquisition) and evidence.

Previously accused had to hold a red hot iron or perform some other task, and if you survived you were innocent. If you died or were badly injured, you were guilty. This was banned by the Church at the 4th Lateran Council, and the banning led to inquisitorial procedures being used - the taking of evidence, including strictly limited torture of some accused who were thought to be devious or concealing evidence. It is in this context that forms of torture were used to a limited extent in civil and heresy investigations.

Quite correct. It is also important to note that these same inquisitional rules stated that a person could only be subjected to torture once during his/her entire lifetime, no matter what later accusations may arise. A physician had to examine the person to determine if they were healthy enough and finally, no produre could last more than 15 minutes. Thus a healthy person could only be subjected to torture for no more than 15 minutes during their entire lifetime.

Source, The Pleasures of the Torture Chamber by John Swain, 1931

Now that we have settled that, let stop letting a rude anti-Catholic hijack this thread and get back to the topic.

 

[grannymh]

Good to hear from you, Axion. I thought that my post might cause a reaction like yours, so let me try to clear this up a bit.

First, the post you are referring to was a result of a question, directed to me, from “grammymh”, regarding what would have changed in the Church’s teachings as a result of the Galileo affair and the Inquisitions. It “forced” me to do some reading about the Inquisitions, which I had not done to any great extent previously. Contrary to your first statement, I was NOT trying to use an “anti-Catholic fundie” approach; instead I was responding to the question by directly quoting from two Popes and the Catechism. Certainly not anti-Catholic sources by any definition.
.

My apology Chaunceygardner, for not getting back to you. I really appreciated your research and response. I did have a couple of thoughts. But it seemed as if I would sit down to the computer and then have to leave.

Today is my birthday so I’m celebrating tonight and then leaving to celebrate 4 August birthdays with family.

Please be patient with me…
granny

 

[chaunceygardner]

:
let stop letting a rude anti-Catholic hijack this thread and get back to the topic.

Thanks, rpp, it is good to hear from you again, too. You apparently didn’t read all of my post after Axion’s, for if you had you would have seen that I was trying to get back to the thread.

Actually, I think we have conclusively determined that there is no indication that Copernicus was persecuted in any way, so really there is no reason to continue with this thread.

I also summarized the points that I and others had already made, in a fair and reasonable way, pointing out that other churches had similar problems, and noting that violence in the name of religion continues today in many parts of the world. Nothing “anti” there.

I am still at a loss on how quoting the Pope and Catechism in acknowledging mistakes that were made hundreds of years ago is anti-Catholic. Or is discussing anything that places the Church in a bad light some time in its history considered anti-Catholic, no matter how factual?

I think reconciliation with God, whether by an individual or an entire Church, is a very good thing. I give huge credit to John Paul II for showing bravery and humility in doing that.

Also, I would appreciate if you could point out my “initial error”. I am always trying to improve.

Peace be with you.

 

[chaunceygardner]

My apology Chaunceygardner, for not getting back to you. I really appreciated your research and response. I did have a couple of thoughts. But it seemed as if I would sit down to the computer and then have to leave.

Today is my birthday so I’m celebrating tonight and then leaving to celebrate 4 August birthdays with family.

Please be patient with me…
granny

No Problem. Take your time, and

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

Chauncey

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thanks, rpp, it is good to hear from you again, too. You apparently didn’t read all of my post after Axion’s, for if you had you would have seen that I was trying to get back to the thread.

Actually, I think we have conclusively determined that there is no indication that Copernicus was persecuted in any way, so really there is no reason to continue with this thread.

I also summarized the points that I and others had already made, in a fair and reasonable way, pointing out that other churches had similar problems, and noting that violence in the name of religion continues today in many parts of the world. Nothing “anti” there.

I am still at a loss on how quoting the Pope and Catechism in acknowledging mistakes that were made hundreds of years ago is anti-Catholic. Or is discussing anything that places the Church in a bad light some time in its history considered anti-Catholic, no matter how factual?

I think reconciliation with God, whether by an individual or an entire Church, is a very good thing. I give huge credit to John Paul II for showing bravery and humility in doing that.

Also, I would appreciate if you could point out my “initial error”. I am always trying to improve.

Peace be with you.

I don’t think you are being rude or anti-Catholic at all. There were some bad Popes, and they had a lot of authority which they misused. There were also some bad Protestants, (Oliver Cromwell comes to mind!) who misused their power. But I particularily liked your comment about being Christians and following Christ who definitely would not condone torture or misuse of power.

I think you have been very thoughtful and not at all rude. If anyone is being rude it is RPP.

 

[VociMike]

Fair and reasonable comments. It is not proper to judge what people did in the past based on today’s standards and understanding.

We are a New Testament people, however, not Old Testament. In the OT there was a lot of punishment, war, and killing, sometimes ordered or sanctioned by God. Although Jesus discusses death and punishment, I don’t think He ever advocated or sanctioned it, other than when talking about it in a spiritual way, as coming from God. The punishment of unrepentant sinners, heretics and such is rightfully in His hands.

I agree with this. But we must be careful about not making a rigid divide between OT and NT. We are a New Testament people, yes, but even more so, we are a people of God. The Council of Jerusalem shows that even the Apostles weren’t sure what parts of the OT were to be adhered to, and what parts Christians were not bound by. And that’s what was at issue in the heretic situation, I believe. What was the proper Church response to heretics, when the Church had direct or indirect (Catholic nations) political power? I claim that the answer was not obvious, as many in modern times assume without even thinking about it.

I think we all agree that heretics pose a danger to the Christian community and even to people’s eternal life (even if we would disagree in many cases as to who is a heretic). Thus the Christian world still opposes heretics, even while it has drastically changed the manner in which they are opposed.

And I would also mention that one can quote some pretty militant words of Christ to justify violence, even if we now reject that understanding.

 

[edwest2]

A quick note. It’s interesting to see the split between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, as if they were two separate beings. What did Jesus say? Moses wrote concerning Him.

In the Old Testament, God communicated through the prophets, to whom Jesus also refers, and regarding how they were treated. God spoke through the prophets but the Light had not yet come into the world. Man was thinking he was having a great time not listening to God. Many times, God did miracles for the Israelites and many times they ran off to follow their sinful natures, but not all. A remnant always remained.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rpp]

Thanks, rpp, it is good to hear from you again, too. You apparently didn’t read all of my post after Axion’s, for if you had you would have seen that I was trying to get back to the thread.

{snip}

I do not generally read your posts anymore. This is the farthest I have gotten in reading them for quite some time.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I agree with this. But we must be careful about not making a rigid divide between OT and NT. We are a New Testament people, yes, but even more so, we are a people of God. The Council of Jerusalem shows that even the Apostles weren’t sure what parts of the OT were to be adhered to, and what parts Christians were not bound by. And that’s what was at issue in the heretic situation, I believe. What was the proper Church response to heretics, when the Church had direct or indirect (Catholic nations) political power? I claim that the answer was not obvious, as many in modern times assume without even thinking about it.

I think we all agree that heretics pose a danger to the Christian community and even to people’s eternal life (even if we would disagree in many cases as to who is a heretic). Thus the Christian world still opposes heretics, even while it has drastically changed the manner in which they are opposed.

And I would also mention that one can quote some pretty militant words of Christ to justify violence, even if we now reject that understanding.

I think you hit on the key point. It was the partnership between church and state during that time period that contributed to all the problems. In the first few hundred years of the Church there were several splinter groups that were considered heretical. The Orthodox Christian Church (meaning the church that descended from the Apostles) was able to deal with those groups without resorting to physical punishment and torture. It was during the time when secular and church leaders were aligned with each other and the Church could call on secular authority to enforce punishments that things got out of hand.

A good reason for separation of church and state.

Edwest2 wrote:

A quick note. It’s interesting to see the split between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God, as if they were two separate beings.

Another interesting point. Some of those early heretical groups, such as the Marcionites, considered the God of Jesus and the God of the Jews and creation to be two different gods. The God of creation was flawed and created an evil world, and often brought death and destruction to those who disobeyed him. The God of Jesus was the god of love and forgiveness and sent Jesus to us to show that this second god’s way was the true path.

rpp wrote:

I do not generally read your posts anymore. This is the farthest I have gotten in reading them for quite some time.

That is quite an admission. I read all of yours in the threads we both participate in. Perhaps you should then refrain from commenting on something you haven’t read. Just a suggestion (but apparently you won’t even see this).

Peace.

 

[chosen_people]

Copernicus delayed the publication of his book until after his death in order to avoid being labeled a heretic and endure Church persecution. Galileo was brought before the Church, forced to recant his claims under threat of torture and spent the last four years of his life under house arrest.

 

[rpp]

Copernicus delayed the publication of his book until after his death in order to avoid being labeled a heretic and endure Church persecution.

Can you cite a reliable source for this. I doubt it because, as has been discussed earlier, Copernicus never disclosed his motives. It is quite probable that he delayed this not to avoid a heresy charge (which never happened as the Church actually published his works.) but to avoid public ridicule.

Galileo was brought before the Church, forced to recant his claims under threat of torture and spent the last four years of his life under house arrest.

Apparently, you have not read this thread. Your gross over-simplification is clearly not motivated by a desire to learn the truth. Or even repeat it.

If you really are interested in the truth, read the thread. If you are not, you had better start supporting your already discredited assertions.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I must agree with rpp on his response to chosen people. Especially in regards to Copernicus, we only have conjecture as to the reasons for delaying publication. And as has been mentioned, he did circulate some years earlier a condensed version of his ideas to other scientists and thinkers, both secular and clerical, around Europe. So the theory was known within the academic world, and there was no negative reaction from the Church.

I really think we have taken this as far as we can, and the original question has been more than satisfactorily answered (in the negative) by several posters.