Crusades and the Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish90

Guest
I am sorry if this is in the wrong forum, so please remove this if that is the case.

I am hoping that anyone could give me some talking points on how to defend the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Here is what I have:

Crusades:
  • Christians were forced to leave the Holy Land (also human dignity issues)
  • Turks were a threat to Christian Europe, so defensive maneuvers were permissible
Inquisition:
  • Church Courts were fairer
  • Secular courts would determine proper punishment
That is all I can think of. I really want to defend the faith against these common controversies.

God Bless
 
About the Inquisition, I suggest you read Thomas Walsh’s classic CHARACTERS OF THE INQUISITION.

It’s published by TAN.
 
The way I defend it is simple. I say yes the Church has made huge mistakes in the past, but you should not hold us accountable for something that happened hundreds of years ago, and instead should focus on what we could do better right now.

People that use the crusades and inquisition to somehow try and “disprove” the Catholic Church or use it as a reason for not wanting to be Catholic are the same kind of people that thing all blacks should be given reparations because apparently white people still “owe” something to them for slavery. It is absurd to try and hold someone accountable for the sins of their forebears.
 
The way I defend it is simple. I say yes the Church has made huge mistakes in the past, but you should not hold us accountable for something that happened hundreds of years ago, and instead should focus on what we could do better right now.

People that use the crusades and inquisition to somehow try and “disprove” the Catholic Church or use it as a reason for not wanting to be Catholic are the same kind of people that thing all blacks should be given reparations because apparently white people still “owe” something to them for slavery. It is absurd to try and hold someone accountable for the sins of their forebears.
I agree with you, that it is absurd to hold anyone accountable for the “sins” of their forebears, but it’s funny that you say that since as a Catholic you believe everyone is accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve. Less Absurd? 👍
 
Can anyone think of great talking points?

I have this so far.

Crusades:
  • Christians were forced to leave the Holy Land (also human dignity issues)
  • Turks were a threat to Christian Europe, so defensive maneuvers were permissible
  • Just War (Invasion of Europe = need for self defense)
Inquisition:
  • Church Courts were fairer
  • Secular courts would determine proper punishment mostly
  • Church’s use of the death penalty and torture were extremely rare.
    -Moses was probably the first inquisitor.
    -Jews were rarely forced to convert nor put to death
  • Those put to death were accused of murder, as well
    -The Church’s sentences were rarely severe (torture and burning at the stake), but there were iffy figures sentencing the accused
Any others, I wish to defend the faith better? Also, am I wrong with any of these please tell me.

God Bless
 
A side question about the inquisition.

Did the inquisition start mainly to achieve Catholic domination. I mean, one of the main charges during the Spanish inquisition was those of Jewish descendants who converted, but did not seem authentically converted. Why did the peaceful coexistence of interfaith people end? Has the Church always accepted interfaith people living together, anywhere or at anytime?

I ask these questions as a best as a Catholic that I think I am. I mean nothing else but charity and respect. My goal is to win every argument I can about Catholic Urban legends.

God Bless
 
I agree with you, that it is absurd to hold anyone accountable for the “sins” of their forebears, but it’s funny that you say that since as a Catholic you believe everyone is accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve. Less Absurd? 👍
Nice jibe, but you don’t quite get Original Sin. I suggest further reading on the matter.

I’m no scholar on the matter, but Original Sin actually changed the souls of Adam and Eve and this had negative effects on their children as well. It’s not so much that WE are guilty of eating the apple, it’s that BECAUSE they ate the apple, WE have a fallen propensity for sin that wasn’t present in God’s original design for man.

Now back to the thread!
 
The Inquisition is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared. The Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

The Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be g.asped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.

One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition. The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!
In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.

When defending the Church, we should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.
The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: “If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: “inquire diligently”], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.”

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, “must purge the evil from the midst of you” (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for “heresy” (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.
 
Forgot to provide citation: above material is taken from catholic answers/faith/library/faith tracts/anti-catholicism. I couldn’t post everything because it was way too long, so I picked through and found the key arguments to use in defending the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top