Crusades, Inquisition, Jews

[SPH1]

In other words, it is true that people were tortured by the Inquisition. their limbs were pulled out of their sockets by hanging during questioning and they were sentenced to be burned at the stake by the Inquisition.

Unfortunately, your view is formed by the propaganda. Just the term, Inquisition, conjures up horror…more than in any civil court. That, of course, is the point of the propaganda.

There was recently a TV documentary on the Inquisition. Had some good and bad information and points. But I recall some paintings supposedly depicting activities inside the Inquisition. But as was pointed out, none of the painters were actual witnesses, so it was all based on imagination.

EDIT: I’m not sure that the Inquisition/Church courts technically executed. I understand that the civil authorities applied that.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

NotWorthy:

If it seems like I’m curtailing, then I apologize. I feel that rationalizing my past by saying someone else’s is worse is not what Apologetics is all about. It rarely, if ever, leads to constructive talks.

Notworthy: nobody has rationalized our past by saying someone else’s is worse. That is the point I am trying to make to you and which you have evaded. It is not fitting to attribute motive to someone’s post. Yet this – perhaps with the best of intentions – is what you have attempted to do.

I agree with you that, in a general sense, rationalizing our past by saying someone else’s is worse is indeed not what Apologetics is about and that it rarely, if ever, leads to constructive talks. However, in this case, no rationalization has occurred on our part.

There is a difference in my mind between someone who posts a genuine misunderstanding – due to popular mythology – about the Church’s history on the one hand and someone who posts inaccurate attacks or attacks out of context about the Church’s history on a regular basis in order to undermine the Church and proletyze Catholics and non-Catholics alike away from the Church.

We can correct the former. We can prevent the latter from unduly influencing lurkers. That’s what we do.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

EDIT: I’m not sure that the Inquisition/Church courts technically executed. I understand that the civil authorities applied that.

The civil authorities were up to their chins in this for a number of reasons. Two come to mind:

• Heresy was considered disruptive to political stability.
• There was a lot of land and property to be grabbed from those accused of heresy and the civil authorities were into grabbing land and property where they could think up a pretext to do so.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy: nobody has rationalized our past by saying someone else’s is worse. That is the point I am trying to make to you and which you have evaded. It is not fitting to attribute motive to someone’s post. Yet this – perhaps with the best of intentions – is what you have attempted to do.

Speaking about burning, Calvin had that down pretty pat, didn’t he?

If I misunderstood the intentions of this comment, then my apologies. But also, if I misunderstood the intentions of this comment, then surely others may have also? THAT’S what I’d like to steer clear of, for others are less likely than I am to speak out on this.

Maybe I’m just overly sensitive to so much garbage that anti-catholics spew against us, that I’m trying to avoid any of us stooping to the same level. I’m NOT saying that we have, but as you well know, this type of rhetoric is a slippery slope…

 

[tomarin]

The Crusades are a fascinating time in history and well worth studying … What’s the difference between now and then?

gee, i hope there’s a huge difference between now and then. as i understand it, the crusades refer to a mission by christian knights and soldiers to liberate the holy land from muslim rule (not as some posters claimed, to save christendom from muslim domination). on the way to jerusalem and in jerusalem itself these “christians” slaughtered untold numbers of innocent jews, muslims and eastern orthodox christians who previously lived together fairly harmoniously. today that would be called a humanitarian catastrophe.

if the crusades had never happened unity with our eastern orthodox brethren would probably be a much easier sell.

 

[NotWorthy]

gee, i hope there’s a huge difference between now and then. as i understand it, the crusades refer to a mission by christian knights and soldiers to liberate the holy land from muslim rule (not as some posters claimed, to save christendom from muslim domination). on the way to jerusalem and in jerusalem itself these “christians” slaughtered untold numbers of innocent jews, muslims and eastern orthodox christians who previously lived together fairly harmoniously. today that would be called a humanitarian catastrophe.

if the crusades had never happened unity with our eastern orthodox brethren would probably be a much easier sell.

tomarin, so you are assuming that the Muslim expansion that had been going on for several centuries prior to the Crusades was going to just cease on it’s own?

 

[FightingFat]

gee, i hope there’s a huge difference between now and then. as i understand it, the crusades refer to a mission by christian knights and soldiers to liberate the holy land from muslim rule (not as some posters claimed, to save christendom from muslim domination). on the way to jerusalem and in jerusalem itself these “christians” slaughtered untold numbers of innocent jews, muslims and eastern orthodox christians who previously lived together fairly harmoniously. today that would be called a humanitarian catastrophe.

Errr, except in Palestine, Iraq, Darfur, etc, etc, etc.

if the crusades had never happened unity with our eastern orthodox brethren would probably be a much easier sell.

In 1565 we were still fighting the Muslims as they tried to invade Europe. War and expansionism has been inherent in Islam. I’m not advocating Crusade, I just don’t think we’ve seen the last of Muslim expansionism.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If I misunderstood the intentions of this comment, then my apologies. But also, if I misunderstood the intentions of this comment, then surely others may have also? THAT’S what I’d like to steer clear of, for others are less likely than I am to speak out on this.

Maybe I’m just overly sensitive to so much garbage that anti-catholics spew against us, that I’m trying to avoid any of us stooping to the same level. I’m NOT saying that we have, but as you well know, this type of rhetoric is a slippery slope…

The difference is that anti-Catholicism relies on falsities, half-truths, and truths taken out of context.

What I have posted is a fact. If folks want to dispute that what I have posted is a fact, then they are free to do that.

As for the interpretations of other folks viz what I have posted, I am not going to make the mistake of second-guessing how other folks hear what I say.

Folks are free to hear whatever they want. Folks are also free to ask for clarification if they are unsure they are hearing correctly. It is in the request for clarification and in the response giving clarification that discussion is furthered.

You have not answered what I posted on our responsibilities to lurkers concerning setting the historical record straight.

Shall we withhold information from folks? Yes or no please?

Shall we ignore the elephant in the room? Yes or no please?

Furthermore, are you disputing that the execution of Servetus took place? And that Calvin colluded in it? Yes or no please?

Thank you.

 

[NotWorthy]

The difference is that anti-Catholicism relies on falsities, half-truths, and truths taken out of context.

What I have posted is a fact. If folks want to dispute that what I have posted is a fact, then they are free to do that.

As for the interpretations of other folks viz what I have posted, I am not going to make the mistake of second-guessing how other folks hear what I say.

Folks are free to hear whatever they want. Folks are also free to ask for clarification if they are unsure they are hearing correctly. It is in the request for clarification and in the response giving clarification that discussion is furthered.

You have not answered what I posted on our responsibilities to lurkers concerning setting the historical record straight.

Ani, I love you, but I simply disagree with you. Setting the record straight on anything Calvin has done in no way clears up any past of our Church. It simply muddies the water. If our Separated Brethren wish to do this, then they are going to reap what they sew. I do not wish to see anyone use this as a tool to bring others to Christ.

Shall we withhold information from folks? Yes or no please?

Shall we ignore the elephant in the room? Yes or no please?

Furthermore, are you disputing that the execution of Servetus took place? And that Calvin colluded in it? Yes or no please?

Thank you.NO, I do not wish to withhold anything.
YES, we should ignore the elephant because I do not think the elephant is relevant.
NO, I am not disputing the execution of Servetus, nor do I care if Calvin colluded. That, in no way, explains any of the Catholic Church’s past.

If the title of this thread were “Who’s had their finger in more shenanigans”, then yes, Calvin’s actions and the various mud-slinging would be apropos. But what pray tell does Calvin and Servitus have to do with the Crusades, Inquistion, and the Jews?

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, so you are assuming that the Muslim expansion that had been going on for several centuries prior to the Crusades was going to just cease on it’s own?

i don’t think it ceased because of the crusades.

 

[NotWorthy]

i don’t think it ceased because of the crusades.

So, Muslim expansionism, which is in the creed of the Muslim (if I understand it correctly) just halted of it’s own accord?

What caused it to halt. I’m not trying to be smart-aleck, but I’ve always heard that it would have continued to expand without the Crusades.

 

[SyCarl]

So, Muslim expansionism, which is in the creed of the Muslim (if I understand it correctly) just halted of it’s own accord?

What caused it to halt. I’m not trying to be smart-aleck, but I’ve always heard that it would have continued to expand without the Crusades.

It did continue to expand after the crusades.

It was halted in western Europe by Charles Martel’s victory, which was not part of the crusades.

However, in the east the later crusades accomplished little after the initial one retook Jerusalem.

The Turks continued to expand, taking Constantinople, the Balkins and southwest Europe until they were finally stopped at Vienna. In the Mediteranean they were stopped at the Battle of Lepanto.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

NotWorthy:

Setting the record straight on anything Calvin has done in no way clears up any past of our Church.

And now, Notworthy, for the nth time, no one has said that the Protestant record can clear up the Catholic record. You are knocking down a strawman.

NotWorthy:

NO, I do not wish to withhold anything.

From what you yourself have said, you prefer that a historical figure who burned people should not be entered into a discussion which has naturally included the burning of people. That is withholding information.

NotWorthy:

YES, we should ignore the elephant because I do not think the elephant is relevant.

An elephant in the room is by definition relevant. It is something which is relevant but ignored.

The name of the thread is Crusades, Inquisition, Jews. Someone brought up the question of Catholics burning people. I provided a context larger than simply Catholics burning people.

It seems to me that the upshot of your difficulty with my post is that information on what folks have said or done in history is irrelevant to the ability of folks to choose between what is true and false; between what is true and half-true. I believe the opposite. So we disagree.

You have not persuaded me to stop posting information from the historical record. If you dislike reading this information, then why not consider not reading it rather than trying to talk me out of posting it?

NotWorthy:

NO, I am not disputing the execution of Servetus, nor do I care if Calvin colluded. That, in no way, explains any of the Catholic Church’s past.

No one is saying that it explains any of the Catholic Church’s past.

What part of this are you not hearing?
And why are knocking down strawmen?

NotWorthy:

If the title of this thread were “Who’s had their finger in more shenanigans”, then yes, Calvin’s actions and the various mud-slinging would be apropos. But what pray tell does Calvin and Servitus have to do with the Crusades, Inquistion, and the Jews?

For that, Notworthy, you would have to go back in the thread and very carefully read what was posted. You might recall that burning people was brought up with respect to the practices of the Catholic Church. My post was meant to provide a larger context to that.

You evidently believe that that larger context was irrelevant. You believe that because, by what you yourself have said, you attribute a motive to me for posting that information, a motive which simply does not apply to me.

The motive you have attributed to me is that I posted information on Servitus in order to explain the Church’s past.

I have explained the reason I posted that information. I wanted to provide a context larger than simply Catholics burning people so that folks can choose between what is true and false; between what is true and half-true.

You have ignored the reason I have given for my post and you have continued to attribute a motive to me which does not properly belong to me.

Now, I don’t think any further clarification is possible. I suggest we drop it. OK?

 

[bobzills]

Are you disputing whether or not Pope Pius XII spoke out unequivocally against Naziism before and during the War in literally scores of newspaper articles and radio announcements? Or any of the other information about what Pope Pius XII actually did to save the Jews during WW2?

Yes or no please. Thank you.

I did read that His Holiness Pope Pius XII did offer protection to some Jews and did speak out against Nazism. I am not so sure it was forty separate times (scores) as you have indicated here.
My point was that there are reports of horrific atrocities against Jews and Serbs at the concentration camp of Jasenovac during WWII and that this camp was set up under the Usatse leader of Croatia (an ally of Nazi Germany), Anton Pavelic. Why did the Vatican grant him safe refuge and not ask him to stand trial for the allegations of these horrific atrocities and crimes agaisnt Jews and Serbs at Jasenovac?

 

[bobzills]

“their limbs were pulled out of their sockets.”

No, that’s a vicious lie invented by bigots.

“by hanging during questioning”

No that’s another lie.

Let’s take a look at one of the “moderate” books recommended by post #7. Did you read the article by Mr. Hitchcock? catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/column1.html
Did you read the books posted there by the pro-Catholic writer, Mr. James Hitchcock? Do you agree that he has listed the book: Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition. which is sympathetic to the Catholic point of view, or at the very least gives “on the whole rather moderate image of the institution” as Mr. Hitchcock writes?
If you had read the book, Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition. which is listed by the pro-Catholic writer Mr. Hitchcock, as giving a moderate view of the Inquisition, you would find out that:
p. 189-190:
“Torture was employed exclusively to elicit information or a confession, and never used as a punishment.”
“The garrucha or pulley involved being hung by the wrists from a pulley on the ceiling, with heavy weights attached to the feet. The accused was raised slowly and then suddenly allowed to fall with a jerk. The effect was to stretch and perhaps dislocate arms and legs.”
“There seems to have been no age limit for victims, nor was there any limit on the torture.”

 

[DebCWil]

The Church is made up of sinners. That is the simplistic answer to questions regarding past and present abuses.
I recently read a article about Pope Pius XII written by a Jew. The Pope was asked to stop speaking out against Hitler because everytime he did, more Jews were arrested. He was also on the Nazi hit list.
Many priests and religious were arrested. These priests were especially hated by the Nazis. One of the stories I heard in a sermon is how the priests would be lined up every morning and forced to run. The priest who was last was shot on the spot. The sermon was about forgiveness as taught by a priest who was saved at the last moment by the Allies. To insure that he would be last, one of the guard intentionally crippled him.
Many Catholics endangered their own lives by hiding Jews in their attics. Churches “adopted” young Jewish boys to protect them from the Nazis. Few of us can imagine from where we stand the terrorism of that time.

 

[bobzills]

Unfortunately, your view is formed by the propaganda. Just the term, Inquisition, conjures up horror…more than in any civil court. That, of course, is the point of the propaganda.

My view is formed partially by the Papal Bull of Pope Innocent IV (May 15, 1252) which introduced torture into the Inquisition as long as the torture was used to extract confessions:
“. . . homicidas animarum, et fures sacramentorum Dei, et fidei christianae . . . cogere citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum . . . errores suos fateri et accusare alios . . . , sicut coguntur fures et latrones”. Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum

 

[tomarin]

So, Muslim expansionism, which is in the creed of the Muslim (if I understand it correctly) just halted of it’s own accord?

What caused it to halt. I’m not trying to be smart-aleck, but I’ve always heard that it would have continued to expand without the Crusades.

just for the record, i never thought you were a smart-aleck. a wisenheimer, maybe but never a smart-aleck.

 

[NotWorthy]

And now, Notworthy, for the nth time, no one has said that the Protestant record can clear up the Catholic record. You are knocking down a strawman.

And for the nth time, I’m truly sorry if I mis-interpreted the reason for your post.

Now, I don’t think any further clarification is possible. I suggest we drop it. OK?

Not until you tell me that you still love me!

 

[NotWorthy]

My point was that there are reports of horrific atrocities against Jews and Serbs at the concentration camp of Jasenovac during WWII and that this camp was set up under the Usatse leader of Croatia (an ally of Nazi Germany), Anton Pavelic. Why did the Vatican grant him safe refuge and not ask him to stand trial for the allegations of these horrific atrocities and crimes agaisnt Jews and Serbs at Jasenovac?

Are you familiar with the Vatican’s thoughts on Capital Punishment?