N
NotWorthy
Guest
Whew!!!
… Hey, wait!!!I know I tease a lot, but I hope it’s always considered to be good-natured. And I hope it doesn’t cover up the love I have for all of you guys!!!
- Status
… Hey, wait!!!I know I tease a lot, but I hope it’s always considered to be good-natured. And I hope it doesn’t cover up the love I have for all of you guys!!!
P
Petergee
Guest
Neither of those was THE major reason, which was simply to allow Christian (and Jewish) pilgrims to visit the Holy Land without being killed. Moslem had ruled the Holy Land for 400 years and had allowed Christian pilgrims to visit the Holy Places (although heavily taxing them and imposing many oppressive restrictions on the native Christian population of the Holy Land). It was only when a radical group of Moslems took over and slaughtered thousands of unarmed civilian Christian pilgrims in cold blood, that the first Crusade was called. The fact that Constantinople seemed about to fall to the Moslems was another factor.
A few of the Crusaders on one of the Crusades did this, for which they were promptly excommunicated. The numbers are not “untold”, they were several thousand.
Absolute nonsense. Every non-Moslem living in a Moslem ruled state was oppressed and treated as a second-class citizen at best, and constantly pressured to convert to Islam in subtle and not-so-subtle ways (eg the troops of the Turkish empire (Janissaries) were made up of strong-looking Christian boys abducted from their families and brought up as Moslems)
You mean if the sack of Constantinople of 1203 had never happened. But the Crusades overall helped Constantinople to stave off Moslem conquest for another 360 years.
P
Petergee
Guest
“perhaps dislocate arms” does not mean “their limbs were pulled oput of their sockets”.
And hanging people by their arms does not mean “hanging”.
ALL Courts in medieval times required evidence on oath to secure a verdict (either guily or innocent). Thus if there was heavy circumstantial evidence that a person was guilty, but there were no eye-witnesses and the suspect refused to confess, torture seemed the only option.
po18guy
Well-known member
The blessings of Christ to all. It appears that someone might be viewing ancient history with modern glasses. Is the history of the One Church tainted by the evil acts of men? YES! Then, why follow Christ at all? You know, one of his inner circle sold him out before committing suicide! Doesn’t that just ruin the whole concept of Christianity?
I believe that history, like sin, is something to be learned from, not wallowed in.
Christ’s peace, my Brosters. (had to invent a single, inclusive term here
I believe that history, like sin, is something to be learned from, not wallowed in.
Christ’s peace, my Brosters. (had to invent a single, inclusive term here
B
bobzills
Guest
What period of time are you talking about here? I am not sure, but I guess that the teaching on capital punishment has undergone a change to some extent.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I don’t know that it has.
B
bobzills
Guest
B
bobzills
Guest
Well, i am not sure about it either, but here is my impression of the teaching on capital punishment. Before Vatican II, it was taught that the state had the right to inflict capital punishment as applied to serious crimes such as murder. After Vatican II, the teaching has changed somewhat as follows: I read somewhere that Pope John Paul II on his trip to St. Louis, USA in January 1999, was quoted as saying that capital punishment is "cruel and unnecessary ".
According to the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Catholic Church holds that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society, and that such a situation requiring an execution today is either rare or non-existent. Here’s what an article from the Tidings says: “Interestingly, before Benedict XVI was elected pope, as head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he said, John Paul’s “reservations about the death penalty are even stronger than those already present in the catechism and are a real development.”
…
The church’s efforts to end capital punishment are rooted in the God-given dignity of every human being — even murderers…
Jesus’ life did not end with his execution on Calvary. Resurrection had the final word. In the spirit of the risen Christ, let us rise from all that dehumanizes us — including capital punishment.”
The United States bishops, declared in a statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”
See: the-tidings.com/2007/041307/magliano.htm
P
Petergee
Guest
And the Church still teaches that in principle, properly constituted State authority has a right to impose the death sentence (and not necessarily just for murder). The statements you quoted refer to whether it is prudent, compassionate and useful under modern circumstances for States to exercise this right.
I agree burning alive is a horrible death but really no more horrible than “modern” methods of execution, especially if as reported they are often botched eg people remaining alive but paralysed and in pain for hours during lethal injection. Also in practice most of those who were burnt were first garrotted or drugged, or a pouch of gunpowder was strapped to the chest to ensure a quick death.(The irregular execution of St Joan of Arc was a notable exception.) The State didn’t mind, they just wanted the convict killed and their remains destroyed so they couldn’t be given a proper burial.
S
SPH1
Guest
Yes, torture was allowed, but limited. That was my point. The propaganda has wholesale torture for the sake of torture only.
I don’t know that everyone today disavows of the use of torture in any and all circumstances. Its use has come up recently with Gitmo and terroristists.
Take the “ticking bomb” scenario. A nuke in some US city. I imagine that many people would condone torture on the perpetrators to locate the bomb.
Or some kidnapper who buried a child alive with limited air. Torture to locate?
Whatever it takes?
A
Afterburned6387
Guest
I still haven’t heard much defense for the Albigensian Crusade, or the persecution of the Waldenses,
I believe the most telling quote was when Arnaud-Amaury (A Papal Legate), was asked by the head of the Papal army(10k strong), Caesar of Heisterbach how to tell how to tell the Cathar/Albigenses from the Catholics, his response was:
“Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
or, “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his.”
In the French City of Béziers alone, seven to twenty thousand were slain in the name of the RCC (This includes a few thousand Cathars, and also thousands of Catholics who were given the opportunity to flee, but refused to leave their homes.)
Remember, the Medieval Inquisition was instituted after the great massacres of the Waldenses, Cathars, and Albigenses as a “mop-up” campaign after the nobles in regions dominated by these beliefs finally bent their knee to the Pope. (Innocent III for those interested)
I believe the most telling quote was when Arnaud-Amaury (A Papal Legate), was asked by the head of the Papal army(10k strong), Caesar of Heisterbach how to tell how to tell the Cathar/Albigenses from the Catholics, his response was:
“Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”
or, “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his.”
In the French City of Béziers alone, seven to twenty thousand were slain in the name of the RCC (This includes a few thousand Cathars, and also thousands of Catholics who were given the opportunity to flee, but refused to leave their homes.)
Remember, the Medieval Inquisition was instituted after the great massacres of the Waldenses, Cathars, and Albigenses as a “mop-up” campaign after the nobles in regions dominated by these beliefs finally bent their knee to the Pope. (Innocent III for those interested)
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
You can educate them about Eugenio Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome during WWII. Zolli was so impressed with Pope Pius XII, that the Rabbi converted to Catholicism.
“Eugenio Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome during the Nazi Occupation who converted to Catholicism”
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1068
here’s another link:
piusxii.hismercy.ca/index.html
actually, do a google search for even more info.
S
SFLCatholic
Guest
Yea and I don’t hear much about Oliver Cromwell either.
B
bobzills
Guest
What is your opinion on the book by Louis I. Newman on this? He questions the motives for the conversion? Maybe it is a hatchet job, I don’t know.
A
Afterburned6387
Guest
Oliver Cromwell was not acting at the behest of the leader of his church (for Protestants, that Jesus), unlike the Catholic Crusaders, who served at the behest of the leader of their church, Innocent III, who supposedly served in place of Christ(Vicarius Christi).
P
Petergee
Guest
Garbage. It was basically a civil war between the King of France and the Counts of Toulouse, who used Catharism to further their designs for independence from France. And even protestant and non-Christian historians have pointed out that the Cathars, and especially the extreme version (Albigensians) which oppressed the people of SW France, were an extremely nasty piece of work (an analogy in our own time would be the Branch Dravidian sect) and that if they had succeeded in their aims it would have been the end of Western civilization.
P
Petergee
Guest
Zolli himself emphasised that his conversion was for theological reasons, not done simply as a “thank-you” to Pope Pius and the Church for their heroic efforts on behalf of Jews. But obviously the latter must have influenced his thinking and at least opened his heart to the charity to be found in the Church.
P
Petergee
Guest
WTH?
You seriously believe that Cromwell and his “saints” did NOT believe they were doing exactly what Christ wanted them to do? His writings violently disagree with your assertion.
A
Afterburned6387
Guest
Just because someone claims to be serving Christ doesn’t mean they actually are, remember “You know a tree by its fruit,” If someone thinks they follow Christ, and do something absurd, it doesn’t mean they were actually following Christ. On the other hand, when one serves the Pope, and has his written orders on what he is to do from him, we cannot say that those persecuting the Albigenses were not following the pope. Papal existence does not allow for plausible deniability.WTH?
P
Petergee
Guest
Finally exposed: the great advantage of being a protestant; plausible deniability. Whenever a protestant does something bad he can’t be a “real” protestant. But whenever a protestant does something good, that proves how right protestantism is. The opposite way around for Catholics. What a lurk. I’m sure the thousands of people (including thousands of protestants) slaughtered and tortured by Cromwell because they didn’t want to be Presbyterians/Congregationalists, or just because they were Irish, will find it a great comfort that some protestant 350 years later doesn’t think Cromwell was followoing Christ.
Btw we don’t serve the pope, the Pope serves us.
- Status