How often had Protestants converted people at the tip of the Sword?

[Valke2]

You keep saying that forced conversions were quite common but you seem opposed to actually backing that up. Further you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the vague evidences that you do mention.

The Inquisition had nothing to do with conversions, nor did the Crusades. As to OLoG this was a vision seen by a native and then propagated and believed by native peoples. If it was a trick they did it to themselves. Although it’s really a moot point. At best this argument can be simply chalked up to your opinion.

Well, the inquistion was more in response to the forced conversions. Because jews who converted under those circumstances didn’t really convert in their hearts. But I fail to see how you can say forced conversions were not an element of the Crusades.

 

[bengal_fan]

We should all look to official teachings not to horrible behavior of the members.

God Bless
Scylla

i would agree, but try telling that to a jewish person whose family has just been deported from italy for a concentration camp and the pope stayed silent, yet when the church buildings were being threatened, he stood in front of them with his arms outstretched. to the majority of the world, the priests, bishops, and especially the pope ARE the church. that is carroll’s point i think. these men need to live up to the high calling of their office, not use their office as an excuse.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

that’s because those are opinion pieces. there is a difference between a journalistic piece and an opinion piece. although, the research ethics apply equally to both and he does his homework.

Opinion pieces are called to the same journalistic standards as any other newspaper article. The only difference is that in an op ed the author can state his/her opinion.

Since when is ignoring factual information part of journalistic integrity?

 

[bengal_fan]

Opinion pieces are called to the same journalistic standards as any other newspaper article. The only difference is that in an op ed the author can state his/her opinion.

Since when is ignoring factual information part of journalistic integrity?

where has he ignored factual information? that is my point. i have not seen him ignore facts but bring facts to light. then he inserts opinion which would not be standard journalism but it still well within the bounds of integrity as long as the facts are viewed. so where has he ignored facts?

 

[MH84]

The book called “Thunder of Justice”.

Thanks for posting me the book title.

I just looked it up at Amazon and it appears that it documents the Medjugorje messages.

Was the quote about the Muslim conversion to Catholicism from one of those Medjugorje messages?

 

[AgnosTheist]

for a concentration camp and the pope stayed silent

The Pope even with all his powers, was only human. His fear of Hitler must have had more bearing than his faith in the protection of the Holy Spirit. So better shut up.

 

[MH84]

The Pope even with all his powers, was only human. His fear of Hitler must have had more bearing than his faith in the protection of the Holy Spirit. So better shut up.

What were the atheists doing?

Oh, hang on, they were the ones in charge of the concentration camps!!

 

[bengal_fan]

What were the atheists doing?

Oh, hang on, they were the ones in charge of the concentration camps!!

ZING!!

 

[bengal_fan]

What were the atheists doing?

Oh, hang on, they were the ones in charge of the concentration camps!!

actually though, i think hitler actually classified himself as a pagan. i just read this recently that he was outspoken (within certain circles) about this.

 

[rtconstant]

he is also considered a top-notch journalist. for anyone who has ever studied journalism, you know the research and the ethics of reporting your research that goes into it. he did his research, he made a claim, and his research backs it up. just because it might cause some folks to think about the wrong an organization they love (and capable of doing so much good) has committed, doesn’t mean he is attacking that organization. i got to view an advanced copy of the documentary and i have read the book. both are historically accurate and do not attack the entire organization, but some of the things the organization did or allowed to happen without intervention.

I wouldn’t consider this work to be “unethical” but it could certainly have been done better from an historical point of view and eventually I think that will come to the surface. He seems to be too focused on arriving at a predetermined destination. He certainly wouldn’t be the first but I think it does cloud his vision at times.

First off he virtually ignores anti-Semitism before the Christian era. So we’re left asking is he really saying that anti-Semitism has its roots in Christianity or did Christianity simply play a roll in its history? Or perhaps were the conditions and contexts in which this sort of attitude thrives present and perhaps had an influence upon the religion?

Also it bothers me how easily he glosses over what doesn’t fit into his world view. Take the Spanish Inquisition for example. He goes on at length to how the Spanish Inquisition utilized the concept of “purity of blood”. Yet he glosses over the fact that the Papacy opposed this thinking. He also ignores the work of Michael Alpert whose scholarship has pretty well shown there is no connection between Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition (ill conceived institution that it was).

Anyone interested in a more scholarly approach to the conditions that led to the actions of the Reich should look at Paths to Genocide: Anti-Semitism in Western History by Lionel B. Steiman.

Carroll has his own personal view of theology and how the Church should function. I think Constantine’s Sword sadly shows that while he is an excellent writer he lets his own motivations and conclusions to easily sway his scholarship. He isn’t an historian and honestly it shows.

 

[pismopal]

denials, denials. ever heard of the word ‘converso’? look it up.

Besides, everyone here acknowledges that the Inquisition’s main objective was to fight heresy. That by itself was persuasion into old beliefs. How often was such persuasions peaceful & respectful? Zero percent? Without such violent persuasions the catholic church would have been as fragmented as the protestants today, eh?

Thanks for the pop history lesson but the reason the Catholic Church is not as fragmented as non Catholic gatherings is because Christ promised that we wouldn’t be. Mathew 16: 18.
Can you support your statement that without violence the Church would be in scism? No peaceful or respectful persuasions by the early Church you say. That is so obviously ridiculous and unfair that it is without merit. You should be ashamed to come onto this site hosted by Catholics and make such a groundless Jack Chick slander.

 

[bengal_fan]

I wouldn’t consider this work to be “unethical” but it could certainly have been done better from an historical point of view and eventually I think that will come to the surface. He seems to be too focused on arriving at a predetermined destination. He certainly wouldn’t be the first but I think it does cloud his vision at times.

he is not an historian (which you point out later) but his research is well grounded and it is a rule within history that there is no such thing as unbiased history (read Carr’s “What is History”). so carroll is not any different from any other historical writer (plus, journalism has a different set of standards for investigation than does history).

First off he virtually ignores anti-Semitism before the Christian era. So we’re left asking is he really saying that anti-Semitism has its roots in Christianity or did Christianity simply play a roll in its history? Or perhaps were the conditions and contexts in which this sort of attitude thrives present and perhaps had an influence upon the religion?

anti-semitism before the Christian era is not his point of research and, therefore, needs to make no attempt at discussing it. we have to always draw the line somewhere in research or else we would never be able to write! lol

Also it bothers me how easily he glosses over what doesn’t fit into his world view. Take the Spanish Inquisition for example. He goes on at length to how the Spanish Inquisition utilized the concept of “purity of blood”. Yet he glosses over the fact that the Papacy opposed this thinking. He also ignores the work of Michael Alpert whose scholarship has pretty well shown there is no connection between Holocaust and the Spanish Inquisition (ill conceived institution that it was).

he actually addresses that the papacy was opposed to many of the methods used by the spanish inquisition and also points out that the pope created a “sanctuary” of sorts in rome for the jews fleeing spain because of the inquisition. he then, though, goes on to let us know that the next pope is none other than the man in charge of the inquisition. when he comes to power, he introduces a curfew on the jews of rome and moves them all into a walled off space and restricts their access to do business. this is the ghetto in rome and they were there for 300 years. his point is that it’s not the office but the man. you had one pope who did a great thing for the jewish people and the very next pope (and the many popes after him) punished them again for basically accepting the kindness of the previous pope. carroll doesn’t make a connection between the inquisition and the holocaust other than they were both anti-semitic.

Anyone interested in a more scholarly approach to the conditions that led to the actions of the Reich should look at Paths to Genocide: Anti-Semitism in Western History by Lionel B. Steiman.

steiman is great, but he also starts with a premise and finds evidence to support it. just like every other historian. that is why we have peer reviews. it is why carroll sent his documentary out for other to review it before it is released.

Carroll has his own personal view of theology and how the Church should function. I think Constantine’s Sword sadly shows that while he is an excellent writer he lets his own motivations and conclusions to easily sway his scholarship. He isn’t an historian and honestly it shows.

i agree that is shows he is not an historian, but it does show he is a very good investigative journalist. and, again, every journalist, historian, political theorist, psychologist, sociologist and the like start with a premise, theory, or idea and then go into the evidence.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

i agree that is shows he is not an historian, but it does show he is a very good investigative journalist. and, again, every journalist, historian, political theorist, psychologist, sociologist and the like start with a premise, theory, or idea and then go into the evidence.

How exactly does this show that he is a good investigative journalist? And, no, a journalist or any member of the other professions you mention should not set out to prove a theory no matter what the evidence shows. Even if a writer makes assumptions, he/she should never write the headline or title of the book before properly researching the entire topic.

These are the examples I found within James Carol op eds with a quick search:

Pope Benedict’s mistake
July 16, 2007

WHEN THE likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, citing insights of science or the rise of sectarian violence, denounce the very idea of God, fundamentalists strike back by attacking pillars on which such modern criticism stands. In this mode, Pope Benedict XVI last week issued two unexpected decrees, restoring the atavistic Mass of the Council of Trent and resuscitating an outmoded Catholic exclusivism – the notion of a pope-centered Catholicism as the only authentic way to God.
In these reactionary initiatives, Pope Benedict inadvertently shows that he shares a basic conviction with Dawkins et al. – that religion is a primitive impulse, unable to withstand the challenge of contemporary thought.

Carroll ignores what has been called by George Weigel one of the most prominent themes of Pope Benedict’s papacy – the compatibility of faith and reason. In fact, the pope has clearly said, repeatedly, that separating one from the other is dangerous.

From celibacy to godliness
4/9/2002
The far more important point is that loving sexual union, and all that follows from it, is sacred. The body is Godly. Sensual mutuality is a sacrament. Physical expression is holy. Pleasure is divine. That is what the church must finally affirm, without ambivalence and from the center of Catholic life, instead of the margin.

Here he completely ignores Theology of the Body, which came 20 years before he wrote this and affirms that sex is a beautiful gift from God and a loving expression of sacramental wedding vows – all without any ambivalence.

**People of the church must take it back **1/22/2002
Catholic leaders will oppose contraception even if that means a rise in abortion rates. To protect the ideal of marriage for life, priests are expected to encourage women to stay married to men who beat them. The Catholic lie about divorce, of course, is enshrined in the word “annulment.” Regarding sex generally, a Catholic culture of dishonesty reigns.

I would like to see his source that says that priests are “expected to encourage women to stay married to men who beat them.” Who expects them to do that? It certainly is not Church teaching. Not to mention the fact that civil divorce is not inherently sinful. The Church recognizes that even in the event that a valid marriage took place, there are times when couples need to separate, perhaps indefinitely. That may even necessitate civil divorce, especially if the protection of children/custody issues are involved.

 

[pismopal]

sorry, i did not mean to assume.
i understand what you are saying about conversions but we are both operating from a 21st century mindset, not a middle ages one. it’s tough to find evidence of a forced conversion “sticking” but it’s easy to find evidence of people running from what they anticipated would be forced conversions.

Thank you and we are now on the same page I think. I would not like the event whether I truly converted or not.

 

[rtconstant]

he is not an historian (which you point out later) but his research is well grounded and it is a rule within history that there is no such thing as unbiased history (read Carr’s “What is History”). so carroll is not any different from any other historical writer (plus, journalism has a different set of standards for investigation than does history).

anti-semitism before the Christian era is not his point of research and, therefore, needs to make no attempt at discussing it. we have to always draw the line somewhere in research or else we would never be able to write! lol

he actually addresses that the papacy was opposed to many of the methods used by the spanish inquisition and also points out that the pope created a “sanctuary” of sorts in rome for the jews fleeing spain because of the inquisition. he then, though, goes on to let us know that the next pope is none other than the man in charge of the inquisition. when he comes to power, he introduces a curfew on the jews of rome and moves them all into a walled off space and restricts their access to do business. this is the ghetto in rome and they were there for 300 years. his point is that it’s not the office but the man. you had one pope who did a great thing for the jewish people and the very next pope (and the many popes after him) punished them again for basically accepting the kindness of the previous pope. carroll doesn’t make a connection between the inquisition and the holocaust other than they were both anti-semitic.

steiman is great, but he also starts with a premise and finds evidence to support it. just like every other historian. that is why we have peer reviews. it is why carroll sent his documentary out for other to review it before it is released.

i agree that is shows he is not an historian, but it does show he is a very good investigative journalist. and, again, every journalist, historian, political theorist, psychologist, sociologist and the like start with a premise, theory, or idea and then go into the evidence.

Sure you start with a premise, but you still have to let the history speak for itself. The fact is that Carroll is making to ambitious a claim and so he must pick and chose his history. His over all premise is that anti-Semitism is constitutive of the Church, it has existed at every age, and that it is so deeply rooted that a council is needed to deal with single issue alone.

First we’ll deal with the second concept as that is where the real meat is. No doubt anti-Semitism has displayed itself in every age since before the origin of the Church. It also true that at every age there have been those that have tried relieve these depredations. Ironically Carroll actually mentions some of these (Abelard, Nicholas of Cusa) but doesn’t seem to notice the dichotomy. However, all of these things taken together neither display that anti-Semitism is constitutive within the Church or that it really belies anything more than typical human xenophobia which is displayed with great enthusiasm through all ages of men.

The idea the anti-Semitism is something innate to the Church even when considered a primarily human institution is absurd. Has it been present? Certainly. However, it has been at best a small piece of a titanic pie. To further pursue this reasoning by suggesting that a council for this needs to be called simply compounds the absurdity.

In the end Carroll is like every other ex-priest with a type-writer and an axe to grind. He needs the Church to redesign itself in his image and to justify this must demonstrate that the current system is broken.

Don’t get me wrong Christian history certainly has its warts but Carroll’s assertions are too grand and dramatized. Unfortunately he is a skilled writer so no doubt his work will get much more attention than scholarly works (which we can see in him getting a movie deal). This has always been a danger of journalists and novelists with delusions of pseudo-scholarship.

 

[bengal_fan]

How exactly does this show that he is a good investigative journalist? And, no, a journalist or any member of the other professions you mention should not set out to prove a theory no matter what the evidence shows. Even if a writer makes assumptions, he/she should never write the headline or title of the book before properly researching the entire topic.
.

i am sorry you disagree with how the disciplines work. but in those disciplines, you always start with a theory or a question. you always start with a direction and if the evidence leads you in other directions, you follow it. he started with a premise and the research led him to continue in that direction.

 

[bengal_fan]

Sure you start with a premise, but you still have to let the history speak for itself. The fact is that Carroll is making to ambitious a claim and so he must pick and chose his history…

as a student of history, i don’t see where he had to “pick and choose”. neither has any other secular historian that i know of (i’m sure they are out there, i just don’t know of them). i feel that much of the dismissal of his findings comes from feeling rather than thought (not saying you aren’t thinking, but i am saying you are just as clouded by your views as you claim carroll is).

 

[Ignatius]

I know it was quite common for Catholics to use force & trickery in converting people in the past. What about protestants?

Since you asked, the very founders of Protestantism themselves authorize torture and murder.

ENGLAND
King Henry erected a system built on fear, torture and death to back his attack on the Catholic Church. Criticising the king, calling him a heretic, or failing to agree that Henry was head of the church, were punished by **disembowelment whilst still alive, hanging and quartering. **In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticised these things became treason. Guilty verdicts were ensured by the introduction of the “Double Grand Jury” which made the jury trying a case liable to face trial themselves by a second jury if they came up with the wrong verdict. Acts of Attainder, allowing the execution of victims without any trial whatsoever, were also introduced. All these things were needed to enforce the Reformation in England.

Abbots who refused to surrender their monasteries also fell victim: Letter of Richard Pollard to Thomas Cromwell, November 16, 1539

Pleaseth it your Lordship to be advertised that…[On November 15] the late abbot of Glastonbury went from Wells to Glastonbury, and there was drawn through the town upon a hurdle to the hill called the Torre, where he was put to execution; …Afore his execution [he] was examined upon divers articles and interrogatories to him ministered by me, but he could accuse no man of himself of any offence against the king’s highness, nor would he confess no more gold nor silver nor any other thing more than he did before your Lordship in the Tower…I suppose it will be near Christmas before I shall have surveyed the lands at Glastonbury, and take the audit there….

On 8 April, 1538, Friar Forrest was taken to Lambeth, where, before Cranmer, he was required to state that King Henry was Head of the Church. This, however, he firmly refused to do. Forrest was sentenced to death, and on the 22nd of May he was taken to Smithfield and burned. To add to the “godly” humour of this public spectacle, the friar was burnt over a bonfire of religious statuary.

After Catholics rose up in protest at the closing of the Monasteries in 1536, King Henry wrote: Our pleasure is that . . . you shall cause such dreadful execution to be done upon a good number of the inhabitants of every town, village, and hamlet that have offended, as they may be a fearful spectacle to all others hereafter that would practice any like matter. Hundreds were massacred at random in the Catholic areas.

Others disembowelled or burnt within months included:1534: Elizabeth Barton, q.v. (The Holy Maid of Kent), with five companions;John Dering, O.S.B., Edward Bocking, O.S.B., Hugh Rich, O.S.F., Richard Masters p., Henry Gold p., 1537. Monks, 28. - After the pilgrimage of grace and the rising of Lincolnshire many, probably several hundred, were executed, of whom no record remains. The following names, which do survive, are grouped under their respective abbeys or priories. - Barling: Matthew Mackerel, abbot and Bishop of Chalcedon, Ord. Præm. Bardney: John Tenent, William Cole, John Francis, William Cowper, Richard Laynton, Hugh Londale, monks. Bridlington: William Wood, Prior. Fountains: William Thyrsk, O. Cist. Guisborough: James Cockerel, Prior.Jervaulx: Adam Sedbar, Abbot; George Asleby, monk. Kirkstead: Richard Harrison, Abbott, Richard Wade, William Swale, Henry Jenkinson, monks. Lenten: Nicholas Heath, Prior; William Gylham, monk. Sawlet: William Trafford, Abbott; Richard Eastgate, monk. Whalley: John Paslew, Abbott; John Eastgate, William Haydock, monks. Woburn: Robert Hobbes, Abbott; Ralph Barnes, sub-prior; Laurence Blonham, monk. York: John Pickering, O.S.D., Prior. Place unknown: George ab Alba Rose, O.S.A. Priests: William Burraby, Thomas Kendale, John Henmarsh, James Mallet, John Pickering, Thomas Redforth. Lords: Darcy and Hussey. Knights: Francis Bigod, Stephen Hammerton, Thomas Percy. Laymen (11): Robert Aske, Robert Constable, Bernard Fletcher, George Hudswell, Robert Lecche, Roger Neeve, George Lomley, Thomas Moyne, Robert Sotheby, Nicholas Tempest, Philip Trotter. 1538 (7): Henry Courtney, the Marquess of Exeter; Henry Pole, Lord Montague; Sir Edward Nevell and Sir Nicholas Carew; George Croft p., and John Collins p.; Hugh Holland l… Their cause was “adhering to the Pope, and his Legate, Cardinal Pole”. 1540 (6): Lawrence Cook O. Carm., Prior of Doncaster; Thomas Empson, O.S.B.; Robert Bird p.; William Peterson p.; William Richardson p.; Giles Heron l. 1544 (3): Martin de Courdres, O.S.A., and Paul of St. William, O.S.A.; Darby Genning

Over the next few reigns around 600 Catholic priests alone, and thousands of ordinary Catholics were disembowelled or otherwise murdered by Protestants because of their faith. Topcliffe, Elizabeth’s chief torturer, had a special house full of torture equipment to be used on Catholic priests. One elderly priest was tortured 12 separate times to gain information on other priests and believers.

CALVIN

Within a few years of Calvin coming to power in Geneva fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile took place. Two examples:

(continued)

 

[Ignatius]

1. James Gruet, was alleged to have posted a note which implied that Calvin should leave the city:

He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet had written on one of Calvin’s tracts the words ‘all rubbish.’ The judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded on July 26, 1547.

1. The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” and began an angry correspondence with him. Calvin had his critic arrested. Calvin drew up forty articles of charges concerning the nature of God, infant baptism, and the attacks on his own teaching. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death”

On October 26, the Council ordered that he be burned alive on the following day. Servetus took half an hour to die. Calvin noted: "'He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast . . . He went on bellowing . . . in the Spanish fashion: “Misericordias!” .

In 1554 Calvin wrote the treatise Against the Errors of Servetus, in which he tried to justify the execution: “Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.”

The modern-day Congregational, Prebyterian, Reformed, Baptist and many of the Charismatic churches, all look to this same Calvin as their founding spiritual authority.

Most of the other Reformers. Luther, Knox, Zwingli, also burnt, hung, drowned or otherwise executed their opponents.

---

One would expect leaders of a new movement “reforming” the Church and supposedly correcting the “errors” of the historic Church to be beyond reproach in their behaviour and Christian lives. But what do we see? The opposite.

Luther was well known for his hot temper, pride and violent language, rather than for his saintliness and humility. He even heaped abuse on fellow-reformers like Zwingli and Bucer who disagreed with him. He encouraged the German Princes to seize church property in return for protection for the Reformation. Along with others, he issued a licence permitting the Landgrave of Hesse to keep 2 wives simultaneously. However worse was to come.
PEASANTS REVOLT
Inspired by the writings of Luther and others, which declared the Freedom of the Christian Man, and led by Thomas Muntzer, an ex-pupil of Luther’s, German peasants demanded to be freed from Serfdom, joining in the Great Peasants Revolt. They hoped for Luther’s support. But Luther owed his protection and high position to the German aristocrats. So instead, in a pamphlet entitled Against the Murderous Peasants, Luther told the princes and the nobility that it was right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person, “just as one must slay a mad dog.” Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret, and remember that there is nothing more poisonous, noxious and utterly devilish than a rebel… For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.
Urged on by their spiritual leader, the nobles and their armies suppressed the revolts with great savagery. In all more than 100,000 peasants were slain.

In actual fact, as reputable histories will tell you. Anti-Catholic propaganda magnified the Inquisition beyond all measure. The Spanish Inquisition in 500 years executed around 3,000 - 6,000 people. Fewer than the Catholics Cromwell killed in one week in Ireland!

The simple fact is that at the time some accuse Catholics of religious cruelties, Protestants, and non-denoms were doing the same or worse.

---

 

[bengal_fan]

The simple fact is that at the time some accuse Catholics of religious cruelties, Protestants, and non-denoms were doing the same or worse.

---

ignatius, first let me say thanks for bringing us back to the original topic of the thread. yes, protestants have been just as guilty of cruelty. the only issue i take with your ending assessment (which is why i quoted it) is that the protestants (and “non-denoms” as you say even though they didn’t exist until very recently) don’t have as long of a history of cruelty nor did they commit their atrocities on the level (due to sheer numbers i’m sure) the catholic church did. nor do protestants have the power to influence the world in a positive like the catholic church does.