How should Catholics view the Inquisition?

[joe370]

“only” 3-5k people killed

Well, Jesus never promised that evil, on an individual basis, would never enter into His church; quite the opposite:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Matthew 7

“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” Acts 20

But the good news is that hell can never prevail against Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church, as per scripture because Jesus is the Head and Savior, of His Church as per scripture.

 

[PiousTemplar]

It was an ecclesiastical court that tried heretics, because heresy was a state crime. It was a more specialised court then a secular one that had much harsher punishments. The Inquisiton did use methods that were prevalent at the time, but were much more lenient and forgiving than a secular court. Of course, some individual corrupt church members would have used the Inquisiton as a tool to progress their own selfish agenda, but that was not the norm.

In all honesty, I would just think of it as a much more enlightened court of the middle ages/renaissance.

When people look at past court/justice systems from a modern world view, of course they will think they were ‘horrible’, and ‘disgusting’. I’m sure many of you would think the old method of stoning adulterers that was in practice in Biblical times was ‘unneccesarily harsh’ and ‘unjust’.

 

[PiousTemplar]

“only” 3-5k people killed

But, that is based on your interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

If someone says heretics shouldn’t have been burned they should’ve been put in prison. That person fundamentally fails to understand the state of society in the 14th-17th centuries. But then again… you’re probably in favor of heretics being allowed to roam the land freely, spreading their heresy across the land, and misleading as many people to Hell as they could. No?

Just have to jump in here.

Of course they should be allowed to. I would be horrified if it were any other way. One of the most important human rights is that to freedom of religion. As civilized people we don’t have to agree with other people’s beliefs, but we should be respectful of them, and make sure they have the right to express them openly.

 

[joe370]

It was an ecclesiastical court that tried heretics, because heresy was a state crime. It was a more specialised court then a secular one that had much harsher punishments. The Inquisiton did use methods that were prevalent at the time, but were much more lenient and forgiving than a secular court. Of course, some individual corrupt church members would have used the Inquisiton as a tool to progress their own selfish agenda, but that was not the norm.

In all honesty, I would just think of it as a much more enlightened court of the middle ages/renaissance.

When people look at past court/justice systems from a modern world view, of course they will think they were ‘horrible’, and ‘disgusting’. I’m sure many of you would think the old method of stoning adulterers that was in practice in Biblical times was ‘unneccesarily harsh’ and ‘unjust’.

 

[PiousTemplar]

You can always learn from different religions. Even the Church says that other religions contain some element of truth; the only issue is that they don’t contain the fullness of truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was influenced significantly by Islamic philosophers, and he said something to the effect that “truth is truth wherever you find it”.

The fact that you advocate only to read the Catholic account of the Inquisition indicates to me some kind of denial of truth. Why not advocate that the OP reads various accounts and comes to his/her own conclusion(s)? If the truth is self-evident, then that’s what the OP will ultimately reach. Simply because a historical account does not put the Church in a positive light does not make it “revisionist”. Do you know what revisionism even is? And do you honestly believe a Catholic account of the Inquisition will say something along the lines of “the Inquisition is wrong. Humans make mistakes. Let’s look to the future”, or more like “God ordered us to do it. We are right. We will always be right” and some red herring to other historical tragedies?

Investigations that have taken place in the past 50 years by secular museums in Spain have concluded that the number was most likely between 3000-5000. Catholic webpages simply repeat it. Unless you want to call them biased of course, you can always go look for John Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’. *We all know *that is a credible book… :dts: Note the sarcasm

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Investigations that have taken place in the past 50 years by secular museums in Spain have concluded that the number was most likely between 3000-5000. Catholic webpages simply repeat it. Unless you want to call them biased of course, you can always go look for John Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’. *We all know *that is a credible book… :dts: Note the sarcasm

I never disputed that the number was between 3000-5000 (I have even seen credible enough sources to suggest it may have been 700). The point I was putting across in my post was why he believes the OP should only read a Catholic account of the Inquisition. Even you said that secular museums have concluded that the number was most likely 3000-5000. However, life is life, and the death of a single person is always wrong. You can not claim to be against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, i.e. to advocate the preservation of life, if you view life with such little regard as to suggest that it was only “3000-5000” people, only a mere statistic. They were individuals, and they also had relatives who would have cared for them deeply.

As for the claim that ecclesiastical courts tried heretics, we already know that. That doesn’t mean the Church’s hands are clean. It’s a crime of complicity to have intermingled with such a corrupt governmental system. If there is anything the Inquisition shows us, it is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps that would put things into perspective of those today who are vociferous in advocating a Catholic leader who introduces policies that are in agreement with everything the Pope has to say.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I never disputed that the number was between 3000-5000 (I have even seen credible enough sources to suggest it may have been 700). The point I was putting across in my post was why he believes the OP should only read a Catholic account of the Inquisition. Even you said that secular museums have concluded that the number was most likely 3000-5000. However, life is life, and the death of a single person is always wrong. You can not claim to be against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, i.e. to advocate the preservation of life, if you view life with such little regard as to suggest that it was only “3000-5000” people, only a mere statistic. They were individuals, and they also had relatives who would have cared for them deeply.

As for the claim that ecclesiastical courts tried heretics, we already know that. That doesn’t mean the Church’s hands are clean. It’s a crime of complicity to have intermingled with such a corrupt governmental system. If there is anything the Inquisition shows us, it is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps that would put things into perspective of those today who are vociferous in advocating a Catholic leader who introduces policies that are in agreement with everything the Pope has to say.

I find your post incoherent. You are an atheist. You do not bind yourself to morals defined by a religion or religious institution. When you say “However, life is life, and the death of a single person is always wrong.” I have to ask, says who? That is simply your opinion on the issue, and in an atheist worldview, there is no objective morality.

“You can not claim to be against abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, i.e. to advocate the preservation of life, if you view life with such little regard as to suggest that it was only “3000-5000” people, only a mere statistic”

You are deliberately stirring up trouble, so just cut it out. We use ‘only’ to contrast the facts with the ridiculous sterotypes that anti-catholics like to hype up. It was not an inhumane court system, it was very enlightened for the standards of the time. We can probably presume that the people that were sentenced to death were sentenced because of a serious reason, just by looking at the procedures of the inquisition and looking at the statistics, that show that those sentenced to death (Technically, handed over to secular authorities) were a small minority. (125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition over it’s reign, of which 1.8% were executed)

People seem to have this stereotype of the Inquisiton as this middle-ages gestapo that would hunt around for people to burn. I personally think of the Inquisition as a sort of attempted ‘Medieval-Renaissance’ rehabilitation.

Without Inquisiton: Heretics found, tortured and burnt without trial at worst, or trialled by secular courts with no knowlege of Canon Law, therefore very unreliable at determining heresy. A lot of supposed heretics were brutally killed by lower-class mobs.

With Inquisition: Heretics found, handed over to the Inquisiton. Inquisition trials them with the most modern and enlightened court procedures. Heretics given a lawyer for defence, and the prosecution must have sufficient evidence to prosecute. If the heretic confesses and seeks reconciliation, he is given a penance and reconciled with society. If he refuses to confess his heresy and seek reconciliation even with the court having sufficient evidence to leave no doubt, the Inquisition can do no more and hands them back over to the state (The state would then execute them for heresy because it was a state crime). In very rare cases the Inquisition would use torture to extract a confession when they have more than sufficient proof. But this was rare, and the torture sessions were far less brutal than other European court systems. Most historians conclude that the Inquisiton gave no more than two 15 minute sessions to use torture to extract a confession on a person.

Torture is where the Inquisiton got it very wrong. They should of never allowed it. I guess that’s Tomás de Torquemada for you. Even Pope Sixtus IV quarreled with the excesess of the Inquisition at the time. That is, in my opinion, the only reason why Catholics should dislike and apologise for the Inquisiton, and I believe that this is the reason Blessed Pope John Paul II apologised for those crimes.

God Bless.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Perhaps the Church shouldn’t have intervened and introduced a more lenient court system specialised in trialling heresy. Perhaps she should of let tens of thousands more die from unjust secular courts, knowing what kind of attacks she would have had launched against her hundreds of years later for supposedly ‘intervening with a corrupt political system’. Perhaps you need to take external factors, as well as the context, into account, meaning knowlege on how the feudal system worked in theory and practice before condemning it. Even myself, a 17 year old teenager, can do that. It was the best political system they had at the time. You seem to partially attach yourself with various stances of Catholic morality, condemning others on the basis of that, before going around as an atheist declaring that there is no ‘objective’ morality. Such hypocrisy and incoherence in my opinion.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I find your post incoherent. You are an atheist. You do not bind yourself to morals defined by a religion or religious institution. When you say “However, life is life, and the death of a single person is always wrong.” I have to ask, says who? That is simply your opinion on the issue, and in an atheist worldview, there is no objective morality.

I am an atheist. If you knew anything about philosophy, you would know that you do not need to believe in God to believe in objective morality or quasi-objective morality. Immanuel Kant argued that universal laws alluded to God’s existence, but did not actually point to God’s existence absolutely. Bertrand Russell, the eminent atheist philosopher, argued along the same lines that morality does not point to God’s objective existence. For Russell, if you followed religion for the sake of being “moral”, that doesn’t prove God’s existence anymore than encouraging children to be hopeful by believing in Santa Claus. Do you believe Santa Claus has an “objective existence” too? It is merely a case of expediency. Buddhist monks do not believe in God/gods but follow a systematic religion and are probably more “moral” than you can ever aspire to be.

Let’s not also forget that the forefather of economics, Adam Smith, wrote in his influential book The Theory of Moral Sentiments that it was inherent in virtually every person to see the wellbeing of their fellow neighbour:

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner” (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith).

Richard Dawkins and a few other sociobiologists would argue that this is the result of evolution, and human beings are one of the few creatures to show a complex form of sympathy. This ensured that human race could progress from one generation to the next; indeed, Thomas Hobbes argued that in the natural state of affairs, life for man would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).

Your view that belief in objective morality is a requirement for belief in God also fails egregiously on the simple fact that many Christians do not believe in objective morality but believe in subjective morality. This explains why the Anglicans and a few Protestant churches “changed” the rules concerning birth control in 1930. Are you going to argue that Anglicans/Protestants don’t believe in God too?

You are deliberately stirring up trouble, so just cut it out.

No I’m not. You responded to my post first.

We use ‘only’ to contrast the facts with the ridiculous sterotypes that anti-catholics like to hype up. It was not an inhumane court system, it was very enlightened for the standards of the time.

Really? I thought the Church has taught Truth for 2000+ years and doesn’t shift with time or culture. Why have you introduced a caveat all of a sudden by stating “it was very enlightened for the standards of time”. You can’t have your cake and it eat it too. Either you all move with the times or you don’t. Unless of course you too are advocating that satanic evil that you consider “subjective morality”.

With Inquisition: Heretics found, handed over to the Inquisiton. Inquisition trials them with the most modern and enlightened court procedures. Heretics given a lawyer for defence, and the prosecution must have sufficient evidence to prosecute. If the heretic confesses and seeks reconciliation, he is given a penance and reconciled with society. If he refuses to confess his heresy and seek reconciliation even with the court having sufficient evidence to leave no doubt, the Inquisition can do no more and hands them back over to the state (The state would then execute them for heresy because it was a state crime). In very rare cases the Inquisition would use torture to extract a confession when they have more than sufficient proof. But this was rare, and the torture sessions were far less brutal than other European court systems. Most historians conclude that the Inquisiton gave no more than two 15 minute sessions to use torture to extract a confession on a person.

So, either way, you believe it is correct to trial people for “heresy”. Do you believe that kind of justice was correct…yes or no? Do you want to see a reintroduction of such kind of justice? And how does this “justice” differ from Islamic sharia law where infidels have a limb cut off?

At it’s core, both the Inquisition and modern-day Islamic sharia law are both the same. Both believe they were doing God’s work, whether you want to admit it or not. That’s why it’s abominable, and you can’t use the same old “they were enlightened for their time” because that itself is a statement promoting subjective morality.

 

[PiousTemplar]

In philosophy, you can believe anything you want. You seem to mis-represent my position and claim that I am religious in order to be ‘moral’. I never said that morality points to God’s objective existence. Voltaire argued that if God did not exist, he would need to be invented in order to keep an objective supreme good. Modern atheism teaches that morals evolve with the evolution of man, which is in a relationship with how society develops. Catholics of course will admit that in different parts of the globe during the history of mankind, systems of morality were created and developed, even though they were inherently wrong. Catholics believe that God gave us the correct, objective morals when he wrote the 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai. History shows us that man has developed through time, creating various systems of their own objective morality based on religious belief. Atheism is new in terms of the history of man, and in itself cannot build and maintain its own list of objective morals. They will always be violated, seeing as they are not bound with any religious belief, therefore showing no consequences for the changing or violating of these morals. Why wouldn’t they change them over time, perhaps changing to an even contradictory stance within small periods of time? As for " Buddhist monks do not believe in God/gods but follow a systematic religion and are probably more “moral” than you can ever aspire to be.", perhaps you need to re-read the forum rules before unloading your personal attacks. Ever since you became an ‘atheist’ on these forums you seem to have become particularly vile.

“Let’s not also forget that the forefather of economics, Adam Smith, wrote in his influential book The Theory of Moral Sentiments that it was inherent in virtually every person to see the wellbeing of their fellow neighbour:”

Of course, as this is almost required in order to build and maintain a stable society. That does not mean that group ‘A’ will not have contradictory morals that would be considered ‘evil’ by group ‘B’. Simply read about the clash of civilizations in South America during the Spanish invasion.

“Your view that belief in objective morality is a requirement for belief in God also fails egregiously on the simple fact that many Christians do not believe in objective morality but believe in subjective morality. This explains why the Anglicans and a few Protestant churches “changed” the rules concerning birth control in 1930. Are you going to argue that Anglicans/Protestants don’t believe in God too?”

I never said that a belief in objective morality is a requirement for the belief in God. Christians do not believe in subjective morality. Some Christian denominations slightly change their rules regarding morality because of a ‘better understanding’ of the objective morals provided to us by Christianity. This entire paragraph is irrelevant.

" No I’m not. You responded to my post first. "

This thread was about the Catholic stance on the Inquisition, it is not your personal blog to declare your philosophical views.

" Really? I thought the Church has taught Truth for 2000+ years and doesn’t shift with time or culture. Why have you introduced a caveat all of a sudden by stating “it was very enlightened for the standards of time”. You can’t have your cake and it eat it too. Either you all move with the times or you don’t. Unless of course you too are advocating that satanic evil that you consider “subjective morality”. "

Of course, the Church has taught objective Truth for 2000 years, which does not shift with time or culture. Our understanding of these objective truths can increase, just like with the doctrines of the faith. The Church teaches fundamentals, not issues themselves. The Church pushes down its worldview in regards to its objective morality to the standards and issues of the time. Nothing the Inquisition formally did conflicted with Catholic Doctrine or it’s teachings.

" So, either way, you believe it is correct to trial people for “heresy”. Do you believe that kind of justice was correct…yes or no? Do you want to see a reintroduction of such kind of justice? And how does this “justice” differ from Islamic sharia law where infidels have a limb cut off? "

The circumstances are vastly different now. If we were to re-introduce Catholicism as the state religion, then yes, I believe there should be a re-introduction of the Inquisition, excluding the horrific abuses and practices that happened, although very rarely, by individual Churchmen (Which probably held views in contradiction to the fundamental teachings of the Church anyway in my opinion). Islamic Sharia Law is of course much more brutal. The Inquisition wasn’t that brutal. Perhaps you need to dedicate more time to studying the methods of the Inquisition and comparing them to Sharia law. This is what I love about the Church. It holds the fundamental objective moral truths, which it increases it’s understanding of over time to accommodate the standards and issues of the times.

 

[PiousTemplar]

" At it’s core, both the Inquisition and modern-day Islamic sharia law are both the same. Both believe they were doing God’s work, whether you want to admit it or not. That’s why it’s abominable, and you can’t use the same old “they were enlightened for their time” because that itself is a statement promoting subjective morality."

Well, in that regard, yes they are the same. But Socialism/Communism and Nazism are the same using that way of thinking. Both are governments believing they are doing the best for society. That way of thinking in regard to the issue at hand is obviously flawed. You need to recognise there is a difference between ‘subjective morality’ and ‘increased understanding of objective moral truths’. (We believe that the Church Christ founded alone gives us the correct “stances/positions” to hold on current issues of the times in regards to the objective truths)

Perhaps try to not go off in a tangent in an area you are specialised in. This thread is about the Catholic stance on the Inquisition. We are to use history and the Doctrines of the Faith to decipher the answer, not personal opinions of morality.

God Bless.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

In philosophy, you can believe anything you want.

No, you can’t. Philosophy is Greek for “love of wisdom”. It’s not a subject that you can believe in anything you want. It is not a free-for-all. If what you believe in doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny, then it is discarded.

Modern atheism teaches that morals evolve with the evolution of man, which is in a relationship with how society develops.

Atheism doesn’t “teach” that. You can’t pin down on what atheists believe because atheism is not a religion. We do not have a “catechism” and we do not have a pope, nor do we congregate to worship on Sunday. That is the entire point. You will encounter atheists who are existential nihilists (i.e. do not believe there is good and evil); you’ll come across other atheists who believe morality is a product of evolution; you’ll come across atheists who happen to follow a specific way of life (e.g. stoicism). The fact that you believe “modern atheism” teaches so-and-so on morality indicates to us that you do not really know what atheism is. We do not follow a religion and we each have our own view(s) on the world and the way it works. We all agree that there is no God/no existence of the supernatural, but the commonality really stops there.

As for " Buddhist monks do not believe in God/gods but follow a systematic religion and are probably more “moral” than you can ever aspire to be.", perhaps you need to re-read the forum rules before unloading your personal attacks.

It isn’t a personal attack as it is retribution for your ridiculous claim that an atheist (i.e. me) wouldn’t be concerned about the death of an individual/group of people. Incidentally, I was quite astonished at the sweeping statement you made and it’s unfortunate you have such a warped view of reality. How many atheists have you met recently?

I never said that a belief in objective morality is a requirement for the belief in God. Christians do not believe in subjective morality. Some Christian denominations slightly change their rules regarding morality because of a ‘better understanding’ of the objective morals provided to us by Christianity.

Yes, there are many Christian denominations that believe in subjective morality. Perhaps you should spend less time on a Catholic forum and more time elsewhere on the internet/real world to realize that not everyone is a Catholic. In fact, only the Catholic Church (and I would extend it slightly to the Orthodox as well) believe in objective, unchanging morality. Anglicans do not really believe in this per se as it is that their view on morality is dependent on whether you meet a conservative Anglican or a liberal Anglican. Most protestant denominations do not believe in objective, unchanging morality. Those that do are prudent, but that is a characteristic and not a theological definition.

This thread was about the Catholic stance on the Inquisition, it is not your personal blog to declare your philosophical views.

I never outlined my views. I came to the thread in agreement with a previous poster’s post that some Catholics need to stop making excuses and need to stop belittling the lives of human beings simply because a thousand died rather than a million. The irony of your post is that you responded to my post first, and you extended it into a “debate” probably for the purpose of beating your own chest on how much you claim to know about the Church.

Of course, the Church has taught objective Truth for 2000 years, which does not shift with time or culture. Our understanding of these objective truths can increase, just like with the doctrines of the faith.

That wasn’t the point. The point I was making was you can’t claim the ecc. courts were enlightened for “their time”, as to make such suggestion is to promote subjective morality. If you believe in objective morality, then wrong is wrong, whatever the age and right is right, whatever the age. You can not draw distinctions.

…]If we were to re-introduce Catholicism as the state religion, then yes, I believe there should be a re-introduction of the Inquisition, excluding the horrific abuses and practices that happened, although very rarely, by individual Churchmen (Which probably held views in contradiction to the fundamental teachings of the Church anyway in my opinion). Islamic Sharia Law is of course much more brutal. The Inquisition wasn’t that brutal. Perhaps you need to dedicate more time to studying the methods of the Inquisition and comparing them to Sharia law.

Islamic Sharia Law and the Inquisition aren’t that different. You are speaking from a Catholic point of view. And for all intents and purposes, a Muslim will respond to your claim of brutality with Sharia Law by mentioning what Jesus says about the relative importance of a body limb in comparison to one’s eternal fate:

“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:30)

and,

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:6)

The fact remains that the philosophical underpinnings between sharia law and the inquisition are equivalent. Both assert they are doing God’s work so that they are ready for the afterlife. Why are you afraid of the association with Islam, unless of course you know that the Inquisition was essentially the same?

 

[JDaniel]

You can always learn from different religions. Even the Church says that other religions contain some element of truth; the only issue is that they don’t contain the fullness of truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was influenced significantly by Islamic philosophers, and he said something to the effect that “truth is truth wherever you find it”.

BB:

Providing it is, in fact, truth.

The fact that you advocate only to read the Catholic account of the Inquisition indicates to me some kind of denial of truth. Why not advocate that the OP reads various accounts and comes to his/her own conclusion(s)? If the truth is self-evident, then that’s what the OP will ultimately reach. Simply because a historical account does not put the Church in a positive light does not make it “revisionist”. Do you know what revisionism even is? And do you honestly believe a Catholic account of the Inquisition will say something along the lines of “the Inquisition is wrong. Humans make mistakes. Let’s look to the future”, or more like “God ordered us to do it. We are right. We will always be right” and some red herring to other historical tragedies?

Looks to me that this was a sideways, askance shot at my post. (Hmmm - you answer it through a post to someone else.) I think you have a skewed view of “history.” You do not comprehend that history is precisely that, history. You view the past as the present, and the participants of the past as present, and visa-versa.

Furthermore, you seem to conflate the actions of some people, who claim Catholicity, with the entirety of the Catholic Church - across all of its history and all of its entities. Adolph Hitler, who was a Catholic, though fallen-away, should, in your view, really skewer the Church.

Then, you end up twisting what (I) said. Now, it is obvious why you have shrouded my post in a fictional plausible denial scheme. Next you’ll no doubt say that you weren’t responding to my post. You are duck soup, Bohm.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The official investigations themselves - Nah. Heresy had to be uprooted for the sake of the soul that might have been otherwise influenced by it.

Unholy murder that accompanied the inquisitions at times - absolutely okay! Murder is a sin.

Good post Joe, but it would seem to take way too much thought - for a few participants of this thread!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

“only” 3-5k people killed

DJ:

Good point, but it was a “war”; a war against such people/groups as the Albigensians, who helped people get their minds right (with their beliefs) by locking them in rooms and denying them food!

Nevertheless, I concur that the extinguishment of one innocent is a crime, even it it was by accident (which “courts of law” do, from time to time, all over the world; often by our own elected officials).

We ought to pray for those souls and all of the souls of the dead. Deaths must not become materialist fodder. There is a better life following this one.

jd

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

BB:

Providing it is, in fact, truth.

Well, kindly offer your explanation as to why that specific Quranic verse is wrong. If anything, it is in perfect conformity with Church teaching regarding the Communion of Saints. A sin against one person adversely impacts the whole community of the faithful (in ways we can or can not see), whilst a good deed to one person benefits the whole community of the faithful (in ways we can or can not see). Simply because the verse comes from the Quran does not make it incorrect. Even Pope John Paul II kissed the Quran, so I don’t understand your nihilism to what the Quran has to say. Again, please offer your explanation as to why you think the verse is wrong.

Furthermore, you seem to conflate the actions of some people, who claim Catholicity, with the entirety of the Catholic Church - across all of its history and all of its entities. Adolph Hitler, who was a Catholic, though fallen-away, should, in your view, really skewer the Church.

No, Adolf Hitler isn’t representative of Catholics and never once have I said Adolf Hitler was representative of Catholics. Actually, Hitler’s personal life is very intriguing because on the one hand he was raised as a Catholic, but on the other hand there is evidence to suggest he was an atheist. Not to mention the fact that Hitler was involved in the occult (Nazism is an occult belief) and some reports have emerged that the incumbent pope at the time tried to exorcize him remotely. So I wouldn’t use Adolf Hitler to represent the Church, and indeed I haven’t. From my own experience, those who tend to refer to the religions (or lack thereof) of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, etc, often have an ulterior motive of deliberately painting the religion (or lack thereof) in a negative light.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Then, you end up twisting what (I) said. Now, it is obvious why you have shrouded my post in a fictional plausible denial scheme. Next you’ll no doubt say that you weren’t responding to my post. You are duck soup, Bohm.

I just reviewed this thread and I didn’t/wasn’t even responding to you . I didn’t even notice you posted on the first page. Seems to me you just wanted to start a debate for debate’s sake

*Edit: Read post #17 again. It was clearly in reference to Semper Zelare. If I was referring to you, I would have quoted you.

lol, pretty funny as I was thinking “who is JDaniel”. Then I thought it might be a duplicate account of Semper Zelare, only to then realize the locations were different .

 

[scipio337]

Which Inquisition are you asking about? Medieval, Roman, Portuguese or Spanish?

At any rate, facts > myths. Good reads:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holinquisit.htm#MYTH 3

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0026.html

catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

You’ll find book references in the links as well.

After those reads and others on google and in historical books, you’ll find your answer whether one should repudiate the Inquisitions or not. Personally, education points to no.

Very good point. Each had its own historical context. During the Spanish Inquisition, much of it was a REaction to 800+ years of oppressive Islamic rule in Spain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

No, Adolf Hitler isn’t representative of Catholics and never once have I said Adolf Hitler was representative of Catholics. Actually, Hitler’s personal life is very intriguing because on the one hand he was raised as a Catholic, but on the other hand there is evidence to suggest he was an atheist. Not to mention the fact that Hitler was involved in the occult (Nazism is an occult belief) and some reports have emerged that the incumbent pope at the time tried to exorcize him remotely. So I wouldn’t use Adolf Hitler to represent the Church, and indeed I haven’t. From my own experience, those who tend to refer to the religions (or lack thereof) of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, etc, often have an ulterior motive of deliberately painting the religion (or lack thereof) in a negative light.

Totally off topic, forgive me, but do you think the evidence of him being an atheist is strong enough to label him as such? I’ve been holding this position for awhile, just haven’t found many likeminded subscribers.