According to the Spanish Inquisition’s records, the total number of heretics executed by the civil government over the entire course of the Inquisition’s activities approximated 3,000 to 4,000 or roughly an average of 10 a year. A worthwhile, scholarly book on the Spanish Inquisition is *The Spanish Inquisition *by Henry Kamen.
Galileo was not absolutely right, nor is any scientist. All scienfic understanding is subject to refinnement. Galileo’s cosmology and in particular his solar system was one hell of a lot closer to the truth than geocentrism. Don’t forget he was also combatting the false notion of diurnal rotation of the cosmos around the fixed earth.
In a utopia maybe but in reality politics will always interfere with personal freedoms. During the Cold War senator Joseph McCarthy drew up a blacklist of intellectuals and hollywood directors. Many careers were ruined. While it was definitely heavy handed and I absolutely don’t agree with it, I can see McCarthy’s viewpoint He didn’t want to cede any sort of advantage to the Communists.
That’s because you live in the 21st century. Again, look back at the norms of the time. How crimes were punished, etc… As we look back in history many things do not look “right” to us. However, corporal punishment remains alive today in some countries.
What is extremely straightforward? Galileo’s theory or the entire Galileo affair?
Funny how some Catholics condemn situational or relative morality when it suits, but embrace it in other circumstances. McCarthyism is a blot on the history of the USA in much the same way that the Inquisition is a blot on the history of the Catholic Church.
Are you advocating total situational morality?
You said:
I said: 'It is extremely straightforward.
Yet we are where we are today because of it, not inspite of it. It’s called progress and its anachronistic to impose our values today to those 800 years earlier. That’s all we’re saying. Completely different life, economy and political system back then. The inquisition is only considered a blot because of atheistic propaganda but in reality it was much more lenient than the texas justice system.
Never said any of these were right. Curious though, where is the murder of unborns in your list?
No it is not. Things that are wrong are wrong -they do not lead to progress, they lead to injustice, bad blood and moral decay. The Inquisition was wrong and McCarthyism was wrong and both movements badly damaged the institutions in which they are found.hecd2:
Yet we are where we are today because of it, not inspite of it. It’s called progress and its anachronistic to impose our values today to those 800 years earlier.
No, the Inquisition is a blot on the Catholic Church because it was an injust, unjustified, disgraceful and evil institution. The fact there were other institutions that were equally wrong or worse does not excuse the inexcusable.
Quite likely. What is wrong is wrong. The Inquisition was an evil and graceless episode in the history of the Church. The rush to post apologetics for the inexcusable on this board has been an unedifying spectacle.
Hardly, both did their job effectively. If it were not for the inquisition then we may have fallen into the cathar heresy, believing the material world was intrinsically evil and not worth investigating. Science, which you hold dear, would not have started.
Modern historians disagree with you.
Again, modern historians disagree with you. Move on from 18th century “enlightenment” propaganda. Mistakes were made, but it was hardly the evil monstrosity you make it out to be, not by a long shot.
This refers to the Inquisition and McCarthyism and suggests that both were good progressive institutions. I can only describe that view as perverse - but if you want to think that, so be it. As for the idea that science is *beholden *the the Inquisition, that is utterly ridiculous. The acceleration of the influence and success of science has coincided with the period after the Enlightenment, when the Inquisition lost its influence and formal heresies multiplied in the world. The Cathars did not have and never would have had sufficient influence to suppress science
Reference me a single neutral (ie non-Catholic apologist) historian who disagrees with the statement that the mediaeval and the Spanish Inquisitions were injust, and evil
No need to set up a strawman. No one said it was good and progressive, just necessary.
Acceleration yes, but ‘start’, no. Your assertion is non sequitor. Science started in the middle ages.
That’s because they were stopped in their tracks. They had already spread over most of southern France when they were stopped.
Listen here, I won’t stand for this sort of nonsense. No one is revelling in the death of others. I’m just glad the west did not fall into gnosticism, end of story. Stop attributing to people what they did not say. You have shown yourself to be willing to slander the personal character of those who you disagree with instead of engaging in rational dialogue.
Courtenay, William “Inquiry and Inquisition: Academic Freedom in the Medieval Universities” Church History 58, 1989
Some of the Inquisition was necessary. Some was evil and unjust. To claim it was all evil and unjust does violence to historical, cultural, and political realites.
To assess the Inquisition properly, we must distinguish between the ***principle*** which undergirded it, and the ***actions*** of those responsible for implementing the principle.
1- **The principle** — that the Church must guard the faith against deviations — is an obligation of divine law (cf. Mt. 18:18; 2 Tim. 1:14).
2- **The actions** taken to implement the process sometimes were questionable and even deplorable. Yet, because of centuries of misinformation, we must take care to distinguish fact from fiction.
Continues the Pope: ***"The topic you have dwelt on, The Inquisition, as you can easily see, calls for careful discernment and considerable knowledge of history. The indispensable contribution of historians will certainly be a help to theologians in making a more accurate evaluation of this phenomenon which, precisely because of its complexity, must be analyzed in a scrupulously objective way.***"In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298)".
However, anti-Catholic pamphleteers and historians have grossly exaggerated the numbers, asserting that millions died at the stake. Though the actual numbers are far less (3,000-5,000), these fiery deaths were quite real and regrettable.The modern historiography of the Inquisition, most of it by non-Catholic historians, has resulted in a careful, relatively precise, and on the whole rather moderate image of the institution, some of the most important works being: