Inquisition Questions

[bobzills]

And as you know, those burnt were frequently already dead from strangulation, drugged or killed quickly with a charge of gunpowder.

This was not the case with St. Joan of Arc, who was innocent all along. This was a horrible way to execute a Saint.

 

[mgrfin]

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. The Pope had explicitly called on English Catholics to rise up, and a few of the Catholic missionaries were engaged in plots against Elizabeth. The Elizabethan government did not execute Catholics until the excommunication, as far as I know. The political motivation was not simply propaganda, although it certainly resulted in an all-out persecution of missionary priests and their sympathizers, the vast majority of whom were not engaged in political activity as well.

Elizabeth I was not as benign a ruler as TV would make us believe. It is true that in 1570 Elizabeth was excommunicated. But torturing and killing of Catholics had begun to take place during Henry’s reign, after his excommunication in 1532, and continued afterwards. Particularly cruel and unusual punishment.

The Forty Martyrs of England and Wales were a select group of martyrs for the Faith between 1535 and 1679, canonized by Paul VI in 1970. They were a small percentage of those killed for the Faith in Merry Ol’ England, not merry anymore since the Canterbury Tales.

St.Margaret Ward’s feast day is this month, August 30th. She was scourged, tortured in prison for 8 days, hanging by her fingertips off the floor. She was offered freedom if she would have attended a Protestant liturgy, but she refused. She was hanged and, while still alive drawn and quartered on August 30, 1588. That she was a woman did not appease her British captors. The Inquisition cannot compare with the British taste for Catholic blood.

Also, this month, of the Forty Martyrs, we celebrate Sts. John Kemble, 8/22; John Wall, 8/25; David Lewis, 8/27; Edmund Arrowsmith, 8/28.

All you holy martyrs, pray for us.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Contarini]

Elizabeth I was not as benign a ruler as TV would make us believe. It is true that in 1570 Elizabeth was excommunicated. But torturing and killing of Catholics had begun to take place during Henry’s reign, after his excommunication in 1532, and continued afterwards.

You’re fudging. What are the statistics for the years 1559-72? I am not talking about Henry. I am talking about Elizabeth before 1572 (also about Edward, if it comes to that).

And the remark about TV wanting us to think Elizabeth was benign is a red herring. I don’t see that TV has any particular wish in the matter, and I certainly don’t think Elizabeth was a particularly benign ruler. I think she was ruthless in the way most successful rulers of her day were ruthless, maybe a bit more so (killing her cousin, while certainly a response to a real threat, was a pretty nasty thing to do) due to her vulnerable position as a woman ruler whose legitimacy was under serious question.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

You’re fudging. What are the statistics for the years 1559-72? I am not talking about Henry. I am talking about Elizabeth before 1572 (also about Edward, if it comes to that).

And the remark about TV wanting us to think Elizabeth was benign is a red herring. I don’t see that TV has any particular wish in the matter, and I certainly don’t think Elizabeth was a particularly benign ruler. I think she was ruthless in the way most successful rulers of her day were ruthless, maybe a bit more so (killing her cousin, while certainly a response to a real threat, was a pretty nasty thing to do) due to her vulnerable position as a woman ruler whose legitimacy was under serious question.

Edwin

Let’s put it this way. Elizabeth I has a pretty good press. She is not the Virgin Mother of God, but she perceived herself as the Virgin bride of Britain.

You’re the historian. Tell me how many were martyred between
1559-72. I don’t have a number, but I can research it, but, after you, since you seem to know aforehand.

There were lots of powerful woman rulers in those days, Isabella of Spain, Mary, Queen of Scots and her sister. Elizabeth was pretty good at cutting off people’s heads, and allowing for torture, etc., her “feminity” to the contrary notwithstanding. “She had to do it”? Please give me a break. She could have imprisoned people, or exiled them; she didn’t have to scourge them, half hang them, then draw and quarter them, dragging what poor remains were left through the streets, and sticking up heads on the Tower.
What ever happened to ‘noblesse oblige’ - oh, that’s a French term.

She was a pretty ‘inconsiderate’ character. If you want some more martyr stories, I have plenty.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Petergee]

I’m sorry, but this is untrue. The Pope had explicitly called on English Catholics to rise up,

He purported to give them exemption from their obedince to Elizabeth. Not the same thing.

and a few of the Catholic missionaries were engaged in plots against Elizabeth.

Who?

The Elizabethan government did not execute Catholics until the excommunication, as far as I know. The political motivation was not simply propaganda, although it certainly resulted in an all-out persecution of missionary priests and their sympathizers, the vast majority of whom were not engaged in political activity as well.

I think the best analogy is Communist persecution of Christians. Communists certainly hated Christianity, but when they perceived that Christians were likely to side politically with the West against Communist governments, this resulted in more active and virulent persecution, and it was not simply propaganda–Westerners did regard the defense and promotion of Christianity in Communist countries as a way to fight Communism politically.

Of course when Communists/Anglicans were bitterly persecuting Christians/Catholics, and foreign powers opposed and threatened to overthrow the Communists/Anglicans, then naturally the Christians/catholics would hope that they succeeded if that seemed to be the only way they could be freed from persecution. But I’m sure the Christians/Catholics would prefer that the Comminists/Anglicans simply stop persecuting them, without any foreign action.

If you read the OP, you will see that the poster has only the vaguest notion of what the Inquisition was (he seems to think that the Inquisition had something to do with Luther’s interrogation at Worms, which it didn’t).

Which was disposed with quickly and since then we have been discussing the Inquisition.

Just how do you see Elizabethan England as more of a “police state” than Spain of that same era? What is your standard of comparison?

A major factor is that Elizabeth forcibly imposed Anglicanism on a population which was overwhelmingly opposed to it. The Spanish monarchs simply sought to preserve the status quo supported by the vast majority of its population.

 

[Contarini]

He purported to give them exemption from their obedince to Elizabeth. Not the same thing.

For the purpose of this discussion, yes, it is the same thing. It meant that all Catholics were regarded as at least potential traitors, and that this was not simply paranoia on the part of Elizabeths’ government.

Who?

John Ballard, for one, who was involved with the Babington plot designed to kill Elizabeth and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots. Robert Persons was also involved (on the Continent) in negotiating with Robert Lennox to mount an invasion in favor of Mary.

A major factor is that Elizabeth forcibly imposed Anglicanism on a population which was overwhelmingly opposed to it. The Spanish monarchs simply sought to preserve the status quo supported by the vast majority of its population.

I think this is a cop-out. 16th-century governments did not take polls, and the conclusions of the “revisionists” are not yet beyond dispute. Even Duffy admits that by the end of Elizabeth’s reign public opinion had changed considerably.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Let’s put it this way. Elizabeth I has a pretty good press. She is not the Virgin Mother of God, but she perceived herself as the Virgin bride of Britain.

And who believes this today?

I saw the movie “Elizabeth” with a Catholic woman, and I remember saying apologetically to her afterwards that it was a very anti-Catholic movie. She responded with some truth that nobody came off well. To me, the close of that movie manages to show sympathy with Elizabeth while portraying the horror and blasphemy of what she turned herself into.

You’re the historian. Tell me how many were martyred between
1559-72. I don’t have a number, but I can research it, but, after you, since you seem to know aforehand.

No, I don’t know–that’s the point. I don’t know of any. But if there were some, I’m happy to be better informed.

There were lots of powerful woman rulers in those days

And they all had a precarious position. Isabella had to struggle continually to keep Ferdinand’s hands off Castile; Mary Tudor married Philip of Spain and risked turning England into a Hapsburg province, and essentially had to produce a child in order to secure her position (she had a tumor instead); we all know how Mary Queen of Scots ended up. Both Isabella and Mary Tudor were plenty ruthless themselves.

and allowing for torture, etc., her “feminity” to the contrary notwithstanding. “She had to do it”? Please give me a break. She could have imprisoned people, or exiled them; she didn’t have to scourge them, half hang them, then draw and quarter them, dragging what poor remains were left through the streets, and sticking up heads on the Tower.

Are you seriously claiming that this was odd behavior in sixteenth-century monarchs?

I’m not saying she was a saint. I’m saying she did what monarchs of that time routinely did. Vicious punishments were the norm.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

Compared to say, the male Catholics in England who were hanged, drawn and quartered? Or the female Catholics who were slowly crushed to death under a stone? Or the modern “lethal injection” which can leave its victim in excruciating pain for hours but totally paralysed?
And as you know, those burnt were frequently already dead from strangulation, drugged or killed quickly with a charge of gunpowder.

Women were also treated harsely. I mention again St Margaret Ward, who was scourged, hung by her fingers off the floor for eight days, and then hanged, and while still alive she was disemboweled, drawn and quartered. (During the reign of Elizabeth I). She was given the chance to save herself by attending an Anglican liturgy. I guess that is when they started having nice music.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

Are you seriously claiming that this was odd behavior in sixteenth-century monarchs?

I’m not saying she was a saint. I’m saying she did what monarchs of that time routinely did. Vicious punishments were the norm.

Edwin

This is the behavior of despots, whether the 16th century or the 20th

 

[Contarini]

This is the behavior of despots, whether the 16th century or the 20th

Well, pretty much all rulers of large states in the sixteenth century were despots, and the trend was toward despotism throughout the century. I recommend Skinner’s Foundations of Modern Political Thought for a detailed examination of this process.

Edwin

 

[Protestant101]

No, I said that only “extreme bigots” still use the term “Dark Ages” for the whole of the Middle Ages.

Well; things were pretty “dark” then, regardless of what position one would happen to have in all this. I just want to know why one who thinks that is a “bigot?” You haven’t really demonstrated that very well.

 

[Petergee]

Well; things were pretty “dark” then, regardless of what position one would happen to have in all this. I just want to know why one who thinks that is a “bigot?” You haven’t really demonstrated that very well.

Ok I’ll assume this is an honest question.
The term “Dark Ages” was formerly applied to the 7th to 10th centuries in Europe, because of the relative scarcity of contemporary written records of this period. (Many of them were destroyed during the destruction of monasteries by protestant soldiers and mobs.) It was also “dark” in the sense that the Moslems, Vikings and other fierce heathen invaders were a severe threat to Christendom. Modern historians have long dropped the term, mainly because it was misleading and “dark” had become associated with “ignorant”.

Some anti-Catholic polemicists have used the term “dark ages” to cover the entire Middle Ages (approx 600 to 1400) with the implication that because Catholicism was then in a virtually undisputed position in most of Europe, it must have been a time of ignorance. In fact Europe in general was much “darker” (ignorant, violent, superstitious, etc) in the century following the protestant revolt than during the five previous centuries.

 

[Contarini]

Well; things were pretty “dark” then, regardless of what position one would happen to have in all this.

“Dark” by what standard? If you mean that people’s lives were tough, sure. Maybe tougher than under the Roman Empire, though I’m not at all sure about that (think about the large number of slaves in the Empire and how wretched their lives were much of the time). If you mean that they didn’t have sewer systems and dentists, I won’t disagree with you. I would be dead now from blood clots–but that would have been true at any time in human history (most likely–obviously God could have ordained differently) until the past 10-15 years, when the clot-busting technology that saved my life was invented.

I just want to know why one who thinks that is a “bigot?” You haven’t really demonstrated that very well.

Because the phrase “Dark Ages” as traditionally used has connotations of either spiritual darkness or cultural darkness or both. It was used to describe a period before the supposed “revival of learning” in the Renaissance, when people were not intellectually curious but just believed whatever they were told, with the result that society and culture was stagnant for centuries and a decadent Church kept people down. At one time intelligent people who devoted themselves to studying the subject actually believed this. Today they do not–the only people who believe this are people who do not bother informing themselves about the Middle Ages and/or are blinded by their ideological prejudices. No fair-minded person can deny that the cultural and intellectual life of the 12-13th centuries was stunning on a number of fronts. Similarly, whether or not you agree with medieval theology, obviously there was a great deal of spiritual vitality and renewal during those centuries. People who refuse to see this can be fairly characterized as bigots.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

But the method of execution was burning alive at the stake, which was an extremely cruel and barbaric form of punishment, for anyone, but most expecially for innocent people such as St. Joan of Arc.

And you apparently think that St Joan’s case, where the Inquisition’s function was blatantly rorted by the English government for political reasons to deliver a false judgment, which was condemned by the Church, which canonised her a saint (otherwise you would probably never have heard of her), is some sort of argument AGAINST the Church? Sounds loopy to me.

 

[bobzills]

And you apparently think that St Joan’s case, where the Inquisition’s function was blatantly rorted by the English government for political reasons to deliver a false judgment, which was condemned by the Church, which canonised her a saint (otherwise you would probably never have heard of her), is some sort of argument AGAINST the Church? Sounds loopy to me.

It is an argument agaisnt the Inquisition which handed people over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake, a most cruel form of punishment. Not to mention the torture that people faced during the questioning process. And by the way, this torture of people to extract confessions, was actually approved by a papal bull according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[St_Violet]

It is an argument agaisnt the Inquisition which handed people over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake, a most cruel form of punishment. Not to mention the torture that people faced during the questioning process. And by the way, this torture of people to extract confessions, was actually approved by a papal bull according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

the inquisition under the papacy was alot more linent then you think. and alot of bishops and priests were inexperienced on how to handle heresy because nothing like this was ever dealt with.

anyways, those who were burnt on the stake were mostly people who did not want to recant or those who have relapsed, just before they were burnt at the stake they still had the option to achieve salvation before their sentence because once they are in the hands of the secular authorities theres nothing the Church could do. the Church has given people enough opportunities to recant peacfully.

Innocent the 3rd sent dominicans to try to talk with them peacefully, until the Cathars messed up and murdered a bishop, that’s when Innocent the third launched a crusade to supress the Cathars.

People had a 30 day grace peroid, so that people can come in and confess peacefully and recieved salvation and were left alone.

now a person who was in questioning were asked to name their enemies , if the name happens to match the same person who ratted on him, this person was immediately let go peacefully

and torture was an acceptable form to get the truth, it’s easy for us now in our modern times to say oh well this is absurd, but during those times it was considered normal, plus torture was no more then 15 mins and blood was not allowed, so if person just a drop of blood, the torture session had to stop immediately , the person let go. if the person was to admit during the torture sessions, he had the option to recant and be left alone.

the Cathars had beliefs that were tottaly not christian, why people were drawn to the cathars was simply their simplicity and they were monkish, but they had beliefs even Protestants today disagree, this is why the Catholic Church felt it was important to be licensed to preach in public

NOW the spanish inquisition, that is a different topic.

anyways it’s been awhile since i research the inquisition, if I’m wrong some where someone should correct me, but you should research the Inquisition ,

 

[Protestant101]

It is an argument agaisnt the Inquisition which handed people over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake, a most cruel form of punishment. Not to mention the torture that people faced during the questioning process. And by the way, this torture of people to extract confessions, was actually approved by a papal bull according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

I would be interested to see a link or exact quote, with page number, etc., from this Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the “Papal Bull” approving of this torture to “extract” confessions.

 

[Montalban]

I would be interested to see a link or exact quote, with page number, etc., from this Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the “Papal Bull” approving of this torture to “extract” confessions.

Remove the word “Papal” from that and you’ll see what it is that was posted.

 

[bobzills]

I would be interested to see a link or exact quote, with page number, etc., from this Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as the “Papal Bull” approving of this torture to “extract” confessions.

Simply look up under the word “torture” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia and you’ll find it. If you want an online reference, you will find it on wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_exstirpanda
"Ad exstirpanda is the incipit designating a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. It explicitly authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics during the Inquisition, although it also limited its uses. Innocent IV reason in his bull that as heretics are “murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, … are to be coerced—as are thieves and bandits—into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb.” "

 

[bobzills]

Remove the word “Papal” from that and you’ll see what it is that was posted.

This is a rather contemptuous remark concerning a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265.