Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ak29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ak29

Guest
Guys I was browsing this article on nndb.com, which is sorta like a people tracker, biographical site, with information about everyone considered famous or important etc. I was reading Pope Benedicts, and in the article, they gave a link to the Inquisition, I fond the link was bias, too argumentative, and was more satricals than it was a historical piece. nndb seems to be a reputable site, I was thinking of sending in a complaint.
Perhaps it is just me, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at it, tell me what you think, and if we should maybe make a complaint

heres the article:
Link removed by Moderator
Click to expand...
Thanks
Andrew
 
40.png
ak29:
I was wondering if you could take a quick look at it, tell me what you think, …
Click to expand...
Generally, I would oppose the use of torture to extract confessions. I don;t know why these forms of torture were approved. they seem to me to be very painful.
  • Sawing: Heretics were hung upside-down and sawed apart down the middle, starting at the crotch.
  • Disembowelment: Not the nice kind of disembowelment, where a samurai slits you wide open like a fish and you die in moments. No, that’s not good enough for the Inquisition. A small hole is cut in the gut, then the intestines are drawn out slowly and carefully, keeping the victim alive for as much of the process as possible.
  • The Stake: Depending on how unrepentant a heretic might be, the process of burning at the stake could vary wildly. For instance, a fairly repentant heretic might be strangled, then burned. An entirely unrepentant heretic could be burned over the course of hours, using green wood or simply by placing them on top of hot coals and leaving them there until well done.
 
Agreed, I am just wondering as to the validity of the article, as well there are many more academic writings on the Inquisition, this one feels simply like a rant by some guy. He portrays the the Church, as evil, money hungry, corrupt priests, and says the heretics were living closer to Christ, than the Catholics.

Anyway I’ll wait for other people to respond, before I know if I should send a complaint. 😛
 
I would read this article before responding:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Black Legend was created by Protestants to legitimize their claims that they were part of a “hidden” church that had been persecuted for centuries alongside the Catholic Church. :rolleyes:

Also, the Church never burned anyone at the stake. It was the secular authorities who killed the heretics.

BTW - Hi Stanley! 👋
 
Thanks Eden, I have read a similar article , and the tract on it at catholic.com, thats why I was kinda mad at this article from rotten.com. Like I said, it just sounded like a grumpy guy, turning everything into satire.

I am considering lodging a complain, just wandering if the circumstances warrant it?
 
40.png
ak29:
Agreed, …
Click to expand...
It is agreed that we oppose torture, but historically, was it not true that in 1252, Pope Innocent IV approved the infliction of torture on heretics to extract confessions?
See the Catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Torture “was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull “Ad exstirpanda” of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum – i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life.”
 
Heresy was and is a threat to civilization itself.

Let’s not let that important fact fall through the cracks.
 
40.png
adnauseum:
Let’s not let that important fact fall through the cracks.
Click to expand...
Another important fact: It was a Spanish Inquisitor who first advanced cogent legal and moral arguments against the use of torture which eventually led to the Church disavowing such methods.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Another important fact: It was a Spanish Inquisitor who first advanced cogent legal and moral arguments against the use of torture which eventually led to the Church disavowing such methods.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And it was Catholic priests who raised moral indignation when Christopher Columbus invaded America and murdered Indians.

I believe firmly that the Catholic Church was in the world, committed the sins of the world, but is simultaneously above the world, and continues to be the best Hope for the World.

She has demonstrated over time that she is fully able to reform herself when valid reform is needed.
 
40.png
stanley123:
Generally, I would oppose the use of torture to extract confessions. I don;t know why these forms of torture were approved. they seem to me to be very painful.
Click to expand...
One cannot judge the past according to the standards of the present.

The Church did not “approve” of tortures, she regulated them. Those that she permitted were far less cruel than those commonly practiced then by secular authorities.

In other words, the Church was saying the worlds which torture methods were tolerated. It was an improvement.

Besides, the judicial court system as we know today was also introduced by the Church as part of her Inquisition norms: right to counsel, innocent until proved guilty, need of evidence, etc. But one won’t find such reference easily…

:blessyou:
 
40.png
Augustine:
One cannot judge the past according to the standards of the present.
Click to expand...
But one can and must judge the past according to the standards of the truth. There may have been a reason for torture as a tool used against heretics, but there is no excuse for it.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
There may have been a reason for torture as a tool used against heretics, but there is no excuse for it.
Click to expand...
You can’t distinguish between excusing the Church and defending her?

Sad.
 
Why does the Church not deserve a defense?

Any insight?

Anyone?

Bueller?
 
Not only did the inquisition moderate what was allowed during “questioning”, and introduce " right to counsel, innocent until proved guilty, need of evidence, etc.", the Spanish inquisition did not burn witches (as was often the case in protestant countries), but considered witchcraft to be a sign of mental illness.

An excellent reference is the book Characters of the Inquisition by William Thomas Walsh, who is a well known and highly respected historian.
 
40.png
Catilieth:
Not only did the inquisition moderate what was allowed during “questioning”, and introduce " right to counsel, innocent until proved guilty, need of evidence, etc.", the Spanish inquisition did not burn witches (as was often the case in protestant countries), but considered witchcraft to be a sign of mental illness.

An excellent reference is the book Characters of the Inquisition by William Thomas Walsh, who is a well known and highly respected historian.
Click to expand...
Applause.

Well said.

Also good reading is How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods, Jr. who is also a highly respected scholar.

Also Progress and Religion by Christopher Dawson who is quite a heavyweight.

Of course Hilaire Belloc has written extensively and brilliantly on the Crusades, The Reformation, and European History.

Once you scratch the surface and get beneath dime-store anti-Catholic propaganda and liberal Catholic self-loathing, you find that the Catholic Church *led *the world toward civilized, humanitarian values long before the so-called Enlightenment.
 
40.png
Augustine:
The Church did not “approve” of tortures, she regulated them.
Click to expand...
Really? But, according to the Catholic encyclopedia online:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Torture “was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull “Ad exstirpanda” of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum – i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life.”
 
40.png
Eden:
I would read this article before responding:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Black Legend was created by Protestants to legitimize their claims that they were part of a “hidden” church that had been persecuted for centuries alongside the Catholic Church. :rolleyes:

Also, the Church never burned anyone at the stake. It was the secular authorities who killed the heretics.

BTW - Hi Stanley! 👋
Click to expand...
This is a good article
 
40.png
mlchance:
But one can and must judge the past according to the standards of the truth. There may have been a reason for torture as a tool used against heretics, but there is no excuse for it.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing different things. Particular actions, even torture, depending on many factors, is a just method to defend others or the Faith, without prejudice to Truth.

It’s not unlike the death penalty: as stated in the CCC, it’s doubtful that it shouldn’t be applied in 3rd-world countries. Back in the Middle Ages, for similar reasons, torture would an accepatable method of protecting further damage.

:blessyou:
 
I know that this may sound whiney and knit-picking, but has anyone noticed some of the “hyper-inflated” numbers given for those whom the Inquisition has “killed”/“burned at the stake”? I know that Spain’s Inquisition was more politically motivated, but come on! Ninety-five MILLION deaths due to the Inquisition? Whatever happened to “truth in advertising”? 😦 :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top