Is the Inquisition a black mark on the Catholic Church?

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the killing of heretics and why it was done.

An inquisition was necessary at times because the laity were already burning people alive for heresy. There would be a lot of chaos unless a formal and institutionalized court was established. Is the Inquisition a perfect system that had no evil people leading it? No. Just like our American courts are not perfect since both are run by sinners who can do evil and they are humans that can make mistakes.

First of all, Aquinas’s idea that idea that heretics deserve “banishment… from this world by death” is a monstrous concept. It and of itself is a black mark on the Church. Disagreement with the Church deserves no penalty then or now, and most certainly not one of death.

Aquinas’s second statement there where the Church is to show mercy by giving a person multiple chances to renounce any heresy (from the Church’s perspective) builds upon that fallacious idea that only those in agreement with the Church should be allowed to live.

Your statement that the inquisition(s) was/were necessary because the laity were burning heretics has several flaws. One, why would the laity assume it is good and right to burn heretics? Because the Church said it was. Two, is the Church bound to work hand-in-hand with the governments or can they speak out against what they believe is wrong? We know that the Church today will speak out against injustice if they feel wrong is being done. Are you suggesting that the Church set up the inquisitions to stop the burning of heretics? It’s clear the Church was for that abominable practice because they saw it as a crime worthy of death, no matter whether local governments were in agreement or not.

Does the Church feel heretics today should be forced to recant their heresies under penalty of death? If not, why not? Why this change in policy? And if this change in policy was because the practice was wrong, then (bringing this back to the OP) wouldn’t it be fair to say that this is a black mark on the Church?

One final thought: You compared the courts of the inquisitions to American courts. Who do American courts put to death? Murderers. We don’t put people in the electrical chair for philosophical differences. Do you agree with Aquinas when he says that a heretic should be treated harsher than a counterfeiter?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Does the true faith say that in order to be a disciple of Jesus you must hate your father and your mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters?

Yes, those were the words of Our Lord. When He said to hate our father & mother, He was using an exaggeration that was used in His day in which, in Jewish literature, to hate something could mean to simply love less than something else. Christ wants us to love Him more than our parents, so if our parents command us to offend God we must disobey them and, in that sense, we “hate” them since we love them less than God.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

First of all, Aquinas’s idea that idea that heretics deserve “banishment… from this world by death” is a monstrous concept. It and of itself is a black mark on the Church. Disagreement with the Church deserves no penalty then or now, and most certainly not one of death.

…

The American courts put men to death that have committed corporal murder. The inquisiton courts put men to death who committed spiritual murder. If one is Catholic, it is indisputable that spiritual murder is much more serious than physical murder because one ends earthly life and the other ends eternal life and sends the person to Hell. To the Church, executing an arch-heretic is like executing a mass murderer.

I recommend you watch the video I posted a link to in my first post. It states quite well why the Medieval people burned people who were heretics. I will present a quote here from Dr. Thomas Madden:

…it’s worth pointing out that the medieval world was not the modern world. For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The medieval people did not act according to Church precepts, but on their own accord to an attack against their entire way of life.

It is to my understanding that the Church cannot carry out a death penalty herself, but must rely on civil authorities to do so. Since there are no modern governments that are Catholic anymore, none of them would execute arch-heretics. At the time of the inquisitions, the government and the Church were united, so a crime against the Church was a crime against the government and was punished as such. The Church couldn’t let the faithful just toss whoever they deemed a heretic into a bonfire, so the Church made an orderly institution to regulate it and to ensure true justice should prevail.

The Church has not had an inquisition recently because it simply wouldn’t work. Also, there was always some sort of arch-heretic in the Church but only a handful of inquisitions, so it isn’t the Church’s automatic response to heresy.

 

[phil19034]

I recommend checking out these two audio CDs/MP3s for starters

saintjoe.com/products/fire-and-sword-crusade-inquisition-0690e84e-69c5-43f9-abf1-7d1807684372?taxon_id=104

shop.catholic.com/the-real-story-of-the-inquisition-set.html

The inquisitions were very complicated, but the Spanish Inquisition was often twisted by Spain’s political rivals (and most prominently Protestant England).

The Church never sentenced anyone to death. The secular government did. Back in those days, heresy was a capital crime and heretics were considered a danger. This wasn’t just for Catholic nations, but all nations. Preaching heresy back then was kind of like screaming “fire” in a packed theater. It caused panic and mass hysteria. So it was easier for secular leaders to make it a capital offense vs dealing with mob violence when civilians would take the law into their own hands.

When lay people started attacking the “Conversos” in Spain because of fear of apostatizing and heresy, Spanish Inquisition was created to stop the mob violence.

After 10s/100s of years of Muslim invasions, The Spanish people were very suspicious (and fearful of non-Catholics, esp non Christians.

Spanish society had a caste like system at this time, so converts were were socially known as conversos and so were their off-spring.

While some people converted out of fear of the mobs, many did so honestly. Also, many 2nd, 3rd generation conversos were practicing Catholics.

However, due to a small minority of converses who were secretly trying to convert people away from the Catholic Church, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ordered the inquisitions mainly to protect innocent conversos from mob rule.

A lot of today’s modern judicial practices are based on the Inquisition’s Tribunals.

The point is… We cannot look at the 15th century (and before) with modern eyes. We have to understand that back then, all mortal sins were against secular law (not just church law). Nobles (not just Catholic ones, but Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, etc) didn’t want a community/society made up of multiple denominations, sects, & religions. Different religious beliefs lead to different societal/family values, etc. which secular leaders didn’t want.

It wasn’t until the United States was founded that multiple religions would be tolerated by secular leaders (except Catholics were not accepted completely until the 20th century and it looks like Catholics may not be accepted in the 21st century; but that is a different topic). Remember how the puritans fled Protestant England because of religious persecution?

So today, heretics are not burned because no Christian nation has a secular crime against heresy, unlike 600 years ago.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

The American courts put men to death that have committed corporal murder. The inquisiton courts put men to death who committed spiritual murder. If one is Catholic, it is indisputable that spiritual murder is much more serious than physical murder because one ends earthly life and the other ends eternal life and sends the person to Hell. To the Church, executing an arch-heretic is like executing a mass murderer.

I recommend you watch the video I posted a link to in my first post. It states quite well why the Medieval people burned people who were heretics. I will present a quote here from Dr. Thomas Madden: The medieval people did not act according to Church precepts, but on their own accord to an attack against their entire way of life.

It is to my understanding that the Church cannot carry out a death penalty herself, but must rely on civil authorities to do so. Since there are no modern governments that are Catholic anymore, none of them would execute arch-heretics. At the time of the inquisitions, the government and the Church were united, so a crime against the Church was a crime against the government and was punished as such. The Church couldn’t let the faithful just toss whoever they deemed a heretic into a bonfire, so the Church made an orderly institution to regulate it and to ensure true justice should prevail.

The Church has not had an inquisition recently because it simply wouldn’t work. Also, there was always some sort of arch-heretic in the Church but only a handful of inquisitions, so it isn’t the Church’s automatic response to heresy.

Just a point of clarification: I would not say the government and the Church were one. That wasn’t really true.

However, it is correct to say that the government was made up of devout people from one faith. Governments serve society and protect societal norms. If everyone in the government was of one religion and the overwhelming majority of the people in society are of the same religion, it’s easy to understand why breaking religious norms would become outlawed.

There is always a blend of religion and state & religion and society when the populous is almost entirely comprised of one religion or sect.

God Bless

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Just a point of clarification: I would not say the government and the Church were one. That wasn’t really true.

However, it is correct to say that the government was made up of devout people from one faith. Governments serve society and protect societal norms. If everyone in the government was of one religion and the overwhelming majority of the people in society are of the same religion, it’s easy to understand why breaking religious norms would become outlawed.

There is always a blend of religion and state & religion and society when the populous is almost entirely comprised of one religion or sect.

God Bless

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I meant to say that there was less of a separation of church & state like what we have here in America.

 

[Hans_W]

That is true. I know from my studies that the Catholic Church is right. I know Mohammedans say that as well, but the Catholic Church is the only religion that can truly prove itself. A biased statement, but I know that it can because it has for me.

If you were born in a Muslim country, you would be arguing for the other side. Doesn’t that worry you a bit?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

If you were born in a Muslim country, you would be arguing for the other side. Doesn’t that worry you a bit?

Yes, I likely would be; however, I would hope that I would learn of the Catholic Faith (somehow) and eventually see that it is the true Faith and that it makes more sense than Mohammedanism.

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I meant to say that there was less of a separation of church & state like what we have here in America.

That’s because there was no such thing as “separation of church and state” until the United States invented it.

But Separation of church and state wasn’t really invented to protect society, the state, or even individuals from religion; it was to protect the religions from the state.

For example, the US had many laws back in the the day that were solely based on Christian morality and/or the Bible.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

That’s because there was no such thing as “separation of church and state” until the United States invented it.

But Separation of church and state wasn’t really invented to protect society, the state, or even individuals from religion; it was to protect the religions from the state.

For example, the US had many laws back in the the day that were solely based on Christian morality and/or the Bible.

That makes sense. This country is pretty Protestant so I’m sure the Catholic Church would endure a lot of hardships.

 

[Memaw]

Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the killing of heretics and why it was done.

An inquisition was necessary at times because the laity were already burning people alive for heresy. There would be a lot of chaos unless a formal and institutionalized court was established. Is the Inquisition a perfect system that had no evil people leading it? No. Just like our American courts are not perfect since both are run by sinners who can do evil and they are humans that can make mistakes.

Let’s don’t forget the mob lynchings in the “Old West”!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Kliska]

Yes, from this protestant’s perspective, the Inquisition(s) was/were a black mark on the Catholic church. It doesn’t necessarily negate RCC claims, but wasn’t a shining example of biblical response. And of course the killing of the Anabaptists by protestants isn’t a shining example either.

 

[exnihilo]

If the inquisitions are a black mark against the Catholic Church then the witch burnings are a black mark against the Protestant church, more specifically the Lutheran. On the Reformed side you have Zwingli wanting to execute anabaptizers and in Calvin’s Geneva I know they executed at least one heretic. The problem I see is if Protestants want to make an issue of Inquisitions they have to answer for their sides issues. And by taking down the Catholic Church they take down Christianity itself. By hammering the Catholic Church they give ammunition to those who dislike Christianity.

It wasn’t until the United States was founded that multiple religions would be tolerated by secular leaders (except Catholics were not accepted completely until the 20th century and it looks like Catholics may not be accepted in the 21st century; but that is a different topic). Remember how the puritans fled Protestant England because of religious persecution?

Remember also the Puritans made celebrating Christmas illegal as well as the Mass. The United States as united states did have multiple religions. But it wasn’t that the state’s themselves were necessarily tolerant. The confederation of states could be viewed as tolerant but so could the confederation of Swiss cantons.

That’s because there was no such thing as “separation of church and state” until the United States invented it.

But Separation of church and state wasn’t really invented to protect society, the state, or even individuals from religion; it was to protect the religions from the state.

For example, the US had many laws back in the the day that were solely based on Christian morality and/or the Bible.

The separation of church and state was invented by the courts long after the founding of the U.S. It was promoted to protect individuals from religions and its influence.

 

[dronald]

“With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.”

How could such a revered Christian be so unchristian

Aquinas and the Catholics on this board who support his words are no different than the Muslims who want to murder apostates to Christianity. Yes it’s a stain on the CC and the main reason why it shouldn’t have absolute power; because then it corrupts its self.

 

[JustaServant]

“With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.”

How could such a revered Christian be so unchristian

Aquinas and the Catholics on this board who support his words are no different than the Muslims who want to murder apostates to Christianity. Yes it’s a stain on the CC and the main reason why it shouldn’t have absolute power; because then it corrupts its self.

That is exactly why Christ set up the Church the way he did Ron, because human beings are sinful and corruptible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The American courts put men to death that have committed corporal murder. The inquisiton courts put men to death who committed spiritual murder. If one is Catholic, it is indisputable that spiritual murder is much more serious than physical murder because one ends earthly life and the other ends eternal life and sends the person to Hell. To the Church, executing an arch-heretic is like executing a mass murderer.

To equate murdering someone with stating the Church might be in error is a rationalization that is impossible to justify. The beliefs of the Church are neither provable nor falsifiable. Reasonable people can disagree as to questions of religion without the need for one to kill the other.

I recommend you watch the video I posted a link to in my first post.

It’s a little much to ask someone to watch a 40 minute video. The absolute least you can do is give a summary of it before expecting someone to sink that much time into it.

I’ve gotten 15 minutes into it and the host (with the worst toupee possibly ever ) hasn’t given any reason that even the occasional visitor to CAF hasn’t heard many times. He did give what can charitably called one of the greatest demonstrations of chutzpah ever on video:

“The inquisitions were instituted to protect both guilty and innocent people from the gross injustice of secular leaders and mob rule, thus initiating an unprecedented level of justice and order throughout much of Europe.”

Repeatedly the host in the video demonstrates that he doesn’t understand what the word"secular" means. It means to be neutral on the position of religion, and the governments of those times were quite far from that (as you later state yourself). This so-called gross injustice could have used more than a few words from religious leaders telling the governments an the laity not to kill people – whether the accused did or did not actually commit heresy.

Blasphemy and heresy are victimless “crimes”.

It states quite well why the Medieval people burned people who were heretics. I will present a quote here from Dr. Thomas Madden: The medieval people did not act according to Church precepts, but on their own accord to an attack against their entire way of life.

That is laughable. The whole issue is not whether the courts were accurate as far as who was or was not a heretic, but whether it is right to kill a heretic. The Church was more than happy to kill those who disagreed with her.

It is to my understanding that the Church cannot carry out a death penalty herself, but must rely on civil authorities to do so. Since there are no modern governments that are Catholic anymore, none of them would execute arch-heretics. At the time of the inquisitions, the government and the Church were united,

There, right there! The Church was an arm of the government and the government was an arm of the Church. They worked hand-in-hand. To anyone who foists off the blame on the killing in the inquisitions to governments because of who actually layed the killing blows is ignoring the equal blame they shared.

so a crime against the Church was a crime against the government and was punished as such. The Church couldn’t let the faithful just toss whoever they deemed a heretic into a bonfire, so the Church made an orderly institution to regulate it and to ensure true justice should prevail.

Again, you’re making it seem like the problem was the orderliness of the trails and killings. I don’t care if every i is dotted and every t is crossed, it is evil to kill someone solely because you disagree with them. Just because the governments were a part of that doesn’t soften the responsibility the Church holds for those evil actions.

The Church has not had an inquisition recently because it simply wouldn’t work. Also, there was always some sort of arch-heretic in the Church but only a handful of inquisitions, so it isn’t the Church’s automatic response to heresy.

So your objection to killing heretics today isn’t one of conscience but of logistics? People who think like you do scare me. Literally, you scare me. If that which keeps people who feel that those of different beliefs have no standing to live is so minor, then it’s discomforting to think how easy it would be for those people to one day kill a heretic.

I don’t know what criteria you have to determine if someone is an “arch-heretic”, but I’m baptized. I had my first communion, confirmation, and CCD classes in St. Barnabas Roman Catholic Church. I am outspoken in my disbelief and will not hesitate to speak out on injustices made in the name of faith. I will never “repent” of those acts. If I’m not an “arch-heretic” than certainly I’m a heretic with no hope of redemption. All that being said, would you kill me? If you were given the green light and could kill me with no fear of punishment in this world or the next, would you kill me? I am worse than a mass murderer as I’ve threatened my soul and the souls of others by my interacting with others. Would you kill me if it meant possibly saving another soul?

 

[dronald]

So your objection to killing heretics today isn’t one of conscience but of logistics? People who think like you do scare me. Literally, you scare me. If that which keeps people who feel that those of different beliefs have no standing to live is so minor, then it’s discomforting to think how easy it would be for those people to one day kill a heretic.

I don’t know what criteria you have to determine if someone is an “arch-heretic”, but I’m baptized. I had my first communion, confirmation, and CCD classes in St. Barnabas Roman Catholic Church. I am outspoken in my disbelief and will not hesitate to speak out on injustices made in the name of faith. I will never “repent” of those acts. If I’m not an “arch-heretic” than certainly I’m a heretic with no hope of redemption. All that being said, would you kill me? If you were given the green light and could kill me with no fear of punishment in this world or the next, would you kill me? I am worse than a mass murderer as I’ve threatened my soul and the souls of others by my interacting with others. Would you kill me if it meant possibly saving another soul?

No no no, you would simply be turned over to secular authorities to be killed. Come on, don’t be so harsh.

Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, Wycliffe, etc. They held many beliefs I hold. They’ve done their job and have taken the absolute power away from the CC, but now there is peace in Christianity.

Muslims will often make excuses to murder people for apostasy, and Catholics do it too. I’m glad that the Protestants who look at all acts of murder can look back and say plainly “they were wrong”.

Aquinas was wrong, the poster you’re quoting is wrong, Popes were wrong, they all had evil ideas contrary to the teachings and love of Christ.

 

[dronald]

That is exactly why Christ set up the Church the way he did Ron, because human beings are sinful and corruptible.

God set up the Church with people who would take the theological belief that people should be murdered for being heretics? Why?

I rather think that God brought in reformers to bring the Church to the state it’s in now. Now the Church is lovely and has a great Pope, and Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics are best of friends with disagreements on doctrine.

Think about it, none of us want to kill each other. Although there are some posters here who justify it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No no no, you would simply be turned over to secular authorities to be killed. Come on, don’t be so harsh.

Oh, well as long as I’m killed by the book I can’t complain

Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, Wycliffe, etc. They held many beliefs I hold. They’ve done their job and have taken the absolute power away from the CC, but now there is peace in Christianity.

Muslims will often make excuses to murder people for apostasy, and Catholics do it too. I’m glad that the Protestants who look at all acts of murder can look back and say plainly “they were wrong”.

Aquinas was wrong, the poster you’re quoting is wrong, Popes were wrong, they all had evil ideas contrary to the teachings and love of Christ.

I too am glad that power was taken away. Not only that but nowadays the disputes between various flavors of Christianity mean the worst that happens is hurt feelings and not dead bodies.

You and I obviously have very different theological viewpoints, but it’s clear to us (and it really should be to everyone) that killing over different viewpoints is simply wrong.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

To equate murdering someone with stating the Church might be in error is a rationalization that is impossible to justify. The beliefs of the Church are neither provable nor falsifiable. Reasonable people can disagree as to questions of religion without the need for one to kill the other.
…
I don’t know what criteria you have to determine if someone is an “arch-heretic”, but I’m baptized. I had my first communion, confirmation, and CCD classes in St. Barnabas Roman Catholic Church. I am outspoken in my disbelief and will not hesitate to speak out on injustices made in the name of faith. I will never “repent” of those acts. If I’m not an “arch-heretic” than certainly I’m a heretic with no hope of redemption. All that being said, would you kill me? If you were given the green light and could kill me with no fear of punishment in this world or the next, would you kill me? I am worse than a mass murderer as I’ve threatened my soul and the souls of others by my interacting with others. Would you kill me if it meant possibly saving another soul?

An arch-heretic is someone who spreads their heresy (like Martin Luther). A heretic just believes in heresy. “Arch-heretic” is a less commonly used term but is more specific and useful for this discussion since there was different treatments for heretics & arch-heretics. Since you are an atheist that was baptized Catholic, you are actually an apostate & infidel and not a heretic. You aren’t a heretic because you are not nominally Christian. The Church only concerned itself with arch-heretics.

This seems to be coming down to the question of the validity of the Catholic Faith. Beyond an established belief in the Catholic Church, I don’t know how to justify the execution of heretics since it will just seem like a lack of toleration for justifiable disagreement on matters of philosophy. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can answer your questions.