Is the Inquisition a black mark on the Catholic Church?

[dronald]

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

I would not kill him even if he did because it is not in my authority to judge his case, a court would have to do that. Just like how I wouldn’t kill a man accused of murder since I have to leave that judgment up to the judicial system

Haha, called it.

 

[dronald]

Slavery is wrong, and Jesus and his Disciples were wrong for not condemning it, and awful for allowing it to continue for centuries… :dts:

9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, { That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery } liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound { Or b healthy b } doctrine,

11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.e with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

 

[campeador]

9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, { That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery } liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound { Or b healthy b } doctrine,

11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.e with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Wonderful.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

 

[Tomdstone]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

I think there has been a change in the thinking that slaves should obey their masters. Most people today are opposed to slavery.

 

[Rohzek]

Truth:

Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians during an attack near Compiègne. After the French King Charles VII failed to intervene, she was eventually purchased by the English government from Duke Philip of Burgundy. She was tried in a politically motivated ecclesiastical court and found guilty in spite of many irregularities. Her appeals to the Council of Basel and to the Pope should have stopped the proceedings, but were denied by Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan. She was condemned to death and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. A posthumous retrial authorized by Pope Callixtus III declared her innocent on July 7, 1456 and implicated Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a secular vendetta.

Actually, Joan of Arc’s trial was VERY regular and well documented. It’s one of the most procedural and regular inquisition trials in recorded history, precisely because Joan of Arc was an international phenomenon in her day. It garnered such widespread publicity that the inquisitors went out of their way to give her what was at the time considered a fair trial. The charges were politically motivated, but again the trial itself was relatively fair for its time. If you want to know my source for this, it comes from Daniel Hobbins’ 2007 translation of the trial’s records: The Trial of Joan of Arc. His introduction to the material is very informative.

She wasn’t killed by an inquisition IIRC.

Technically true. But the Latin Church essentially allowed and facilitated the executions. It also doesn’t help when many prominent theologians of the Church at the time, such as Aquinas, had been encouraging such executions. If the Latin Church found you guilty of heresy and you refused to repent or relapsed, the state executed you. The Latin Church handed over convicted heretics knowing that they would be executed. Their hands were not bloodless.

“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.

Agreed.

Look at it from a Catholic perspective. If a Catholic denies a teaching of the Church, he commits a mortal sin of heresy and goes to hell. The Church, in this case, would not kill the person since they wouldn’t even know they were a heretic. But then there are people who become arch-heretics that preach their heresy and kill other souls along with their own. It is much worse than murdering them, which also gets the death penalty, since you are endangering people’s salvation by making them commit mortal sin, which is death of the soul. The Church can’t bear to see her children being damned to hell by a bad member, so she tries to convert him as best as she can. When this proves futile, she is left with no other choice but to hand him to the civil authorities to be executed if she wants to ensure no more of her children will be damned by him. It is much like the death penalty which can be utilized to give an example or to protect society, both of which is intended to save people’s lives.

Perhaps the Latin Church during the High Middle Ages should have heeded the words of Augustine more who said the following in his 23rd Epistulae, written to Bishop Maximus, who qualified as an “Arch-heretic”. The context of this letter is that Augustine is trying to improve relations with and convert heretics, but without the use of force as punishment:

Neque id agam cum miles praesens est, ne quis vestrum arbitretur tumultuosius me agere voluisse, quam ratio pacis desiderat; sed post abscessum militis, ut omnes qui nos audiunt intelligant non hoc esse propositi mei ut inviti homines ad cujusquam communionem cogantur, sed ut quietissime quaerentibus veritas innotescat. Cessabit a nostris partibus terror temporalium potestatum

Nor shall I impel (anyone) with the present soldiers, lest any of you believe me to wish violence, contrary to what the account of peace demands. Only after the soldiers depart, might all who hear me understand that this is not my intention: that is to have unwilling people driven together into communion [with the orthodox faith]. Rather I believe that truth should become known in searching (for it) peacefully. There will cease on our part the fear of temporal power.

Augustine tolerated rational debate with heretics and those of other faiths and philosophies. The holy Church Father, John Chrysostom also condemns the use of violence against heretics and others in Book II of On the Priesthood:

For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force…it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109/Page_41.html

 

[Kliska]

Or, for those interested in more depth, Peters/ INQUISITION, for an overall all look at the multiplicity of them, or Kamen/THE SPANISH INQUISITION, for the one everyone thinks of. Peters is particularly even-handed on Lea, who brought the Inquisitions into the world of modern historiography.

These books are not the Black Legend. Neither are they a whitewash.

Thanks, GKC, adding them to my reading list…

As an aside to the rest of the thread, I’m reading books on the Camino de Santiago and they include the history of Spain, especially the religious and political history that impacted the pilgrimage. They touched upon the inquisition and how and why it happened, and yes, Jewish converts were the primary targets mentioned.

 

[GKC]

Thanks, GKC, adding them to my reading list…

As an aside to the rest of the thread, I’m reading books on the Camino de Santiago and they include the history of Spain, especially the religious and political history that impacted the pilgrimage. They touched upon the inquisition and how and why it happened, and yes, Jewish converts were the primary targets mentioned.

You are very welcome. Peters and Kamen are well respected, and many of my RC friends also recommend them.

I would expect that both/either might adequately address the topic, but if more is wanted on the Spanish Inquisition, THE ORIGINS OF THE INQUISITION IN FIFTEENTH CENTURY SPAIN is roughly the size of a concrete building block. And written by the father of the current Prime Minister of Israel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for your answers.

sacredheart.edu/faithservice/centerforchristianandjewishunderstanding/documentsandstatements/popejohnpauliiasksforforgivenessmarch122000/

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

So we’re just pushing this back another step. Let’s say the Church said that it was within their right to in the present day kill one Christian preacher who they felt was teaching millions of people heresy. Would you say that they had the right to do so? Would you say that such an authorized killing would be good and/or moral?

The Church would not make such a statement since it doesn’t concern a Catholic. If the person is not Catholic, then I don’t think the Church has the authority to execute any form of punishment on them.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Perhaps the Latin Church during the High Middle Ages should have heeded the words of Augustine more who said the following in his 23rd Epistulae, written to Bishop Maximus, who qualified as an “Arch-heretic”. The context of this letter is that Augustine is trying to improve relations with and convert heretics, but without the use of force as punishment:

Augustine tolerated rational debate with heretics and those of other faiths and philosophies. The holy Church Father, John Chrysostom also condemns the use of violence against heretics and others in Book II of On the Priesthood:

The execution of heretics is not the standard when it comes to the Church’s response to heresy. From what I know of Church history, the Church only had a few inquisitions despite the fact that history is replete with heresy. Usually, the Church will call a council of the Bishops or the Holy Father will make a statement that clarifies the faith and excommunicates the heretic, and an anathema is declared. St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t saying he wants each leader of heresy to be executed, just that the Church is not wrong in doing so. I agree that efforts should always be made toward the conversion of heretics.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Church would not make such a statement since it doesn’t concern a Catholic. If the person is not Catholic, then I don’t think the Church has the authority to execute any form of punishment on them.

Okay, we’ll take it yet another step back. Let’s say there’s a modern-day Martin Luther (someone in an earlier post you labelled as an example of an arch-heretic). He falls in line with all of the categories necessary in the past for the Church to take action against that person for threatening the souls of others. If the Church now said that this modern-day arch-heretic should be killed, would you say that is good and/or right? Why or why not, especially compared with the actions of the Church during the inquisitions?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Okay, we’ll take it yet another step back. Let’s say there’s a modern-day Martin Luther (someone in an earlier post you labelled as an example of an arch-heretic). He falls in line with all of the categories necessary in the past for the Church to take action against that person for threatening the souls of others. If the Church now said that this modern-day arch-heretic should be killed, would you say that is good and/or right? Why or why not, especially compared with the actions of the Church during the inquisitions?

In the modern day, I would say that it would be a terrible idea for the Church to execute a modern Martin Luther. I would say that it would probably be a grave scandal since modern times are quite different in which killing an arch-heretic would probably cause more damage to the Church than the heresy itself because of the way people would perceive it. If the Church proposed or actually performed his execution, I would not support it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In the modern day, I would say that it would be a terrible idea for the Church to execute a modern Martin Luther. I would say that it would probably be a grave scandal since modern times are quite different in which killing an arch-heretic would probably cause more damage to the Church than the heresy itself because of the way people would perceive it. If the Church proposed or actually performed his execution, I would not support it.

If the Church could kill this modern-day Martin Luther without making it look like murder or that it came about because of the Church, would it be right to do so? In other words, if we eliminate any factors that would cause the populace to reflect negatively on the Church, does it have the right (or obligation) to keep arch-heretics from affecting the souls of others in the same way some claim they did in the past?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

If the Church could kill this modern-day Martin Luther without making it look like murder or that it came about because of the Church, would it be right to do so? In other words, if we eliminate any factors that would cause the populace to reflect negatively on the Church, does it have the right (or obligation) to keep arch-heretics from affecting the souls of others in the same way some claim they did in the past?

If no scandal would be caused in the modern world then I don’t think there would be sin if the arch-heretic was executed if he was tried in the court and execution was deemed necessary. This is assuming that society would know of the Church’s actions. The Church shouldn’t cover it up since people will find it out anyway and the fact that the heretic was executed by the Church is reflective of the fact that she condemns what he taught and that will help people see the evil of the heresy.

The Church does have the obligation to protect Catholics from heresy because letting heresy infiltrate the Church is contradictory to the mission of the Church which is to save souls. However, execution is not always prudent or necessary; sometimes a simple proclamation of anathema from the Holy Father will do.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If no scandal would be caused in the modern world then I don’t think there would be sin if the arch-heretic was executed if he was tried in the court and execution was deemed necessary. This is assuming that society would know of the Church’s actions. The Church shouldn’t cover it up since people will find it out anyway and the fact that the heretic was executed by the Church is reflective of the fact that she condemns what he taught and that will help people see the evil of the heresy.

The Church does have the obligation to protect Catholics from heresy because letting heresy infiltrate the Church is contradictory to the mission of the Church which is to save souls. However, execution is not always prudent or necessary; sometimes a simple proclamation of anathema from the Holy Father will do.

I guess we can be extremely glad the Church no longer wields that kind of power.

 

[Tomdstone]

In the modern day, I would say that it would be a terrible idea for the Church to execute a modern Martin Luther. I would say that it would probably be a grave scandal since modern times are quite different in which killing an arch-heretic would probably cause more damage to the Church than the heresy itself because of the way people would perceive it. If the Church proposed or actually performed his execution, I would not support it.

So the moral law changes from one time to another? The moral law is completely relative to the culture and the times in which it is being applied?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church does have the obligation to protect Catholics from heresy…

Have the clergy of the Catholic Church worked hard to protect Catholics from the heresy of accepting artificial birth control for married couples with many children?

 

[dronald]

If no scandal would be caused in the modern world then I don’t think there would be sin if the arch-heretic was executed if he was tried in the court and execution was deemed necessary. This is assuming that society would know of the Church’s actions. The Church shouldn’t cover it up since people will find it out anyway and the fact that the heretic was executed by the Church is reflective of the fact that she condemns what he taught and that will help people see the evil of the heresy.

The Church does have the obligation to protect Catholics from heresy because letting heresy infiltrate the Church is contradictory to the mission of the Church which is to save souls. However, execution is not always prudent or necessary; sometimes a simple proclamation of anathema from the Holy Father will do.

This can’t possibly be correct.

 

[Memaw]

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.

Who was wrong for killing so many Native Americans when the Protestants first came to America and took it over. Calling THEM savages. Who taught the NA to scalp?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Tomdstone]

Who was wrong for killing so many Native Americans when the Protestants first came to America and took it over. Calling THEM savages. Who taught the NA to scalp?? God Bless, Memaw

I didn’t know that Christopher Columbus and the other Spanish conquerors were Protestants?