Is wishing for the Holy Inquisition sinful?

[Questionhaver]

Well, title pretty much sums it up.

Now, I trust most of you to already know this, but before we have somebody pulling the very alluring “wtf, are you stupid, 'course it is, they burned people!”, let me state that the Holy Inquisition was not nearly as bad as hearsay and contemporary art would have one believe, just as the death count is usually greatly exaggerated.

I don’t wish nobody ill, even less death. But given the current state of the world, I cannot help but wonder if we - had the Hl.Inquisition not ended at the close of the 13th century - wouldn’t have much, much fewer problems today?
But instead we have a vast amount of heretics - with many different kinds of heresies - to deal with, just as well as a reimposed threath of islamization. We struggle with a general apostasy and the Catholic Church faces defamation from more than one side, the combination of the two makes it impossible for some people to so much as consider joining Christianity at all. Then, of course, there is blasphemy and abuse…
As little as roughly three decades ago, people would still fight to protect their stance. These quabbles have all but conveniently disappeared and given way to worse heretical sects that are hardly interested in religion anymore but in the money they can “milk” from the people they mislead. And unlike in the Catholic-Protestantic disagreements, nobody does anything against them nor seems to care…
I’ll stop here, trusting you get the picture already.

So in a nutshell, I believe that had the Hl.Inquisition never ended but instead ensured unity throughout the Church to this very day, the world would be a better place. And I’d wish for a reinstitutation of a similar ecclesiastical organization.
Is it wrong for me to do so?
I’m worried I may be commiting a sin (anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disregarding the commandment of love, haughtiness, …) but remain unsure.
Should I seek help?

Sincerely,
Questionhaver.

Accipere fidem est voluntatis, sed tenere fidem iam acceptam est necessitatis.
Acceptance of faith is voluntary; keeping the accepted faith, necessary.
St.Thomas of Aquin

Corrigi eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus, nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri.
We want them corrected, not killed. We desire the triumph of ecclesiastical discipline, not the death they deserve.
St.Augustine of Hippo

 

[Rolltide]

The Inquisition is alive and well, my friend, and it never went anywhere. It’s name was just changed. It is now formally called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s previous office holder was none other than Joseph Ratzinger.

 

[Questionhaver]

The Inquisition is alive and well, my friend, and it never went anywhere. It’s name was just changed. It is now formally called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s previous office holder was none other than Joseph Ratzinger.

Certainly.
However, when compared to the “original” Hl.Inquisition, the Congregation appears to have lost much of its efficiency in fighting heresy.
Also, the way I understand it (though, of course, I may be wrong), the Congregation is responsible for looking after the faith within the Holy Church, and within the Hl.Church only. Hardly comparable to what the Hl.Inquisition once was.
For all I know, the Hl.Inquisition died 1798.

 

[Milesius]

The inquisition as you are thinking about it could only work with the support of the secular government, and it no longer has that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I hate to be so blunt, but I must.

Are you serious?

 

[revert_jen]

Also, the way I understand it (though, of course, I may be wrong), the Congregation is responsible for looking after the faith within the Holy Church, and within the Hl.Church only. Hardly comparable to what the Hl.Inquisition once was.

Actually, as I understand it, the Inquisition was ALWAYS responsible only for looking after the faith within the Church. Remember that the Albigensians were pretty much all baptized Catholics, at least to start, and the Spanish Inquisition was primarily to find those who had pretended to convert to Christianity, and had been baptised, but were in fact still practicing and believing in another religion.

Also, which Inquisition do you mean? The one in France in the 12th century, the Roman one, or the Spanish one?

–Jen

 

[jfoges]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was previously called the Holy Office. In Rome, people still refer to it as the Holy Office.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Actually, as I understand it, the Inquisition was ALWAYS responsible only for looking after the faith within the Church. Remember that the Albigensians were pretty much all baptized Catholics, at least to start, and the Spanish Inquisition was primarily to find those who had pretended to convert to Christianity, and had been baptised, but were in fact still practicing and believing in another religion.

Also, which Inquisition do you mean? The one in France in the 12th century, the Roman one, or the Spanish one?

–Jen

Jen,

As you realize there is no possibility of that kind of situation ever happening today. No matter how we rationalize it now.
There would have to be a way the church could ever have that power again to do anything on any matter.

She has no way to do anything that is being discussed here in this thread now. Even if it was wished for.

 

[bingbang]

Can you please define holy inquisition? As in torturing and killing heretics? What exactly do you mean?

 

[Roy5]

The Inquisition was and remains a major stain on the history of the church. It led to people liked Huss, Waldo and Wycliffe and other pre-Reformation Protestants being persecuted, making them heroes among Protestants today.

 The very thought of an Inquisition today is at best weird and at worse demonic! Would Jesus consider such an atrocity? Of course not. It is troubling to find such a view still hanging around within the church. One reason anti-Catholicism thrived in the USA for generations was fear of Catholic domination and the possible suppression of other faiths. 

  Thank God we live in a democracy. If you believe that 'the gates of hell' cannot prevail against Catholicism you need to relax. I'm not so sure of this myself. Until the church is less authoritarian and permits broader thinking among its clergy and laity and less control from on top it will be in serious trouble. Allowing priests to marry is a good idea, too.

  Yes, wishing for a Holy Inquisition is sinful. And it's not in any way holy!

 

[revert_jen]

Jen,

As you realize there is no possibility of that kind of situation ever happening today. No matter how we rationalize it now.
There would have to be a way the church could ever have that power again to do anything on any matter.

She has no way to do anything that is being discussed here in this thread now. Even if it was wished for.

I’m not sure exactly what your response has to do with my post. I was not rationalizing anything; I didn’t suggest that it could happen today. And as a sentence, “There would have to be a way the church could ever have that power again to do anything on any matter.” is too confusing to respond to.

I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to tell me specifically that the Church couldn’t have an old-style inquisition now. I never said, nor even hinted that it could, nor did I give any indication that I wanted it to.

All I did was correct what appeared to be the OP’s incorrect ideas about what the historical inquisition was about, and try to clarify what the OP’s question was. The fact that I did so without being sarcastic or rude should not be taken to mean that I agreed, just that I didn’t see any need to be sarcastic or rude, especially since I was/am still not sure what exactly the OP meant. If the OP envisioned some sort of Church-controlled dogma police, going around jailing non-Catholics as heretics, I wanted to explain that that is never what the inquisition was.

–Jen

 

[PatrickSebast]

You have to be a little more clear in what you are hoping for. If you are hoping for some group to rise up in the Church and combat Islam, for example, then that doesn’t fit with Church teachings at all and likely arises more from personal distaste for a large group of God’s children. If you want a group that looks for things like wayward Catholic organizations and challenges them for misleading others about the faith then that sounds like it would be alright.

 

[revert_jen]

The Inquisition was and remains a major stain on the history of the church. It led to people liked Huss, Waldo and Wycliffe and other pre-Reformation Protestants being persecuted, making them heroes among Protestants today.

What does the Inquisition have to do with Hus and Wycliffe? (I’m not even going to touch the whole “pre-reformation protestants” idea.)

Hus was badly treated, and should not have been executed, but it wasn’t anything to do with the Inquisition, as far as I know. Wycliffe died of natural causes, and nothing much happened to him before his death, except at one point he was prevented from becoming a Catholic priest. Well, people wrote scathing responses to his heretical ideas, but that had nothing to do with the Inquisition either.

–Jen

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m not sure exactly what your response has to do with my post. I was not rationalizing anything; I didn’t suggest that it could happen today. And as a sentence, “There would have to be a way the church could ever have that power again to do anything on any matter.” is too confusing to respond to.

I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to tell me specifically that the Church couldn’t have an old-style inquisition now. I never said, nor even hinted that it could, nor did I give any indication that I wanted it to.

All I did was correct what appeared to be the OP’s incorrect ideas about what the historical inquisition was about, and try to clarify what the OP’s question was. The fact that I did so without being sarcastic or rude should not be taken to mean that I agreed, just that I didn’t see any need to be sarcastic or rude, especially since I was/am still not sure what exactly the OP meant. If the OP envisioned some sort of Church-controlled dogma police, going around jailing non-Catholics as heretics, I wanted to explain that that is never what the inquisition was.

–Jen

I’m sorry I mentioned the reality we live in today, as opposed to examining the past if it was good or bad or indifferent.
The OP is not asking about the Morals or lack of in the past, but is asking us to invision Today as a time where this could or should be a benefit to society.
I’m merely pointing out the impotency in the agency that would have to order it.

 

[revert_jen]

I’m sorry I mentioned the reality we live in today, as opposed to examining the past if it was good or bad or indifferent.
The OP is not asking about the Morals or lack of in the past, but is asking us to invision Today as a time where this could or should be a benefit to society.
I’m merely pointing out the impotency in the agency that would have to order it.

That doesn’t answer my main question, which was why you addressed your response to me personally, but I’ll let it go.

It seems to me that a big part of “Is it sinful to wish for an Inquisition now?” is “What is an Inquisition?” It also seems to me that “Is it possible to have an Inquisition now?” is NOT part of the question “Is it sinful to wish for one?”

Obviously you don’t see it that way. That’s OK.

–Jen

 

[StrawberryJam]

That doesn’t answer my main question, which was why you addressed your response to me personally, but I’ll let it go.

It seems to me that a big part of “Is it sinful to wish for an Inquisition now?” is “What is an Inquisition?” It also seems to me that “Is it possible to have an Inquisition now?” is NOT part of the question “Is it sinful to wish for one?”

Obviously you don’t see it that way. That’s OK.

–Jen

Why I guess we are all here to wonder about why a non possible situation should be possible.

 

[Questionhaver]

Sorry, this has grown a tad long.

The inquisition as you are thinking about it could only work with the support of the secular government, and it no longer has that.

I know it’s pretty close to impossible. That’s why I said I “wish” for the Hl.Inquisition.

I hate to be so blunt, but I must.

Are you serious?

Would I be worried if I weren’t?
What would be the point in making this post?

Pray do not take this as an offence, but yes, I am very serious.

Actually, as I understand it, the Inquisition was ALWAYS responsible only for looking after the faith within the Church. Remember that the Albigensians were pretty much all baptized Catholics, at least to start, and the Spanish Inquisition was primarily to find those who had pretended to convert to Christianity, and had been baptised, but were in fact still practicing and believing in another religion.

Also, which Inquisition do you mean? The one in France in the 12th century, the Roman one, or the Spanish one?

–Jen

Well, guess that’s depending on how you’d define “within the Hl.Church”. Schismatics aren’t exactly in the Church, are they? (that’s, after all, why they’re Schismatics)
And wasn’t the purpose of the Hl.Inquisition to bring them back into the Church?
When I said “in the Church”, I meant the Catholic Church, of course.
But since all non-catholic denominations are splinter groups of the CC, at heart, they’d be a part of the Hl.Inquisition’s circuit with either definition.

As for the question about which Inquisition, I should say all of them.
Much of the one taking place during the 12th and 13th century in pretty much all of Europe had ended by the end of the 13th century, in some places, however, the Hl.Inquisition continued well into the 15th.
When the Spanish Inquisition that had started that very same 15th century ended rougly four hundred years later, so did the Roman Inquisition.
So I don’t think it matters if we call it “one” Hl.Inquisition (in this topic), especially since its means weren’t actually changed. I am, however, not talking about a state-controlled Inquisition as the Spanish one was.

Can you please define holy inquisition? As in torturing and killing heretics? What exactly do you mean?

The Hl.Inquisition wasn’t as bad as Hollywood would have you believe for the sake of its films. She was charged with keeping the faith “clean”, which is to say free of heresy, which would also result in a unity throughout the Church. She was also charged with “reconverting” the heretics, lest they should be bereft of their beatitude.
Most people convicted of heresy got off with a reprimand, a fine, doing penance and/or having to wear a yellow or blue cloth cross sewn on their garments as a stigma for a defined period of time.
Torture could be applied as a means of ascertaining the truth and force a confession.
If and to what extent torture would be applied was left to the inquisitors discretion. (Most of the times, however, treatening would suffice.) Unregenerate heretics could be sentenced to imprisonment for life (and be freed again if the captive showed penitance) or as a last measurement be “handed over to the secular arm”, which meant death (often, although not exclusively, through fire as fire purges -->Purgatory]).
Another misunderstanding I’ve come about is that the Hl.Inquisition was “murdering clergy gone mad”. The Hl.Inquisition did by no means act arbitrarily. Nor did it act like one of them modern special units of the military. The Hl.Inquisition became active in an area when (a) there was a noteworthy amount of heretics, (b) the respective ecclesiatical “countermeasure” (bishop, legates, orders) responsible for said area got active and (c) sufficient assistance from the secular government was granted.

Therefore, when I say “Inquisition”, I don’t mean the slaughter of heretics, I mean the converting of heretics (by force, if necessay).
Is that enough?

The Inquisition was and remains a major stain on the history of the church. It led to people liked Huss, Waldo and Wycliffe and other pre-Reformation Protestants being persecuted, making them heroes among Protestants today.

 The very thought of an Inquisition today is at best weird and at worse demonic! Would Jesus consider such an atrocity? Of course not. It is troubling to find such a view still hanging around within the church. One reason anti-Catholicism thrived in the USA for generations was fear of Catholic domination and the possible suppression of other faiths. 

  Thank God we live in a democracy. If you believe that 'the gates of hell' cannot prevail against Catholicism you need to relax. I'm not so sure of this myself. Until the church is less authoritarian and permits broader thinking among its clergy and laity and less control from on top it will be in serious trouble. Allowing priests to marry is a good idea, too.

  Yes, wishing for a Holy Inquisition is sinful. And it's not in any way holy!

And here I was, thinking anti-Catholicism in the US was due to their first white inhabitants to have been mainly religious fugitives. Heretics, thus, who didn’t agree with the Church to begin with.

Would Jesus consider such atrocity? That would depend on your definition of atrocity. Personally, I see nothing condemnable in having an organization make sure that what is taught in His name is indeed what should be taught in His name.

[continued in next post due to character restrictions]

 

[Questionhaver]

God isn’t a democracy. Nor are His entity and His teachings subject to personal preferrence.
As much as I love democracy as a way the state works (I’m Swiss), as much do I reject it in my faith. Truth is never a matter of majority or interpretation. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no matter how much you want it to be different, it won’t ever be.
Just look at what damage liberalism has already caused to our society … but maybe that’s just me.
I may want to agree with you on the celibacy, then again, it’s a honourable commitment the clergy chose and an ancient tradition.

If the OP envisioned some sort of Church-controlled dogma police, going around jailing non-Catholics as heretics, I wanted to explain that that is never what the inquisition was.

Thank you. However, I never understood the Hl.Inquisition to have been kind of a “Catholic Gestapo”.
When I mentioned islamization as a threat to our society (as it certainly is), for example, I never wished for an Inquisition to rid us of the muslims (although that would be one way to tackle the problem, I guess). Rather, I’d say a Christian Society, unified and strengthened, would never have been put in jeopardy to begin with.

You have to be a little more clear in what you are hoping for. If you are hoping for some group to rise up in the Church and combat Islam, for example, then that doesn’t fit with Church teachings at all and likely arises more from personal distaste for a large group of God’s children. If you want a group that looks for things like wayward Catholic organizations and challenges them for misleading others about the faith then that sounds like it would be alright.

I don’t want the Church combatting the Islam (she’d just be substituting one problem with another). What I would want, though, is an organization uniting all of Christianity - by force if need be. Because if you think about it, all those “denominations” that once split from the Catholic Church are in one way or the other “misleading others about the faith”.
The Hl.Church, on the other hand, by her contemporary passive position and in allowing heresy to abide is putting thousands, if not millions, of lives in jeopardy.
Furthermore, unity is the most simple form of defence.

The OP is not asking about the Morals or lack of in the past, but is asking us to invision Today as a time where this could or should be a benefit to society.

I know that it’s impossible (or at the very least highly unlikely) for a new Inquisition to take place anytime in the near to not-so-near future.
But if lustfully looking after a woman is the same as adultery (Matthew 5:28) and desiring a person’s death the same as murder (1 John 3:15), then consequently, wishing for the Hl.Inquisition should be the same as actually reinstating it.

So what I’m indeed asking, is:

So in a nutshell, I believe that had the Hl.Inquisition never ended but instead ensured unity throughout the Church to this very day, the world would be a better place. And I’d wish for a reinstitutation of a similar ecclesiastical organization.
Is it wrong for me to do so?
I’m worried I may be commiting a sin (anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disregarding the commandment of love, haughtiness, …) but remain unsure.
Should I seek help?

 

[Rence]

The Hl.Inquisition wasn’t as bad as Hollywood would have you believe for the sake of its films. She was charged with keeping the faith “clean”, which is to say free of heresy, which would also result in a unity throughout the Church. She was also charged with “reconverting” the heretics, lest they should be bereft of their beatitude.
Most people convicted of heresy got off with a reprimand, a fine, doing penance and/or having to wear a yellow or blue cloth cross sewn on their garments as a stigma for a defined period of time.
Torture could be applied as a means of ascertaining the truth and force a confession.
If and to what extent torture would be applied was left to the inquisitors discretion. (Most of the times, however, treatening would suffice.) Unregenerate heretics could be sentenced to imprisonment for life (and be freed again if the captive showed penitance) or as a last measurement be “handed over to the secular arm”, which meant death (often, although not exclusively, through fire as fire purges -->Purgatory]).
Another misunderstanding I’ve come about is that the Hl.Inquisition was “murdering clergy gone mad”. The Hl.Inquisition did by no means act arbitrarily. Nor did it act like one of them modern special units of the military. The Hl.Inquisition became active in an area when (a) there was a noteworthy amount of heretics, (b) the respective ecclesiatical “countermeasure” (bishop, legates, orders) responsible for said area got active and (c) sufficient assistance from the secular government was granted.

Therefore, when I say “Inquisition”, I don’t mean the slaughter of heretics, I mean the converting of heretics (by force, if necessay).
Is that enough?

If this above is what you wish for, then I would say that yes, this is sinful (as well as very disturbing) and that you need to talk to someone about it. A good priest is a good start.

Would Jesus consider such atrocity? That would depend on your definition of atrocity. Personally, I see nothing condemnable in having an organization make sure that what is taught in His name is indeed what should be taught in His name.
[continued in next post due to character restrictions]

My question: would Jesus be living in the Vatican if he was living here on earth today? I think not. He’d be out evangelizing and spreading the Good News.

He also said: if they don’t listen to you, shake the dust of that town/house off your feet and move on to the next. Which indicates very well that he wouldn’t be interested in an ‘inquisition’. He didn’t say, “if people don’t listen, put them to The Question, and then hand them over to the secular authorities and have them tortured and killed” so that we can covert everyone to Catholicism. He said, if people don’t listen to what you have to say, move on. He said loud and clear how he wanted Catholics to evangelize.

 

[bingbang]

The Hl.Inquisition wasn’t as bad as Hollywood would have you believe for the sake of its films. She was charged with keeping the faith “clean”, which is to say free of heresy, which would also result in a unity throughout the Church. She was also charged with “reconverting” the heretics, lest they should be bereft of their beatitude.
Most people convicted of heresy got off with a reprimand, a fine, doing penance and/or having to wear a yellow or blue cloth cross sewn on their garments as a stigma for a defined period of time.
Torture could be applied as a means of ascertaining the truth and force a confession.
If and to what extent torture would be applied was left to the inquisitors discretion. (Most of the times, however, treatening would suffice.) Unregenerate heretics could be sentenced to imprisonment for life (and be freed again if the captive showed penitance) or as a last measurement be “handed over to the secular arm”, which meant death (often, although not exclusively, through fire as fire purges -->Purgatory]).
Another misunderstanding I’ve come about is that the Hl.Inquisition was “murdering clergy gone mad”. The Hl.Inquisition did by no means act arbitrarily. Nor did it act like one of them modern special units of the military. The Hl.Inquisition became active in an area when (a) there was a noteworthy amount of heretics, (b) the respective ecclesiatical “countermeasure” (bishop, legates, orders) responsible for said area got active and (c) sufficient assistance from the secular government was granted.

Therefore, when I say “Inquisition”, I don’t mean the slaughter of heretics, I mean the converting of heretics (by force, if necessay).
Is that enough?

Yeah, that is completely immoral. I don’t even think there is a good argument for that being moral at all. If Jesus supported something like that, why didn’t he implement it himself? He obviously had the power to do that. If Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone, why would Catholics think that they should??

Even if it was done perfectly it is immoral, but you also have to think of how easy it would be for people to get carried away.

You can’t make someone believe religious ideas by force.

For example, would it be OK if Muslims started an inquisition? If it isn’t OK for other religions to do it to Christians, than it isn’t OK for Christians to do to other religions…despite what you think is true and what is not.