My thoughts on the Pope's statements, and Islam

[bones_IV]

This piece doesn’t refute the fact that the Church condemned people to death, perhaps as few as 900, perhaps as many as 5,000. It only says that the Church didn’t burn Jews at the stake as enemies of the Church or state. I don’t disagree with that.

The Church didn’t condemn anyone to death. You are assuming that the Inquisition was a tyrannical exercise of Church power. The Inquisition was good enough in its day because the preservation of the faith was both a religious and a political concern for the people in the late middle ages. Today the culture has changed and the Inquisition would be out of date. The Catholic Church is sorely treated very often by authors who have no sympathy nor even understanding of past historical periods, like the INquisition, where the Church is accused by killing heretics by the hundreds. Not true. The Church left it up to the state on how to deal w/ the heretics. Please back up your accusations up w/ facts.

 

[Richardols]

The Church didn’t condemn anyone to death. The state did that. The Church left it up to the state on how to deal w/ the heretics. Please back your accusations up w/ facts.

I did. I cited directly from Peters. The Church courts condemned many to death, but were fairer in treating the majority of those accused than did the state courts. And, yes, some of those condemned to death were pardoned or had their sentences commuted. But the others, condemned to death by the Church, were executed by the state.

 

[CathCentrist]

First, I suggest, with others, that you read the entire test of the pope’s address.
Second, I believe His Holiness used his impressive intellect and inserted this quote into his addres intentionally. The address was about faith and reason (in a philosophical sense) and what happens when the two are separated. What he said “between the lines,” was that promising young men glory and virgins in heaven if they strap explosives mixed with nails and other shrapnel around themselves blow them up and killing as many other young people as you can is the ultimate in the separation of faith from reason and this is the expected result.
He hasn’t apologized because he has nothing for which to apologize. The imams whipped their followers, who probably wouldn’t know the pope from Elvis, and now they’re doing the same old same old noise making, effigy burning garbage in the street.
And it’s all enflamed and encouraged by the western MSM.

I suggest to others, dont make assumptions I havent read the full text. I have and the man was out of line.

 

[Richardols]

The Church didn’t condemn anyone to death.

I cited one source that said that it did. Give me a source that says that it didn’t. Include a page number so I can verify it.

You are assuming that the Inquisition was a tyrannical exercise of Church power.

Not at all. The Church courts were more fair to the accused than the state courts were. But, both courts handed down death sentences.

Please back up your accusations up w/ facts.

I just did, and in the other post as well.

 

[CathCentrist]

Catholics will remain stuck in the dark ages as long as they try to make excuses for the Church’s past as well as its (our leaders) quoting ancient passages and then coming off like those thoughts dont reflect their own. And then attacking those who call out the Church for this stuff as being “hostile” and “antagonistic” merely beucase we dont accept the gloss overs. Its a sad state of affairs.

 

[bones_IV]

I cited one source that said that it did. Give me a source that says that it didn’t. Include a page number so I can verify it.

Not at all. The Church courts were more fair to the accused than the state courts were. But, both courts handed down death sentences.

I just did, and in the other post as well.

How can the Church courts be more fair to the accused than the state courts were and then you say they both handed down death sentences? That makes no sense. The Church left it up to the state on how to deal with it. Your response is typical of “selective qouting”.

 

[estesbob]

I suggest to others, dont make assumptions I havent read the full text. I have and the man was out of line.

In what way?

 

[Richardols]

How can the Church courts be more fair to the accused than the state courts were and then you say they both handed down death sentences? That makes no sense.

No. The Church courts would judge more leniently than the state courts, but, in the end some would get condemned anyway. It’s no different today. Some courts, even some circuit courts, are more lenient than others in the very same state. Some judges are more lenient.

 

[Richardols]

Catholics will remain stuck in the dark ages as long as they try to make excuses for the Church’s past as well as its (our leaders) quoting ancient passages and then coming off like those thoughts dont reflect their own. And then attacking those who call out the Church for this stuff as being “hostile” and “antagonistic” merely beucase we dont accept the gloss overs. Its a sad state of affairs.

Too sad, and too true.

 

[bones_IV]

I did. I cited directly from Peters. The Church courts condemned many to death, but were fairer in treating the majority of those accused than did the state courts. And, yes, some of those condemned to death were pardoned or had their sentences commuted. But the others, condemned to death by the Church, were executed by the state.

Peters isn’t right about everything. I’m right in defending the inquisitions and I’ll defend them any day.

 

[bones_IV]

How about this?

"Inquisitorial Procedure
Inquisitorial courts were governed, just as modern courts are governed, by strict rules and guidelines. Laws and handbooks for inquisitors were issued by the civil or ecclesiastical authorities both to authorize and limit all proceedings. There were rigorously defined protocols and protections for the defendant. Detailed records of evidence, testimony, judgments, penalties, and other acts of the court had to be kept of all proceedings, just like today.
A basic premise of the inquisitorial courts was that no one could be convicted without full proof. In contrast, the common law system of the United States requires proof “beyond a shadow of a doubt” for criminals to be convicted. This is not full proof, and does allow for mistaken convictions. However, to the medieval mind, anything short of full proof was not enough evidence to convict a man.
There were two forms of “full proof” on which a man could be convicted. The first was confession to the crime, the second was the independent testimony of eye witnesses. No other evidence was considered “full proof,” and no amount of other evidence could add up to “full proof.” For example, if I heard a shot fired in a house and I ran in and found:

1. Mr. Smith holding a smoking gun
2. Mr. Smith standing over a dead body
3. signs of a struggle specifically between Mr. Smith and the deceased
4. that Mr. Smith had no alibi
5. that Mr. Smith had a strong, well-known motive
6. that Mr. Smith was behaving abnormally, as if he might feel guilty
   Mr. Smith could not be convicted on that evidence as long as he refused to confess and there were no eyewitnesses to the murder. Without “full proof” the court was forced to make a difficult decision. The accused might be acquitted for lack of evidence, which was common. If, however, the court believed that the accused was probably guilty (given the quantity or quality of evidence), they might decide to seek a confession through the controlled use of physical pain. No confession would be considered valid, however, if it was not later repeated freely without the pressure of pain. Modern sensibilities are, of course, repulsed by this. Inflicting physical pain to draw a confession from a defendant is considered barbaric and unnecessarily cruel. On the other hand, we must remember that our own court procedures might seem cruel and barbaric to the medieval inquisitor. Convicting a man on evidence that does not amount to “full proof” would appear grossly unjust.
   How did inquisitorial procedure work? A citizen might accuse a fellow citizen of a crime. If there was evidence of a crime, the accused would be called and the court would ask if he had anything to confess before he was formally charged. If a man was charged with a crime, he would be allowed an opportunity to confess. If he did not confess, witnesses were called. If eyewitnesses proved his guilt, he was convicted. If they could not, but enough evidence was given to lead the court to believe the man “probably” committed the crime, the court could demand torture be inflicted. If the man confessed under torture, he was given proper attention and later asked to confess without the fear of inflicted pain. If he confessed, he was convicted. If he did not, he was not convicted."

saint-mike.org/apologetics/qa/Answers/Defending_Faith/p010811Rose.html

 

[estesbob]

Catholics will remain stuck in the dark ages as long as they try to make excuses for the Church’s past as well as its (our leaders) quoting ancient passages and then coming off like those thoughts dont reflect their own. And then attacking those who call out the Church for this stuff as being “hostile” and “antagonistic” merely beucase we dont accept the gloss overs. Its a sad state of affairs.

And what excuses are that? You are not impying that it has ever been Church docrtine to spread the Faith by violence, are you? I am not being hostile or antagonistic-merely pointing out that most people (yourself being a prime example) who criticize the church for the past dont have a clue as to what really happened.

You dont really have a grasp of what the Pope said and why he said it. Instead of seeking to understand(and it was a complex point he was making) you just criticize.

 

[MikeWM]

I suggest to others, dont make assumptions I havent read the full text. I have and the man was out of line.

Interesting that people are definding it in the context of an intellectual speech. I thought ‘intellectuals’, giving complicated speeches in ‘ivory towers’ were one of the many bugbears of conservatives. I guess they’re ok as long as they’re saying things that can be superficially agreed with

Mike

 

[estesbob]

Too sad, and too true.

In what way is it sad and it what way was it true.? Do you disagree with the Pope that using religion to justify violence is wrong? Do you think that Islam has some special status that puts it beyond criticism?

I think it is ironic that many of those who reacted with glee when John Paul the Great allegedly criticized the United States for the Iraq war now want the Pope to sit down and shut up.

 

[bones_IV]

Now there’s an intelligent reply.

That is most insulting thing I’ve ever heard in my life! I’m hurt by that. You should take some lessons in respecting other’s instead of making irresponsible statements like that.

 

[estesbob]

Interesting that people are definding it in the context of an intellectual speech. I thought ‘intellectuals’, giving complicated speeches in ‘ivory towers’ were one of the many bugbears of conservatives. I guess they’re ok as long as they’re saying things that can be superficially agreed with

Mike

I guess if one wants to deal in stereotypes that would be a point. The fact that Popes specch was too deep for many people is evident in this thread.

 

[MikeWM]

I guess if one wants to deal in stereotypes that would be a point.

Well, everyone else seems to… I’ve obviously been skimming the wrong conservative stuff. Conservatives seem to have a sneering disregard for ‘academics in their ivory towers’. If this isn’t true, good.

The fact that Popes specch was too deep for many people is evident in this thread.

The fact that he used an inflammatory quote unnecessarily has quite predictably overshadowed the rest of his speech. He should have known that, or his advisors should have. It’s quite an error.

But I do agree with the actual point of his speech. Actually, I’m wondering what creationists think of it.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

Well, everyone else seems to…Well, everyone else seems to… I’ve obviously been skimming the wrong conservative stuff. Conservatives seem to have a sneering disregard for ‘academics in their ivory towers’. If this isn’t true, good.

Ad homonym. I am pretty sure it is against forum rules.

 

[estesbob]

Well, everyone else seems to… I’ve obviously been skimming the wrong conservative stuff. Conservatives seem to have a sneering disregard for ‘academics in their ivory towers’. If this isn’t true, good.

The fact that he used an inflammatory quote unnecessarily has quite predictably overshadowed the rest of his speech. He should have known that, or his advisors should have. It’s quite an error.

But I do agree with the actual point of his speech. Actually, I’m wondering what creationists think of it.

Mike

It is obvious you came here merely to flame. Bye

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I was impressed by our local newspaper.

They observed that those who reacted to the Pope’s speech actually made his case for him!

Obvious and simple, but I missed it when I first heard of the brouhaha.

Alan