L
Lazerlike42
Guest
People have already pointed out several inaacuracies in this thread, in terms of Catholicism and also other religions.
- Status
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
I fail to see any.
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Also atheists skew history to remove references to God and religion from it.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Thousands of jews were persecuted and charged. I can’t say any other group though. Heretical groups and jews, both were targetted. Specific source I can’t give, but I know it is an unfortunate truth that is accepted by the Church. That was more of the culture of the time and not part of the inquisition as a whole, but secluded and individual inquisitors did target jews on top of christians.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Yes they have, innacurately. The reasons pointed out are not inaccurate in accordance to history.
B
bones_IV
Guest
They were people who were pretending to be Catholic when they weren’t. That’s was the point.
L
Liberian
Guest
BryPGuy,
The problem with the statement that “the (Catholic) church has never really fully come clean about its action or inaction during the Holocaust” is that it appears that no amount of revelation and “coming clean” will satisfy the naysayers. The Catholic Church was hailed by people at the time and for two decades after the Second World War as being the prime defender of the Jews from the Nazis (saving more Jewish lives than all the relief agencies put together), and Pope Pius as the only head of state in the 1930’s with the guts and insight to stand up to Hitler. I’m sorry, it is probably a visceral reaction on my part, but I don’t trust the writer. I consider him to be buying into the blood libel against Pius XII.
- Liberian
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
The Inquisition is a little more complicated than that. Oftentimes, Jews would be baptized, but continue to practice Jewish beliefs and customs. These were the Jews targeted by the Inquisition; Jews who were baptized Catholic and still practiced their Jewish religion, despite their baptism.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Nein, they were just people who werenot followers of the Catholic religion, just like the heretics who just had different beleifs then the RCC. Many heretics were not Catholic nor claimed to be which is absolute historical truth. Often they were people who had their own name and religious teachers completely seperate of the Church. Jews were part of the hustle and bustle of gathering heretics.
B
bones_IV
Guest
That’s an oversimplification. The inquisition again was not aimed at non-Catholics as others have rightly pointed out, your ignorance is showing.
K
Kotton
Guest
That’s just the POINT, the were pretenders, acting like Catholic in public but not believing.
Wrong, heretics say this is what the CHURCH should be teaching.
My boy, you sound more confusing the more you write.NO,they still claimed they were the Church.
What does this mean? Jews gathering heretics?
As bones said,“your ignorance is showing” Yes, you are young with a touch of history to your credit, but when compared to the full indepth research of 'historians, it comes up short. Realize that you are still at the beginning of your knowledge, come back in 25-50 years and read your inadequate replys.
Kotton
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
To claim that the Inquisition was only aimed at Catholics is rediculous or as bones so rudely said: ignorant. The Inquisition in southern France was aimed at the Albigensians and later spilt over onto the Waldensians. Though they had likely mostly been baptized Catholics they had publicly or privately renounced their faith and were no longer members of the Catholic Church. It was with the success of Siger de Montfort’s crusade that they were forcibly re-converted and thus did exactly what Catholics in revolutionary Mexico or Elizabethan England did.
Likewise in Spain with the reconquista thousands of Jews and Muslims were forcibly converted or forced to leave. Their conversions (some sincere, but many for political or family gain and others simply an act to avoid being thrown out of their homeland while still practicing their religion in private) often had little to no backing in faith.
To claim that these people were Catholics is a huge stretch. And to claim that the events surrounding the inquisition are acceptable would be to ignore the Church’s teachings since Jacques Maritain.
The author of the article has a valid point, especially *Lobbying by religious groups does not lead to a more accurate version of history. It simply results in a sugarcoated version of history that sometimes bears little resemblance to the actual events in question. Throughout this nation’s history, our textbooks have reflected less on historical realities and more on the social and political environment of the day. *
Good history should deal realistically with some of the uglier events in our history. No Catholic historian worth his weight in manure would claim that the Church has an impeccable history. History is not a democracy nor should it fall to the lowest common denominator/denomination.
BryP, don’t worry about what people here think of your historical abilities, it will come with time and reading. I should point you in the direction of some good Catholic historians such as Christopher Dawson, Charles Herbermann (Catholic Encyclopedia) or Louis Olivier Duchesne who don’t shy away from Catholic history like some do or others who prefer the Foxe Book of Martyrs:Hilair Belloc kind of polemaics. Avoid the apologetics type of historian wherever you can because apologetics and history are two seperate things. When looking for good historians and good histories, often look at the author but also look at the publisher. Feel free to private message me if you are interested in any field of history and I will point you in a good direction.
Likewise in Spain with the reconquista thousands of Jews and Muslims were forcibly converted or forced to leave. Their conversions (some sincere, but many for political or family gain and others simply an act to avoid being thrown out of their homeland while still practicing their religion in private) often had little to no backing in faith.
To claim that these people were Catholics is a huge stretch. And to claim that the events surrounding the inquisition are acceptable would be to ignore the Church’s teachings since Jacques Maritain.
The author of the article has a valid point, especially *Lobbying by religious groups does not lead to a more accurate version of history. It simply results in a sugarcoated version of history that sometimes bears little resemblance to the actual events in question. Throughout this nation’s history, our textbooks have reflected less on historical realities and more on the social and political environment of the day. *
Good history should deal realistically with some of the uglier events in our history. No Catholic historian worth his weight in manure would claim that the Church has an impeccable history. History is not a democracy nor should it fall to the lowest common denominator/denomination.
BryP, don’t worry about what people here think of your historical abilities, it will come with time and reading. I should point you in the direction of some good Catholic historians such as Christopher Dawson, Charles Herbermann (Catholic Encyclopedia) or Louis Olivier Duchesne who don’t shy away from Catholic history like some do or others who prefer the Foxe Book of Martyrs:Hilair Belloc kind of polemaics. Avoid the apologetics type of historian wherever you can because apologetics and history are two seperate things. When looking for good historians and good histories, often look at the author but also look at the publisher. Feel free to private message me if you are interested in any field of history and I will point you in a good direction.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
I’m not worried about what the Church did durring the WWII time, I know it did what it could and should and that is all I need to know.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
valient Lucy:
Ok, still jews openly practicing judaism. I could name Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, athiests and what ever else of people baptised, but still practice another religion openly deny Christianity and accept their religion. They’re not Catholic nor claim to be, so what power does an inquisitor have to convict them of heresy if they openly don’t practice Christianity?
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
My friend I didn’t say it was directed towards non-christians, I said that non-christians get in the waves of trials of the Christians. I’m quite aware of the fact that the inquisitions were targetted towards Christians but mistakes happen, sometimes more often then others. Like someone said, Ferdinand and the spanish inquisition, some very terrible things happened to the Muslims and Jews under Christian inquisitions during that time.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Comrade, please.Often they claimed to be teaching the truth not being Catholic, just like a Baptist today.That’s just the POINT, the were pretenders, acting like Catholic in public but not believing. Wrong, heretics say this is what the CHURCH should be teaching.
As bones said,“your ignorance is showing” Yes, you are young with a touch of history to your credit, but when compared to the full indepth research of 'historians, it comes up short. Realize that you are still at the beginning of your knowledge, come back in 25-50 years and read your inadequate replys.
Kotton
Often heretical groups did make a seperation of themselves of the Church and claimed to be the proper church and the truth, but not the Catholic Church. I meant that with Inquisitions happening every now and again jews would get mixed in with heretics and be convicted. They were common target of the age by Christians for things.
My education must have differed from your and all my history and everything ever taught to me about the Church must be wrong then if it sounds ignorant. I heard it from the Church’s historians and religious teachers of Catholic history, from history books and documentaries. I guess I should send all those people letters saying they are wrong because Kotten says that he was taught something different then them?
I think I have plenty of history knowledge to compete with the “big dags” here. My sources do seem to be from something different though. Maybe you were taught your history in some secular college or very pro-Catholic educational facility who forgot to mention the negatives of the Church’s actions. I guess we should forget some of the corrupt popes and some other terrible events that are accepted by the Church to have happened?
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Thank you my friend, good to see I don’t stand alone. Plus it is always good to have an extra source of references to have near at ahnd.
D
dcdurel
Guest
There was not only one inquisition. The inquisition in Spain was directed ONLY at people who claimed to be Catholic. The inquisition in Spain was started by the Spanish Goverment. It’s purpose was to determine who was really Catholic and who was only Catholic in name only, but in actual fact was a Jew . This fact was a widespread occurance because of the Spanish goverment policy to export all Jews from Spain, unless they converted. This was another practice totally contrary to Catholic Church teaching. Some Jews were in union with the Muslims (yes it is true) to overthrow the Catholic Spanish Goverment. The Spanish goverment saw this as treason. The inquisition in Spain was started by the Spanish Goverment. Some Jews therefore claimed to be Catholic, while they were still practicing Jews. It was not directed at people who openly professed to be other religions. Thus, it was directed ONLY at Catholics, or people who claimed to be Catholic. It used Catholic theologians to determine who was Catholic and who was a fake. It was NOT started by the Catholic Church, but by the Spanish goverment. If it used any torture, it was NOT the result of any teaching of the Catholic Church, but this was ONLY the result of a teaching or idea which originated in pagan governments, but picked up by the Spanish goverment. There is no teaching of the Catholic Church advocating or permitting torture. Some theologians may have believed it, but Catholic theologians are the source of almost every heresy. **It is totally contrary to Church teaching. **
A prior inquisition in France and other places was started by the Popes. This was started because Catholics, especially Catholic priests would convert to the Albigensian heresy and other similar heresies, in which it was taught one must reject his wife and family, because married life was sinful and it taught that suicide was a good way to get to heaven. This was destoying society. The Catholic bishops were not acting against these priests, even though the Popes urged them to do so. Many bishops supported the heresy, as bishops have always done. Since wives and children were being abandoned because of this heresy the popes were very upset at the harm being done and at the lack of teaching by the bishops.
Thus the Popes finally urged the governments to export those promoting the heresy, not because of some mere theological or religous reason, but because women and children complained they are being forced into poverty when their husbands abandoned them and their children , to take up fornication with others. (Fornication was seen as better than marriage in this heresy) and then their husbands were urged to commit suicide. Thus, the heresy was seen as destroying society. The young husbands would abandon their wives and children to poverty, then commit suicide.
D
dcdurel
Guest
This, the goverments finally started doing. Well, in the cities where these heresies were prevalent, the people revolted and fought the French goverment. The goverment then saw this as treason, and it was no longer just a religious matter, but a matter of civil war against the goverment. Since, this was considered treason and war, the govement saw this as a reason to use force and thus torture against those in revolt. The goverment used Catholic theologians to determine who was really Catholic and who was actually a heretic. Again, it was NOT the Catholic Church which taught torture or advocated torture, because it was always Church teaching, which came from Jesus that becoming or staying Catholic was entirely voluntary. This is always the teaching.
But, since this was now seen as treason and war by the government, and the state has a right to use force in a just war, some Catholics saw nothing wrong with the government using violence as a last resort. And some Catholics would argue that the Church always taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty for certain crimes, such as treason.
Again, any use of torture this was not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It was a policy started by governments who picked it up from previous pagan rulers. The governments would argue that they do have the right to use force to keep order in society and to suppress wars and insurrections. Again, this inquisition which was started by the Popes was aimed at Christians ONLY. It became a goverment matter when wars broke out against the goverment. The goverments told the Church that if they didn’t supply them with theologians to determine who was Catholic or who was a heretic, they would kill anyone who was suspected of being a heretic. Thus the Church was forced to supply inquisitors, just like in Spain, to prevent the wholesale murder of innocent people.
Has the Church permitted the death penalty by goverments for serious reasons, such as murder and treason? Only as a last resort.
Did the goverments use the death penalty on heretics? Yes, but not for heresy, but for treason, was their reasoning Again, the Church has never taught that torture is good or permitted. It never taught that the death penalty was permitted for heresy. It was never a teaching of the Church and never will be a teaching of the Church. The Church always taught that heretics were simply to be kicked out the Church. Did bishops go against this teaching of the Church? Of course. No heresy in the world would have spread without the support of Catholic bishops. Did Catholic bishops use the government policy, combined with their ability to determine who was a heretic to kill their enemies? Of course, that was how St. Joan of Arc was murdered. Have Catholic bishops as a group, ever been in total support of the Church? I don’t know when. During the whole history of the United States the Catholic bishops rejected the Popes 9 encyclicals condeming slavery and the slave trade written between the 1500’s and 1800’s. The Catholic bishops owned slaves during this time. The bishops prevented these encyclicals from ever being published in this country. It wasn’t until about 10 years ago that a Catholic priest finally went to Rome to discover for the first time that these encyclicals existed.
It is only a few times in history, during General councils, or a few other times when the Popes give their approval, that the bishops are infallibly in union with the teachings of the Church. Thus, we cannot use approval by many bishops to determine what is Church teaching. I bring this up because the enemies of the Church will always try to extend Church teaching to theologians, bishops, scripture scholars even St. Thomas Aquina, and others when they are not in union with the Pope’s teachings. Church teaching is ONLY that teaching which is in union with the Popes. And the Popes, (the Church), has never taught torture was permitted for any reason, especially to force people to become Catholic or remain Catholic or to root out heresy and never taught that the death penalty was permitted for simply heresy.
But, since this was now seen as treason and war by the government, and the state has a right to use force in a just war, some Catholics saw nothing wrong with the government using violence as a last resort. And some Catholics would argue that the Church always taught that the state does have the right to use the death penalty for certain crimes, such as treason.
Again, any use of torture this was not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It was a policy started by governments who picked it up from previous pagan rulers. The governments would argue that they do have the right to use force to keep order in society and to suppress wars and insurrections. Again, this inquisition which was started by the Popes was aimed at Christians ONLY. It became a goverment matter when wars broke out against the goverment. The goverments told the Church that if they didn’t supply them with theologians to determine who was Catholic or who was a heretic, they would kill anyone who was suspected of being a heretic. Thus the Church was forced to supply inquisitors, just like in Spain, to prevent the wholesale murder of innocent people.
Has the Church permitted the death penalty by goverments for serious reasons, such as murder and treason? Only as a last resort.
Did the goverments use the death penalty on heretics? Yes, but not for heresy, but for treason, was their reasoning Again, the Church has never taught that torture is good or permitted. It never taught that the death penalty was permitted for heresy. It was never a teaching of the Church and never will be a teaching of the Church. The Church always taught that heretics were simply to be kicked out the Church. Did bishops go against this teaching of the Church? Of course. No heresy in the world would have spread without the support of Catholic bishops. Did Catholic bishops use the government policy, combined with their ability to determine who was a heretic to kill their enemies? Of course, that was how St. Joan of Arc was murdered. Have Catholic bishops as a group, ever been in total support of the Church? I don’t know when. During the whole history of the United States the Catholic bishops rejected the Popes 9 encyclicals condeming slavery and the slave trade written between the 1500’s and 1800’s. The Catholic bishops owned slaves during this time. The bishops prevented these encyclicals from ever being published in this country. It wasn’t until about 10 years ago that a Catholic priest finally went to Rome to discover for the first time that these encyclicals existed.
It is only a few times in history, during General councils, or a few other times when the Popes give their approval, that the bishops are infallibly in union with the teachings of the Church. Thus, we cannot use approval by many bishops to determine what is Church teaching. I bring this up because the enemies of the Church will always try to extend Church teaching to theologians, bishops, scripture scholars even St. Thomas Aquina, and others when they are not in union with the Pope’s teachings. Church teaching is ONLY that teaching which is in union with the Popes. And the Popes, (the Church), has never taught torture was permitted for any reason, especially to force people to become Catholic or remain Catholic or to root out heresy and never taught that the death penalty was permitted for simply heresy.
- Status