The Inquisition and Index: Vatican Records Shed Light on Dark Legend

[Catholic_Press]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The Roman Inquisition and the Index of Forbidden Books obviously do not represent the brightest chapters in Catholic history, but newly published documents from Vatican archives should help scholars distinguish between the truth and the dark legends.

More…

 

[Digitonomy]

I thought this was interesting:

Even though the Roman Inquisition obviously violated many of today’s basic human rights, the inquisitors actually introduced novel juridical procedures that are now fundamental in modern democracies, they wrote.

According to the book’s authors, the Inquisition’s juridical innovations included “the defense attorney, testimony under oath, appeals to a higher court, the adoption of the principle ‘unus testis nullus testis,’” in which uncorroborated testimony is inadmissible, as well as reducing life sentences to a few years of incarceration and offering a public defender for the poor.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

"Copernicus was virtually ignored by censors until a Protestant wrote about his work and that author was put on the Index, not for supporting heliocentrism, but for being a Protestant, the book said.’

Incorrect. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium certainly was not ignored and it was included in the Index of Forbidden Books and remained until 1758.

 

[johnnykins]

I agree it was not ignored: Published in 1543 and well received by the scientific community - albeit a small one! and dedicated to the Pope; put on the Index 73 years later in 1616 and removed from the Index 142 years later in 1758.

Of course that first 73 years is curious…Does seem like The Church didn’t care too much for 73 years! “Virtually ignored by censors until” seems to be pretty accurate.

 

[johnnykins]

BTW isn’t wonderful how the Church through its Universities and love of learning has had clerics at the forefront of knowledge: not just philosophy, theology and law, but also science: Copernicus was a cleric and probably a priest - and we all know of the Monk, Gregor Mendel, to name the most famous to modern ears!

Some people would actually distort history to try to say the Church is anti-learning or anti-intellectual or even anti-science. With all the great western universities having started and grown as religious institutions, it’s just plain hard to fathom absent an anti-Catholic worldview.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

BTW isn’t wonderful how the Church through its Universities and love of learning has had clerics at the forefront of knowledge: not just philosophy, theology and law, but also science: Copernicus was a cleric and probably a priest - and we all know of the Monk, Gregor Mendel, to name the most famous to modern ears!.

Copernicus was not a priest; he was a lay canon. It’s interesting that the Church now takes credit for the works of scientists it so brutally persecuted for those very works.

 

[johnnykins]

Copernicus was not a priest; he was a lay canon. It’s interesting that the Church now takes credit for the works of scientists it so brutally persecuted for those very works.

My my - how very wrong! Copernicus died very close to publication - hardly persecuted since he was dead 73 years before the book was placed on the Index. BTW what did the church do to Mendel?

You really shouldn’t let your anger and bias affect you grasp of history as seem to have done - unless you are deliberately misrepresenting things? Oh dear - are you deliberately shading things against the Church? Let’s see: you knew the publication was placed on the Index “until 1758” but failed to mention the 73 years from publication to being placed on the Index thereby giving the impression that it was always on the Index. Hmmmm…

You claim he was “persecuted” yet he died at the time of publication - is that another gap in your knowledge or a deliberate attempt to calumniate the Church?

And I said he was “a cleric and probably a priest” yet you make the point about him being a “lay canon” who by definition must have been a cleric and not “lay” other than in the meaning of not being a priest. Is that deliberately misleading or ignorance?

And somehow you managed through all that to imply the Church did something to Mendel.

Amazing!!!

 

[manualman]

More slander, same old tiresome slander actually. Did you even bother to read the article? Scientists generally didn’t get in trouble with the Church until and unless they crossed the line between science questions (what, where, when, how) and religious questions (Who and Why).

Classic example is Darwinism. The church has no problem with scientific theories of evolution as defined as a gradually increasing complexity of life via mutation and adaptation. She DOES have problems with the application of “survival of the fittest” to questions of human culture, policy and law (e.g. Eugenics, the inevitable outcome of evolution applied to Who and Why questions).

Also conveniently ignored is the utter dominance of catholic scientists in the feild of seismology. Jesuits practically OWNed that field for a 100 years.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

My my - how very wrong! Copernicus died very close to publication - hardly persecuted since he was dead 73 years before the book was placed on the Index.

Copernicus was an exception to the rule.

You claim he was “persecuted” yet he died at the time of publication - is that another gap in your knowledge or a deliberate attempt to calumniate the Church?

I made no such claim. I made a general statement about the Church’s attitude towards science and it’s treatment of scientists. Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, and many others weren’t so lucky.

And I said he was “a cleric and probably a priest” yet you make the point about him being a “lay canon” who by definition must have been a cleric and not “lay” other than in the meaning of not being a priest. Is that deliberately misleading or ignorance?.

I suggest you do some research.

And somehow you managed through all that to imply the Church did something to Mendel.

You’re grasping at straws. I never said anything about Mendel.

 

[anode]

BTW isn’t wonderful how the Church through its Universities and love of learning has had clerics at the forefront of knowledge: not just philosophy, theology and law, but also science: Copernicus was a cleric and probably a priest - and we all know of the Monk, Gregor Mendel, to name the most famous to modern ears!

Some people would actually distort history to try to say the Church is anti-learning or anti-intellectual or even anti-science. With all the great western universities having started and grown as religious institutions, it’s just plain hard to fathom absent an anti-Catholic worldview.

In the old days, up to and including the 20th century, it was common for poor boys to enter the seminary to get an education and a profession. This was called ‘church climbing’ . As recently as the 19th c. in England, it was common for well-educated young men from good families to take Anglican orders–this is what Darwin did, who never had a parish.

The most recent famous example of ‘church climbing’ is Angelo Roncalli, a poor peasant boy from Sotto il Monte in Italy, oldest child of a large peasant family, whose parish priest recognized as being very bright, and arranged for him to be sent away to the seminary where he ended up becoming Giovanni XXIII.

 

[latin_rite]

I made no such claim. I made a general statement about the Church’s attitude towards science and it’s treatment of scientists. Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, and many others weren’t so lucky.

Um

Copernicus was not a priest; he was a lay canon. It’s interesting that the Church now takes credit for the works of scientists it so brutally persecuted for those very works.

Yeah, ok.

 

[jdnation]

I made no such claim. I made a general statement about the Church’s attitude towards science and it’s treatment of scientists. Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, and many others weren’t so lucky.

In the case of Bruno, he was burned at the stake, which means he’d have been convicted for treason against the state. So it wouldn’t have had anything to do with scientific beliefs because putting someone to death would require VERY serious charges, and heliocentrism was never one of them.

The Church never persecuted any scientists for scientific work. If they were suspected of Protestantism or some other heresy or treason, then that’s another story.

Now scientists being persecuted/ridiculed for taking a stance against the scientific consensus for which the Church had a majority vote given its members in that field, is a valid accusation, but that’s be no different from stuff going on in the scientific community today. Nothing’s changed, except that the scientific consensus of today is predominantly naturalistic and atheistic and pro-evolution despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

In the case of Bruno, he was burned at the stake, which means he’d have been convicted for treason against the state. So it wouldn’t have had anything to do with scientific beliefs because putting someone to death would require VERY serious charges, and heliocentrism was never one of them…

Bruno was burned at the stake after being convicted of heresy due, in part, to his cosmological theories of an infinite universe containing an infinite number of planetary systems like our own.

The Church never persecuted any scientists for scientific work. If they were suspected of Protestantism or some other heresy or treason, then that’s another story.

You forget that their scientific theories were considered a heresy.

 

[TMC]

Even though the Roman Inquisition obviously violated many of today’s basic human rights…

“Today’s basic human rights” is an interesting choice of words. Were there periods in history during which burning people alive was not a violation of their basic human rights? I think it would be more accurate to acknowledge that basic human rights were ignored during some periods of history.

 

[johnnykins]

“Today’s basic human rights” is an interesting choice of words. Were there periods in history during which burning people alive was not a violation of their basic human rights? I think it would be more accurate to acknowledge that basic human rights were ignored during some periods of history.

Actually one has to wonder exactly what are “basic human rights” and do they ever vary? It seems to me it’s oxymoronic to say “basic human rights” vary over time. If they are “basic” - they should apply at all times, IMHO. If they are 'basic" only “today” they cannot be “basic”.

Now, if he means today’s generally accepted rights, OK. But, that’s not what is said.

BTW, if there are such rights, what ones did the Roman Inquisition violate exactly? You make the comment about being burned alive - clearly humans are burned alive with some frequency throughout history - as capital punishment in various states in the middle ages, fire bombing and atomic bombing in WWII, use of molotov cocktails and other explosive devices in many instances, Napalm in Vietnam, numerous instances in war or civil unrest when buildings were set ablaze, etc. Were each of those a violation of a “basic” human right or simply grusome? Just a question… To tar the Inquisition with that sort of opprobrium, we need to look at other instances, methinks.

 

[anode]

In the case of Bruno, he was burned at the stake, which means he’d have been convicted for treason against the state. So it wouldn’t have had anything to do with scientific beliefs because putting someone to death would require VERY serious charges, and heliocentrism was never one of them.

The Church never persecuted any scientists for scientific work. If they were suspected of Protestantism or some other heresy or treason, then that’s another story.

Now scientists being persecuted/ridiculed for taking a stance against the scientific consensus for which the Church had a majority vote given its members in that field, is a valid accusation, but that’s be no different from stuff going on in the scientific community today. Nothing’s changed, except that the scientific consensus of today is predominantly naturalistic and atheistic and pro-evolution despite evidence to the contrary.

Thank fortune modern scientists aren’t being burned alive.

Galileo was in danger of the Inquisition because he supported a theory not supported by the church: that the earth revolved around the sun.

According to Wiki, Bruno was burned by the Inquisition in 1600 for heresy, in supporting the Copernican model of the earth revolving around the sun, and that the sun is one of innumerable heavenly bodies moving independently. I’d say he was a good astronomer. These charges don’t sound like treason, unless the church and state were one, which I think functionally, they were.

 

[miguel]

Actually one has to wonder exactly what are “basic human rights” and do they ever vary? It seems to me it’s oxymoronic to say “basic human rights” vary over time. If they are “basic” - they should apply at all times, IMHO. If they are 'basic" only “today” they cannot be “basic”.

Now, if he means today’s generally accepted rights, OK. But, that’s not what is said.

BTW, if there are such rights, what ones did the Roman Inquisition violate exactly? You make the comment about being burned alive - clearly humans are burned alive with some frequency throughout history - as capital punishment in various states in the middle ages, fire bombing and atomic bombing in WWII, use of molotov cocktails and other explosive devices in many instances, Napalm in Vietnam, numerous instances in war or civil unrest when buildings were set ablaze, etc. Were each of those a violation of a “basic” human right or simply grusome? Just a question… To tar the Inquisition with that sort of opprobrium, we need to look at other instances, methinks.

It seems that judicial denial to the unborn of the basic human right to life (clearly affirmed by and in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution) merits such opprobrium. And no doubt will get its due in the ultimate court of justice.

 

[miguel]

“Today’s basic human rights” is an interesting choice of words. Were there periods in history during which burning people alive was not a violation of their basic human rights? I think it would be more accurate to acknowledge that basic human rights were ignored during some periods of history.

Including our own.

 

[johnnykins]

It seems that judicial denial to the unborn of the basic human right to life (clearly affirmed by and in violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution) merits such opprobrium. And no doubt will get its due in the ultimate court of justice.

To say there is a “basic human right to life” is very different from saying a direct abortion is always morally wrong.

If there is a basic human right to life, then it seems to me, inter alia, that capital punishment is not, and never has been, morally licit; that there is no right of self-defense; and that a war allowed under the just war theory - which I presume implies sanctioned killing - is immoral.

It seems to me that the human right to life is conditional and not basic in any meaningful sense - and the Church seems to agree: Indirect abortion can be licit; capital punishment is allowed; self defense is allowed; there is such a thing as a just war, etc., etc.

 

[st_julie]

“Today’s basic human rights” is an interesting choice of words. Were there periods in history during which burning people alive was not a violation of their basic human rights? I think it would be more accurate to acknowledge that basic human rights were ignored during some periods of history.

The death penalty is still used in the USA and many other countries. You would have to use the same argument about “human rights” in todays societies.