The Inquisition

[swnunley]

My brother-in-law is a Messianic Jew. I’ve known him for almost 25 years, and up until about 5 - 6 years ago he was mainly an Evengelical, and many years before I met him, he told my (then future) mother-in-law she was going to hell because she was Catholic. He was Baptist at the time.

As I stated above, he recently discovered that his grandfather was Jewish, but his family kept it secret because of persecution. He never knew his heritage growing up, but has embraced it with zeal, learning Hebrew, Torah, Talmud, and practicing the dietary tenets of the Jewish faith. I give him a lot of credit, and I enjoy listening to him talk about the things he has learned…

Since then, however, he frequently brings up the Inquisition and how “anti-semitic” the Church was, going all the way back to the Early Fathers. I’ve been reading up on these topics, but I was wondering what would be the best approach to take on this issue. I feel if I don’t say something, he may slip back into aggressive anti-Catholicism.

It’s a very delicate matter. It can become confrontational, and I want to avoid that. I love my brother-in-law very much and do not want to destroy our relationship. Any advice?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Well, you can tell him “you’re welcome for my Church saving between 700,000 and 800,000 of your people during the Holocaust.”

Also let him know that the Inquisition did not persecute Jews. The only people placed under the Inquisition were Christians, or those who claimed to be Christian. There were cases where Jews would fake a conversion and they were the ones that the Inquisition affected, but not Jews who were just Jews.

And what does the Inquisition prove? That there are sinners who also happen to be Catholics? Guily as charged. That the Church’s members are not perfect? Again, guilty as charged.

Show him these letters as well (they were written in the century leading up to the First Crusade):

“To [Arch]bishop Gaufrid. All laws, both ecclesiastical and secular, condemn the shedding of human blood, unless by chance they puncish by judgment a crime already committed, or, as in the case of the Saracens, a hostile provocation occurred. Thus, you acted advisedly and laudably because you did not allow the Jews to be persecuted without cause. There we urge you to act again in a similar fashion if necessary.”

• Letter of Pope Alexander II to Gaufrid, Archbishop of Narbonne (late 1063)

“Pope Alexander, to all the bishops of Spain. The news which we recently heard about you was pleasing to us, how you protected the Jews who lived among you so that they would not be annihilated by those who had set out against the Saracens in Spain. Indeed, those people, moved either by dull ignorance or by blind avarice, wished to bring slaughter upon those whom divine piety predestined for salvation. Thus Blessed Gregory [Gregory the Great] forbade certain men who burned to exterminate [the Jews], denouncing as impious the wish to destroy them who were saved by God’s mercy…The situation of the Jews and Saracens is completely different. For war is waged justly against those who persecute Christians and expel them from their cities and own homes; these were everywhere created to be enslaved. But [Blessed Gregory] even prohibited a bishop who wished to destroy [the Jews’] synagogue [from doing so].”
-Letter of Pope Alexander II to all the bishops of Spain (1063 or 1064)

In Christ,
Rand

 

[otm]

You might also try telling him that one of the tennets of the Church is that we are sinners; that the Church is not here for the sainst but for the sinners, and that many people had a very misguided attitude towards Jews, in part because of failing to understand the Gospels; particularly where the term “Jews” is used in a very derogatory way.

People had lost understanding, as the Church grew, that there were certain groups in Israel at the time of Christ who wanted him dead; the Gospel writer refers to them as “the Jews”, and when he wrote it, everyone understood what he was saying.

As time moved on, and the Church became more spread out throughout the world, people lost contact with the context of what was written. In addition, people looked for scapegoats (as they always have and always will), and misused the Gospel as a condemnation of all Jews, rather than the small groups that were meant in the Gospel.

It is just as wrong to condemn all Christians because of the sinfulness of those who have misused the Gospel for their own ends, as it is wrong to condemn all Jews for those who wanted to rid themselves of this troublemaker known as The Anointed One.

It is not that the Church was anti semetic so much as it is that groups within the Church have misused the Gospel to their own ends. And when I say Church, I mean Christianity at large, not just the Catholic Church.

 

[Fidelis]

Everything you need to know. Here:

catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

And here:

catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=inquisition

The main point to is to ask him what it proves…that there are sinners in the Church? No doubt about it, but you should always judge a religion by it’s best examples, not it’s exceptionally bad ones.

Also, ask him why he would pass judgment on a billion strong organization (with many more millions thru the centuries, many of them saintly and holy) on the actions of the relatively few bad eggs 500+ years ago?

 

[fulloftruth]

A point often missed is that the church is responsible for the souls entrusted to her. Her “job” is to administer the sacraments and get her members to heaven.
If there is a threat to our country, a threat that costs our citizens there lives, does not our country have the right and the duty to protect its citizens even if it means taking the lives of the enemy.

Then how much more so is it the duty of the Church to protect the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. Which is worse, to lose a life, or to lose a soul eternally? A soul of course. If there is an enemy taking souls out of heaven, then it is the duty of the church to stop that enemy. Taking people out of the Church can be the same as taking them out of heaven if they have full knowledge of there decision to leave. How much more grave is that then simply taking a life. Atleast that life has the opportunity to meet its maker and recieve eternal life in paradise if God so wishes it. Sending a criminal to death is only hastening there meeting with God and he is the most just judge. If they are sorry for there sins they will be saved God will see to it. All fairness will be dealt out perfectly. So the church can do no wrong by puting blasphemers and heretics to death, it only saves the souls that they would take out of the church.

 

[mandolin]

Jews are not entirely blameless. A fact never mentioned in the discussion of Inquistion or Spanish history is that Jews of Spain opened the gates to Moorish invaders who went on to oppress Spain for 800 years.

 

[a_cermak]

Yes, but the Jews were better treated under the Moors than under the Church at that time.

I don’t think you can segment out the persecution between Jews and conversos (those who had “converted” to Catholicism but kept their Judaism). The reason the Jews converted was to escape persecution in the first place.

To OP: You might mention that the Church has realized its errors of the past and that those errors were caused at least in part by the fact that the Church and State were so intertwined as to be inseparable; which is a situation that will never exist again.

Pax,
Amy

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

mandolin:

Jews are not entirely blameless. A fact never mentioned in the discussion of Inquistion or Spanish history is that Jews of Spain opened the gates to Moorish invaders who went on to oppress Spain for 800 years.

Peace be with you!

I somewhat doubt that. I’ve studied a lot of history and never read anything about that before.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[mandolin]

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia. It is an apology for Jewish behavior.

“Both Moslem and Christian sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders. Once captured, the defense of Cordoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Málaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors. The Chronicle of Lucas de Tuy records that “when the Christians left Toledo on Sunday before Easter to go to the Church of the Holy Laodicea to listen to the divine sermon, the Jews acted treacherously and informed the Saracens. Then they closed the gates of the city before the Christians and opened them for the Moors.” (Although, in contradiction to de Tuy’s account, Rodrigues Toledo’s Historia de rebus Hispaniae maintains that Toledo was “almost of completely empty from its inhabitants,” not because of Jewish treachery, but because “many had fled to Amiara, others to Asturias and some to the mountains,” following which the city was fortified by a militia of Arabs and Jews (3.24). Although in the cases of some towns the behavior of the Jews may have been conducive to Moslem success, such was of limited impact overall. The claims of the fall of Iberia as being due in large part to Jewish perfidy are no doubt exaggerated.”

 

[quasimodo]

mandolin:

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia. It is an apology for Jewish behavior.

“Both Moslem and Christian sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders. Once captured, the defense of Cordoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Málaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors. The Chronicle of Lucas de Tuy records that “when the Christians left Toledo on Sunday before Easter to go to the Church of the Holy Laodicea to listen to the divine sermon, the Jews acted treacherously and informed the Saracens. Then they closed the gates of the city before the Christians and opened them for the Moors.” (Although, in contradiction to de Tuy’s account, Rodrigues Toledo’s Historia de rebus Hispaniae maintains that Toledo was “almost of completely empty from its inhabitants,” not because of Jewish treachery, but because “many had fled to Amiara, others to Asturias and some to the mountains,” following which the city was fortified by a militia of Arabs and Jews (3.24). Although in the cases of some towns the behavior of the Jews may have been conducive to Moslem success, such was of limited impact overall. The claims of the fall of Iberia as being due in large part to Jewish perfidy are no doubt exaggerated.”

Any nut job can post on wikipedia. There is little or no peer review. The founder has edited the story of the beginnings of Wikipedia 3 times - each time writing the co-founder into a smaller role. Having said that, there is a lot of good material there. But I would not trust it for controversial topics without a lot of independent sources in agreement wit it.

 

[JamesG]

Say “Gee I guess you must be more intelligent then the most well-known Jewish figure of this century Albert Einstein “

“Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”

That usually makes them go silent

 

[Malachi4U]

You brother-in-law just seems to take his anti-Catholic biggotry with him every where he goes!

Tell your brother-in-law to learn some history by historians not myths by historical revisionists like the Baptists.

Does a church have the right to keep people out of it that it does not want in it? Does a church have the right to keep heritics out of it. The Inquisition was the Catholic Church policeing itself - not others. Now the civilian governments had their own laws but those were not imposed by the Church, just members of it.

Your brother-in-law just seems to follow the fad of the moment? How Protestant of him!

 

[stanley123]

quasimodo:

Any nut job can post on wikipedia. There is little or no peer review. .

And any nut job can post on Catholic Answers forum.

 

[stanley123]

Rand Al'Thor:

Also let him know that the Inquisition did not persecute Jews. The only people placed under the Inquisition were Christians, or those who claimed to be Christian. There were cases where Jews would fake a conversion and they were the ones that the Inquisition affected, but not Jews who were just Jews.

Were Jews ever forced to convert against their will? And then when they protested were tortured by the inquisition?

 

[Lazerlike42]

stanley123:

Were Jews ever forced to convert against their will? And then when they protested were tortured by the inquisition?

Not by the Church. Several kings took advantage of the inquisition to do things lke this, but the Church did not do so, nor did She encourage it.

 

[stanley123]

Lazerlike42:

Not by the Church. Several kings took advantage of the inquisition to do things lke this, but the Church did not do so, nor did She encourage it.

Regardless of who was responsible, they were forcibly converted and then were tortured by the inquisition when they objected to their forced conversion.

 

[Lazerlike42]

stanley123:

Regardless of who was responsible, they were forcibly converted and then were tortured by the inquisition when they objected to their forced conversion.

That is absolutely true. What isn’t true is that you can blame the Church for it. In fact, if I’m not mistaken the Church even condemned these actions.

 

[stanley123]

Lazerlike42:

That is absolutely true. What isn’t true is that you can blame the Church for it.

I thought that the Church, under Pope Gregory IX , set up and established the papal Inquisition in 1233.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The first error of fact is that many people who mudsling about the Inquisition forget to mention that there was a secular and religious authority to the Inquisition. Many normal criminals would beg to be tried by the Inquisition because they were much more lax than the secular Spanish courts of the time. We must also put this in historical perspective. Catholics had just regained control of their country after 800+ years of persecution in their own lands by the Muslim invaders. Yes, some Jews aided and abbeted the Muslim invaders. Originally, the Pope protested an Inquisition in Spain but finally agreed to let one go through. Also, the number of people killed for heresy during the Inquisution is highly exagerated. Only around 3,000 were killed during an Inquisition which spanned hundreds of years.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

swnunley:

My brother-in-law is a Messianic Jew. I’ve known him for almost 25 years, and up until about 5 - 6 years ago he was mainly an Evengelical, and many years before I met him, he told my (then future) mother-in-law she was going to hell because she was Catholic. He was Baptist at the time.

As I stated above, he recently discovered that his grandfather was Jewish, but his family kept it secret because of persecution. He never knew his heritage growing up, but has embraced it with zeal, learning Hebrew, Torah, Talmud, and practicing the dietary tenets of the Jewish faith. I give him a lot of credit, and I enjoy listening to him talk about the things he has learned…

Since then, however, he frequently brings up the Inquisition and how “anti-semitic” the Church was, going all the way back to the Early Fathers. I’ve been reading up on these topics, but I was wondering what would be the best approach to take on this issue. I feel if I don’t say something, he may slip back into aggressive anti-Catholicism.

It’s a very delicate matter. It can become confrontational, and I want to avoid that. I love my brother-in-law very much and do not want to destroy our relationship. Any advice?

All I can think of is:​

Avoid denying the wickedness of the Church’s persecution of the Jews - otherwise, the guilt of the crimes committed by the Church is being aggravated by the guilt of lying in order to pretend it was not as bad as it was.

No good is done by trying to defend evil words or deeds. They should be admitted - that helps to show them up for what they are, and to give confidence that have been rejected as being evil.

A Church which lacks the courage to admit her sins to those who know of them in any case, is no follower of Christ, but a liar, a cheat, and a murderer.

It would be insane to try to defend or excuse the sins of the Church - what sort of faith in God must we have, if we slip into defending as Christian the sort of behaviour which would have put Christ Himself to death ?

We cannot try excusing - let alone defending as Christian - behaviour of that kind. To do so, shows lack of faith in God ##