The not-so-evil Spanish Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zero, of course. My intention here was not to justify torture, but to bring the inquisition from “worst thing ever, the reason why those times were so backward compared to today” to “evil and not good, but generally better than the norm back then, and certainly not the beginning of bad times for heretics or mankind in general”
 
Why was the Church not told by God to not use torture? Is “better than the norm” the standard to aspire to?
 
No, it is it not the standard to aspire to, and only by applying a very selective reading to everything I’ve written here can you reach the conclusion that I believe “better than the norm” is what Catholics should aspire to. Why did God allow the Holocaust? Why do bad things happen to good people? I’m afraid you’ve asked THE question. My guess is as good as yours.
 
Last edited:
No, I am asking a different question. Not why God “allows” evils, but why He did not inform the Church that torture is wrong. I can see only three possibilities:
a) God informed the Church that torturing/killing people for their beliefs is wrong and the Church ignored Him
b) God did not inform the Church that torturing/killing people for their beliefs is wrong and the Church felt it was justified
c) torturing/killing people for their beliefs is not wrong
 
Or #4: God permitted people to come to an understanding regarding torture as their own human minds became capable of understanding, enabling them to have full understanding and knowledge, and to be able to give full consent to that.
 
I would say option a. Jesus said that christians were not to imitate leaders of nations who exercise their power over them, but that the christian who wants to lead christians should do so by serving them, the most important should be the one to serve others, hence the washing of the feet at the last supper. The church is not a government, and therefore has no business acting like one. But I’m no expert, I could be wrong
 
If nothing else, the point jfz is avoiding is that the history of the Inquisition is considerably more nuanced than he and those of his ilk will give credit for. Saying that doesn’t make it not evil so don’t put those words in my mouth. I’m just saying one needs to open his or her aperture to view the total picture of what took place in those days. And to realize that the history we read growing up here in the US was entirely based on British sources which were virulently anti-Catholic and never really corrected over the centuries as the British eventually moderated their opposition to the Church. Just how anti-Catholic were the British when Henry VIII broke with the Church? jfz ought to educate himself about that one, but that is for another thread.
 
As with the Crusades, they have become misunderstood and therefore maligned. Truth was absolute, and not subject to the evil one’s relativism. 500 years from now, folks will look back upon our society and shake their heads. The vicissitudes of fragile human nature.
 
Well, if people are going to say how civilized Mohammed acted for his era, I guess you’d have to use that same standard here.
 
As an Evangelical investigating Catholicism and as a convert it certainly helped me to learn that the Inquisition didn’t slaughter “millions of Protestants” as my fundamentalist grandparents had claimed. Historical context can be useful.
 
twf said:
As an Evangelical investigating Catholicism and as a convert it certainly helped me to learn that the Inquisition didn’t slaughter “millions of Protestants” as my fundamentalist grandparents had claimed. Historical context can be useful.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. What I don’t agree with is the general proposition of the original post.
Now I’m not justifying the Spanish Inquisition or saying we need to bring it back. But let’s put things into perspective. It appears that the inquisition was among the most progressive tribunals of the day. Indeed there appears to be evidence that trials were quite fair by the standards of the times and prisoners in secular prisons seemingly blasphemed in order to be transferred to the custody of the inquisition. Also worth mentioning is its seemingly moderate (by the standards of the times!) use of torture.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nowadays we are surrounded by blasphemies and heresies all around us. Not so always.
Nowadays we all have varying beliefs and ideas. Not so back in the day, when societal unity was almost a necessity.

To judge the past by our current societal standards would be a bad idea. The death penalty is not common nowadays. But does that mean it is objectively wrong as a form of justice? I don’t think so. But, in terms of today, it is simply not needed. We have enough resources to provide for those in prison, and the ravings of a madman isn’t going to affect the populace as we all are incredibly individualistic today.
 
Wow. If my comments on the history of the church were to produce conversions to Catholicism without me being a catholic it would certainly be weird and funny.
 
KevinK said:
No, I am asking a different question. Not why God “allows” evils, but why He did not inform the Church that torture is wrong. I can see only three possibilities:

a) God informed the Church that torturing/killing people for their beliefs is wrong and the Church ignored Him

b) God did not inform the Church that torturing/killing people for their beliefs is wrong and the Church felt it was justified

c) torturing/killing people for their beliefs is not wrong
Click to expand...
OK, let’s try a more specific question: do you think that it would have been good to punish Hitler for publishing “Mein Kampf”?

After all, if that was done, Holocaust and Second World War wouldn’t have happened.

But, of course, that would have been “torturing/killing people for their beliefs”.

It is easy to condemn “killing [or otherwise punishing] people for their beliefs” harshly when you imagine those beliefs to be the ones you like or consider to be harmless. But what would you suggest when those beliefs are the ones you see to be clearly evil and harmful?
 
MPat said:
It is easy to condemn “killing [or otherwise punishing] people for their beliefs” harshly when you imagine those beliefs to be the ones you like or consider to be harmless. But what would you suggest when those beliefs are the ones you see to be clearly evil and harmful?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously asking me for alternatives to killing people for their beliefs?
 
KevinK said:
Are you seriously asking me for alternatives to killing people for their beliefs?
Click to expand...
As I see you have ignored the specific example - Hitler.

For yes, I do suspect that it would be somewhat uncomfortable for you to actually say that Hitler shouldn’t have been punished for publishing “Mein Kampf”. And yet, that’s the case that also has to be dealt with in some way. So, deal with it.
 
Are you equating people who believe differently than you with Hitler?
 
KevinK said:
Are you equating people who believe differently than you with Hitler?
Click to expand...
So, by evading the question in such way, you have shown that you do agree that it is not so obvious that it would have been unjust to punish Hitler for “Mein Kampf”. That is, for his beliefs.

So, it is not that obvious that no one must ever be punished for his beliefs, as there is at least one exception: Hitler.

Which leads to question: what beliefs are worthy of what punishments?

You condemn the Spanish inquisition for choosing a wrong answer to this question (by the way, thus, presumably, you assign some punishment (if only societal disapproval) to wrong beliefs on this matter). But do you have an answer to it yourself? Or have you never thought about it?
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe in punishing people for beliefs, only actions. You?
 
Why do people always villify Christian’s for taking land back that was stolen from them by force to begin with? What you think Islam spread peacefully? Absolutely not. The only reason it survived and wasn’t a stomped out heresy such as Manichaeism is because it spread through force and the sword.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top