Was the burning of heretics justified?

[fix]

The next time I’m told by a Catholic to read the ECFs, I suppose I’ll just have to limit that reading to those Early Church Fathers who wrote after 1917. Or the next time an infallable Papal pronouncement from 917 is cited…well, if the Papal proclamations from the time of the Inquisition aren’t trustworthy, then what can you do??

The CE is not a magisterial document.

Look-- it’s a ***fact ***no matter how many times you try to revise history to deny or hide the truth. The Inquisition used torture to coerce confessions. The Papal document from your Church still exist for all to read. For Gosh sake’s your Church has even apologized for it. Deny, deny, deny it enough and maybe people will be convinced that it really did not happen. That apparently is the aim of lots of folks in this thread.

Please post the apology so that it may be read in context.

I’m signing off for now because I’m so angry from reading posts from people who deny the truth when it is staring it in their face --that think that the Inquisition was a blasted RCIA session–that I’m afraid I’ll say something really uncharitable. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him take a bath and there are just too many folks posting in this thread that will never take that bath.

No one has denied abuses happend. What is being denied is revisionist history and the tendency we have to impute 21 century conditions onto another era. Hardly fair or reasonable.

 

[Shiann]

Because, oh I don’t know, they were being tortured? Torture is well known to make people say anything to try to get out of it or at least let it end. Only very rarely is that a true and accurate confession of misdeeds.

Do you seriously believe that every confession extracted by torture, whether in the Inquisition or before or after, is honest and true? I am speechless.

But we’ve already shown the vast number of inquisitions did NOT include torture.

 

[Shiann]

Amazing!!! It’s so easy for “armchair inquisitors” to claim that having ones testicles crushed or being hung up by their hands while they are tied behind their backs thereby dislocatiing the arms from the sockets and perhaps the shoulders blades or having ones behind slowly roasted on a metal spiked slowly heated metal chair lacks integrty to say what they are being told to say to stop the pain!!!

I can see how the Inquisitors freely inflicted pain and so “guilt free”…anyone with integrity would speak the truth no matter how much pain they received…but a guilty person would confess!!!

I wonder who really lacked integrity…the innocent Cathar or the cruel heartless Inquisitor who acted in the name of God?

This is shameful. After all the evidence presented to the contrary, you continue to perpetuate the historical error. This dramatic presentation of your opinion rather than documented evidence is very telling.

 

[Shiann]

Can’t resist…so when the records of torture conflict with your beliefs…it’s a lie?

See what’s stated in red…the color of the inquisition.

GOD AND IMMORTALITY

A Tribute to Meister Eckhart, the greatest amongst the Christian Mystics.

C 1996 Copyright by Yogi A- S. Narayana. 1441

Alexandra Avenue. Mississauga, Ontario. L5E 2A9, Canada

INTRODUCTION

This small book is a tribute to Meister Eckhart, from whom God nothing hid. It is inspired by the Franz Pfeiffer edition of Eckhart’s surviving writings, published at Leipzig in 1857.

The noble sage was the Archarya of the West, the greatest amongst the Christian mystics. In the years of 1325-6, suspicion of his teachings having been received, Nicolaus of Strassburg was appointed his special Inquisitor and his case came before the Inquisition in Venice. Meister Eckhart delivered his Protest before this body on the 24 January 1327. On the 13 February, Eckhart made his public declaration of orthodoxy in the Dominican Church at Cologne. This is the last date at which he has been known to be alive. The answer of the Inquisition to his appellation, refusing to accept it, is dated 22- February 1327- The author conjectures that the great Christian saint would have died sometime before that date.

In the view of this Yogi, Meister Eckhart was brutally interrogated by torture by the henchmen of the Holy Inquisition- The horrible interrogation, would have aimed at extracting from the saint a confession of being in league with the Devil, or being possessed by demons. A forced confession in this regard may be in the inner vaults of the Library Vaticanus.

This was a vicious interrogation by torture, and brutal mutilation, which may have lasted for several weeks. The torturers would have used thumb screws to crush the saint’s fingers and toes. They would have used the rake

3

to disjoint Eckhart’s limbs. The henchmen would have torn out his finger and toe nails with customized pliers.** They would have crashed the saint’s testicles with a pair of special pliers**, custom designed for use by the henchmen of the holy Inquisition. They would have disjointed and broken his limbs, tortured him by fire, and crushed his fingers and toes with hammers and screws. The henchmen may have followed the prescribed procedure for silencing heretics. They may have detongued the saint, with a unique, lock type pair of pliers, especially designed for the holy Inquisition. They would have blinded him with glowing iron, after singeing his body. They would have pored boiling lead into the saint’s ears and mouth, from whence there flowed some of the wisest and most inspired sayings in the history of the Christian faith. This Yogi contends that the great Christian saint died of torture and suffocation before 22 February of the same year. This means that the Inquisition-s refusal to accept his defence was retroactive.

The great Christian martyr may have been buried alive in the time-honoured tradition of the holy Inquisition: the dying saint may have been bricked alive into a wall of an ecclesiastic edifice, where the sage finally died of suffocation. Soon thereafter, Eckhart was excommunicated by the Bull of John XXII, dated 27, March 1329, which also would have been retroactive. These events led to one of the great literary tragedies of the Western World, the destruction of most of Eckhart’s inspired writings, and of most transcripts of his famous sermons and tractates. The subsequent eradication of the sage from the memory of Christendom

This is all conjecture on the part of the author. There is no record of the inquisition proceedings.

I’ve not found any evidence that he was excommunicated from the church other than one that he placed on himself.

And for the record, a simple internet search found all sorts of records of Eckhart’s writings and sermons. There are several societies who study the writings and the man. And interestingly enough none of them mention the atrocities above.

eckhartsociety.org/resource.htm

It seems that your source is not credible for our discussion.

 

[Mirdath]

Shiann…all of this is shameful. Do you think for one second that I feel any less shame than a Catholic should (and rightly so)? You were not there, I was not there, but our ancestors, whether physical or spiritual were, and even if they were not, we are all human. Every act of inhumanity hurts, shames, and frightens me, now or then, here or there, this that and the other. Not for the sake of my virtue, whatever that is, but because we are better than that…aren’t we?

If we are not, then all your gods and revelations and governments and learning and wisdom and happiness and curiosity and tears and laughter and work and aspiration and all is vanity. But all that, whether vain or no, that is all I have, and all I need. Maybe you think there is something vaguely more, but I do not care whether there is or not. The problems are before us, and we may face them as best we can, with a high heart, no matter how very weary.

This thread is about justifying torture and brutal execution. I was appalled that it went over a few pages, given the unkind and dismissive tone of several posts. Yet I am glad for the learning that has been exchanged.

 

[Shiann]

Shiann…all of this is shameful. Do you think for one second that I feel any less shame than a Catholic should (and rightly so)? You were not there, I was not there, but our ancestors, whether physical or spiritual were, and even if they were not, we are all human. Every act of inhumanity hurts, shames, and frightens me, now or then, here or there, this that and the other. Not for the sake of my virtue, whatever that is, but because we are better than that…aren’t we?

If we are not, then all your gods and revelations and governments and learning and wisdom and happiness and curiosity and tears and laughter and work and aspiration and all is vanity. But all that, whether vain or no, that is all I have, and all I need. Maybe you think there is something vaguely more, but I do not care whether there is or not. The problems are before us, and we may face them as best we can, with a high heart, no matter how very weary.

This thread is about justifying torture and brutal execution. I was appalled that it went over a few pages, given the unkind and dismissive tone of several posts. Yet I am glad for the learning that has been exchanged.

Well said.

 

[LJN21]

Shiann…all of this is shameful. Do you think for one second that I feel any less shame than a Catholic should (and rightly so)? You were not there, I was not there, but our ancestors, whether physical or spiritual were, and even if they were not, we are all human. Every act of inhumanity hurts, shames, and frightens me, now or then, here or there, this that and the other. Not for the sake of my virtue, whatever that is, but because we are better than that…aren’t we?

If we are not, then all your gods and revelations and governments and learning and wisdom and happiness and curiosity and tears and laughter and work and aspiration and all is vanity. But all that, whether vain or no, that is all I have, and all I need. Maybe you think there is something vaguely more, but I do not care whether there is or not. The problems are before us, and we may face them as best we can, with a high heart, no matter how very weary.

This thread is about justifying torture and brutal execution. I was appalled that it went over a few pages, given the unkind and dismissive tone of several posts. Yet I am glad for the learning that has been exchanged.

This thread is not about justifying torture and no one has done so. Charges of inhumanity do have to be looked at in time period we are discussing. People live in inhumane condition throughout history and still do. Being inhumane does not necessarily mean it wrong based on the circumstances. Some have attempted to clear up this misinformation surrounding the issue on exactly how many people were killed and how many were tortured. It seems tho it was a vain at tempt since a few people seem to refused to look at the facts and still believe the wildly exaggerated stories.

So how would you execute a murderer/rapist in medieval Spain?

Also who do you think executed more people Queen Mary I (aka Bloody Mary) or Queen Elizabeth I (aka Good Queen Bess)?

 

[Mirdath]

Crimony.

Yes, that is what the thread is about (check the title).

I would not execute them. Being chained to the wall in a dungeon cell is, let’s face it, about as secure as Alcatraz, at a minimum. And neither rape nor murder is the issue here – heresy and other-belief is.

And I couldn’t give two tugs who killed and tortured more than another. Playing at tu quoque does nothing for the reputation or moral culpability of either.

If you’d like to start another topic, go for it.

 

[Publisher]

I used the quote as an “example”…didn’t take much time at all to find a reference about torture in the Inquisition using “pliers and testicles”. I’m sure we can find more references, but I don’t think that would do any good.

Torture by both Protestant and Catholics was used…TORTURE is the whole point of this thread…it happended, and there is no justification for it, especially from those who claim to be followers of Christ.

We can deny it and “clean up our history” or acknowledge it happened and go on from there. If we deny it, in many peoples eyes “Christianity” loses credibility…at least IMO…we shouldn’t be afraid of the truth…people are cruel…especially when religion is involved…just go back and read some of the less than charitable comments this thread has inspired…I have no doubt under the right circumstances the “Inquisition” either the Protestant version or the Catholic version would surface again…Christianity has competed with Islam in it’s cruelty for “heretics” and “infidels”…Islam has nothing of Christianity for barbarism and hate, both Protestant and Catholic “flavors” of Christianity have participated in horrors…and claimed them to be in “the name of God.”

 

[Shiann]

Shiann…all of this is shameful. Do you think for one second that I feel any less shame than a Catholic should (and rightly so)? You were not there, I was not there, but our ancestors, whether physical or spiritual were, and even if they were not, we are all human. Every act of inhumanity hurts, shames, and frightens me, now or then, here or there, this that and the other. Not for the sake of my virtue, whatever that is, but because we are better than that…aren’t we?

Yes, every act of inhumanity hurts the whole of humanity. And peace and love and charity and mercy are things every person should strive for. But there are also times to defend what is true against an adversary. And that is the very basic part of the question. Was this a case of that? Was this a situation where humans had the right to defend themselves from an adversary? Was the adversary dangerous enough to do real harm to people spiritualy and/or bodily, and further demoralize or dehumanize?

If we are not, then all your gods and revelations and governments and learning and wisdom and happiness and curiosity and tears and laughter and work and aspiration and all is vanity. But all that, whether vain or no, that is all I have, and all I need. Maybe you think there is something vaguely more, but I do not care whether there is or not. The problems are before us, and we may face them as best we can, with a high heart, no matter how very weary.

But without having a full understanding of the past how are we to learn in the future? And to have the fullest understanding of the past, one must seek to understand what it meant to live in that past. Great understanding and perspective is gained. We have a complex human mind.

Much of the Bible is written just this way. There are many stories and phrases that mean nothing to you or me in today’s modern context, but given the full understanding of what it meant to live in those times gives greater meaning and depth of understanding to the information presented.

History, and the attrocities of the past are much the same way. The fact that we can examine them for what they were in the context of the time and make discernments on the quality of judgment at the time does not in any way give any indication of a personal judgement today. At this point all one is doing is looking at a history and trying to give it depth and understanding NOT by filling in the blanks with modern ideas- but by understanding the people, their societal structure, their understanding of the world around them in the context of their time and place.

This thread is about justifying torture and brutal execution. I was appalled that it went over a few pages, given the unkind and dismissive tone of several posts. Yet I am glad for the learning that has been exchanged.

This thread is about understanding history. This thread is about looking at the historical information we have, the quality of that information, and interpretations of that information. We are looking at history and giving it context hoping to get a clear picture to discern meaningful lessons.

The fact that because I and others contributing to this thread do this, I’m accused of unchristian behavior or I’m branded as someone who supports the torture and brutal execution.

My goal in all of this has merely been to make sure an attempt was made to hear the history as fully as we could, in the context of the time. I do not appreciate good intellectual conversations full of heresay or mumbojumbo stats that have been passed on since Fox’s book of Martyrs.

All that said, I do appreciate the fact that this thread has maintained a good amount of charity. Not many discussions on this subject are so fruitful. Thank you for your contribution to that.

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, every act of inhumanity hurts the whole of humanity. And peace and love and charity and mercy are things every person should strive for. But there are also times to defend what is true against an adversary. And that is the very basic part of the question. Was this a case of that? Was this a situation where humans had the right to defend themselves from an adversary? Was the adversary dangerous enough to do real harm to people spiritualy and/or bodily, and further demoralize or dehumanize?

To quote a rather famous personage, what is Truth? Is Truth merely what you or the Church say it is? Is an opinion of Truth worth killing and torturing for?

History, and the attrocities of the past are much the same way. The fact that we can examine them for what they were in the context of the time and make discernments on the quality of judgment at the time does not in any way give any indication of a personal judgement today. At this point all one is doing is looking at a history and trying to give it depth and understanding NOT by filling in the blanks with modern ideas- but by understanding the people, their societal structure, their understanding of the world around them in the context of their time and place.

Context can be used to justify such things politically, maybe, but it is moral justification we are talking about. An absolutist code simply does not allow for lapses of convenience.

My goal in all of this has merely been to make sure an attempt was made to hear the history as fully as we could, in the context of the time. I do not appreciate good intellectual conversations full of heresay or mumbojumbo stats that have been passed on since Fox’s book of Martyrs.

I quite agree that the evils of the Inquisition and the suppression of heretics are often overblown in the popular imagination; however, there was still evil done. And crying ‘context!’ makes it no less evil.

All that said, I do appreciate the fact that this thread has maintained a good amount of charity. Not many discussions on this subject are so fruitful. Thank you for your contribution to that.

Thank you

 

[LJN21]

Crimony.

Yes, that is what the thread is about (check the title).

I would not execute them. Being chained to the wall in a dungeon cell is, let’s face it, about as secure as Alcatraz, at a minimum. And neither rape nor murder is the issue here – heresy and other-belief is.

And I couldn’t give two tugs who killed and tortured more than another. Playing at tu quoque does nothing for the reputation or moral culpability of either.

If you’d like to start another topic, go for it.

So you would tax illiterate farmers and peasants who already don’t have anything to pay for life in prison for murderers and rapists?

Also I’d like to point out that the poisons (dungeons) at the time were extremely inhumane. In fact in today’s standards spending any time in them at all would be considered torture. Since torture is immoral, what are we going to do with them? Its moral relativism to say its okay for them to stay in those jails.

How do you know the vast majority of heretics that were executed were not serious criminals?

At least some of us want to find the truth about what actually happened and aren’t happy to live with pseudo-history.

 

[Mirdath]

So you would tax illiterate farmers and peasants who already don’t have anything to pay for life in prison for murderers and rapists?

Also I’d like to point out that the poisons (dungeons) at the time were extremely inhumane. In fact in today’s standards spending any time in them at all would be considered torture. Since torture is immoral, what are we going to do with them? Its moral relatives to say its okay for them to say in those jails.

The point here is deliberate inhumanity vs. incidental inhumanity. Can’t let a criminal go free, won’t torture or kill him; what’s left is to imprison him and treat him as best possible. This is a proper use of historical context in questions of morality. It’s not a great situation, it’s not what I’d pick, but it’s the best we can do. Torture and murder are most certainly not that.

By the way, life in a serf’s hut would probably be considered torture nowadays too.

How do you know the vast majority of heretics that were executed were not serious criminals?

Because the documents are rather exhaustive. Once heresy was declared a high crime, one needed only say the wrong thing in front of the wrong person to be brought up.

 

[Shiann]

I used the quote as an “example”…didn’t take much time at all to find a reference about torture in the Inquisition using “pliers and testicles”. I’m sure we can find more references, but I don’t think that would do any good.

As an example of what? You used it as an example to further your position. I have refuted the validity of that example, and you just breeze by like it doesn’t matter. The credibility of your position is defended by the credibility of your examples.

Torture by both Protestant and Catholics was used…TORTURE is the whole point of this thread…it happended, and there is no justification for it, especially from those who claim to be followers of Christ.

The point of this thread is given the historical contexes and the lives of the people at the time, is the actions the Church took justified?

We can deny it and “clean up our history” or acknowledge it happened and go on from there.

If I attempt to clean up your interpretation of history, or the bad statistics that you use to make judgments on the Church is that bad?

If we deny it, in many peoples eyes “Christianity” loses credibility…at least IMO…we shouldn’t be afraid of the truth…people are cruel…especially when religion is involved…just go back and read some of the less than charitable comments this thread has inspired…I have no doubt under the right circumstances the “Inquisition” either the Protestant version or the Catholic version would surface again…

I’ve not seen anyone deny anything. In fact to argue that it may have been justified is to foremost acknowledge it happened in the first place!

Christianity has competed with Islam in it’s cruelty for “heretics” and “infidels”…

That you see no difference between the two, and that you believe Christianity can be anywere near as cruel as Islam makes me wonder…

Islam has nothing of Christianity for barbarism and hate, both Protestant and Catholic “flavors” of Christianity have participated in horrors…and claimed them to be in “the name of God.”

Since Islam has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I’d ask that you start another thread if you wish to discuss this point further.

 

[Publisher]

The cruel history of the Church doesn’t frighten me as much as some of the things I have read in this thread…such denial and fear…the church should never have participated nor condoned torture of heretics…it was evil and inspired by hell…for a time the “gates” did prevail…and instead of a cross the church bowed to the rack and stake in homage to it’s god.

 

[Shiann]

The point here is deliberate inhumanity vs. incidental inhumanity. Can’t let a criminal go free, won’t torture or kill him; what’s left is to imprison him and treat him as best possible. This is a proper use of historical context in questions of morality. It’s not a great situation, it’s not what I’d pick, but it’s the best we can do. Torture and murder are most certainly not that.

By the way, life in a serf’s hut would probably be considered torture nowadays too.

Yet that serf is gonna have to pay extra taxes and further starve his family to imprision criminals and treat them as best as possible.

Because the documents are rather exhaustive. Once heresy was declared a high crime, one needed only say the wrong thing in front of the wrong person to be brought up.

Yes and brought up meant meetings and counselings over a 12 month or better period- where education of the person and determination was made if the person was just ignorant or if they meant malice. Torture was last resort prior to handing the person to the secular authorities- and there were exhaustive and very technical rules about what was and was not permissible.

 

[Shiann]

The cruel history of the Church doesn’t frighten me as much as some of the things I have read in this thread…such denial and fear…the church should never have participated nor condoned torture of heretics…it was evil and inspired by hell…for a time the “gates” did prevail…and instead of a cross the church bowed to the rack and stake in homage to it’s god.

I can appreciate your opinion.

 

[Keikiolu]

The cruel history of the Church doesn’t frighten me as much as some of the things I have read in this thread…such denial and fear…the church should never have participated nor condoned torture of heretics…it was evil and inspired by hell…for a time the “gates” did prevail…and instead of a cross the church bowed to the rack and stake in homage to it’s god.

Then, Jesus’s “church” goes in and out of existence?

Lovely image that.

May you come to learn the distinction between sinfully prone people, and their acts, and the Always Holy Church, and it’s acts.

Best to you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mirdath]

Yet that serf is gonna have to pay extra taxes and further starve his family to imprision criminals and treat them as best as possible.

Weigh the alternatives, in the case of a murderer: the workforce loses one member to prison, or it loses many to murder and its effects on friends and family. Of course simple execution is the easiest way out! Does that mean we should do it? And torture before death – what purpose does that serve?

One would hope that the spirit of Christian charity would extend even to the criminal and to the enemy, as I believe it’s supposed to.

Yes and brought up meant meetings and counselings over a 12 month or better period- where education of the person and determination was made if the person was just ignorant or if they meant malice. Torture was last resort prior to handing the person to the secular authorities- and there were exhaustive and very technical rules about what was and was not permissible.

‘Exhaustive and very technical rules’ don’t make anything moral or just. That torture was used on those who simply would not recant their beliefs, even as ‘a last resort’, is horrifying.

 

[LJN21]

The point here is deliberate inhumanity vs. incidental inhumanity. Can’t let a criminal go free, won’t torture or kill him; what’s left is to imprison him and treat him as best possible. This is a proper use of historical context in questions of morality. It’s not a great situation, it’s not what I’d pick, but it’s the best we can do. Torture and murder are most certainly not that.

By the way, life in a serf’s hut would probably be considered torture nowadays too.

That was my point. Burning at the stake is inhumane I don’t think anyone where would argue that. It was used at the time because they thought it was a more humane method and it is being called torture. Hanging in shackles with barely enough food to live, getting bitten all types of bugs and diseased rodents, and having no light is also torture. You know rats have been known to gnaw on the helpless living. Everyone can pretty easley guess what burning at the stake is like torture wise how about living in the conditions in a medieval prison. Have you really thought that out? Either they are both morally reprehensible and should be out right condemned or you have to take both in the historical context. You can’t have it both ways.

Because the documents are rather exhaustive. Once heresy was declared a high crime, one needed only say the wrong thing in front of the wrong person to be brought up.

That’s true, but how many of those cases actually ended up in execution?

Where is the exhaustive documents of someone that was burned at the stake for simply (and only) thinking differently? Or were they also inciting people, or teaching that is okay to commit suicide, or any other serious crime.