When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[josie_L]

I will cross that bridge when you show me some. I can’t myself think of an official Church teaching before the modern era saying that heretics should not be executed. However, it’s true that both Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine rejected the death penalty for heresy. Anyway, if you do find such a statement before the 13th century, I would explain it as the prior position of the Church, which was changed in the High Middle Ages. What would contradict my claims would be such a statement from any point between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.

If you find such a statement from the High or Late Middle Ages, I will admit that my argument does not hold water. And believe me or not, I will be very, very happy. But I am quite sure, unfortunately, that you will find no such thing.

I was basing myself on Sixtus IV’s bull in that he sought to implement fair trials and simple justice for those who were being prosecuted, which in my mind demonstrated that the Church was not intent on burning heretics, i.e., it does not fit the premise you assume the Church officially taught: “burning heretics was the will of the Spirit” (albeit I see it doesn’t really suffice as an argument). However, upon further reflection and reading I do not believe that Leo X was affirming the (supposed) teaching that “burning heretics was the will of the Spirit”. I have explained the reasons why in my posts directed to GKC.

Because he’s issuing a bull as Pope, condemning heresy. That’s pretty official. (Note: I’m not claiming that it meets the requirement for infallibility.) Furthermore, as I have pointed out over and over, the statement does not exist in isolation–he’s only affirming the validity of the practice of Western Christendom since the 12th century, upheld by theological luminaries such as Aquinas.

No, he is not necessarily condemning heresies but errors that are EITHER heretical, scandalous, false, or offensive, therefore we do not know in what capacity he thinks Luther has erred vis a vis statement #33. Moreover, you are correct in stating that this bull does not exist in isolation, but then I have to ask how do you define official teaching, i.e., citing Aquinas is not official Church teaching? I would like to see the ecumenical council from whence this supposedly official teaching was defined (for this is what would make it official)? Furthermore, Western Christendom or rather Western states adopted the practice (capital punishment/torture) because it saw fit to implement Roman law. The Church therefore did not allow for such practices because it was following an official teaching but because it was following the secular world.

You have not established this. It’s a highly dubious claim at best.

How is this a dubious claim, i.e., the Church never officially taught anti-semitism? Did you want me to prove something that’s not there?

I would certainly object to being lumped with Protestants as a whole, since I am no more accountable for the actions of, say, Baptists than for those of Catholics. However, if/when I observe Episcopalians saying things I consider indefensible on this forum, I find it prudent to make my disagreement known. I understand that folks on this forum have a certain stereotype of Episcopalians, and that this stereotype is based in things that Episcopalians really do and say. So I have a certain responsibility to distance myself from that stereotype. (I do object to being lumped with liberal Episcopalians even when I have said explicitly that I differ from them!)

Certainly there are a lot more Catholics than Episcopalians here (naturally!), and I don’t expect you all to police each other. But it’s nice when a Catholic is willing to say to a fellow Catholic, “You’re just embarrassing Catholicism here.” It makes for a much better discussion and strengthens the credibility of the Catholics as a whole.

Now I need to go off and put my money where my mouth is–I came out of my week-long lurk largely because I noticed an Episcopalian saying some very silly things, and wanted to register my protest. But I may go back to lurking for a while, so if I don’t respond right away please understand that that’s the reason why.

Edwin

Apology accepted, Edwin.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Edwin,

Nice to see you back on the forum. Haven’t seen a Contarini post since late July or so?

I wasn’t sure, so I should have said “perhaps” instead of “no doubt.”

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Quite possibly because the Eastern Church remained faithful to Holy Tradition, and the Western Church did not!

Note: there has been persecution of heretics among the Orthodox on a number of occasions, but the Church did not play quite the same active and official role, just as it did not play the same role in the West before the 12th century. Something changed in the West in the 12th century. This strengthens my suspicion (going back to the OP at last!) that “Rome” may have gone wrong at the beginning of the second millennium.

Edwin

Really, it didn’t, then perhaps you can explain this to me:

Originally Posted by KyivAndrew

Ridiculous. The Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times joined the World Council of Churches with the Kremlin’s approval to preach the Soviet peace line on an international stage open to anti-Americanism. You think they would have done this without the Kremlin’s instruction? You should know this.

And the man approached to do that as the Russian Orthodox Church rep to the World Council was one young K.G.B. codename Mikhailov according to the Times Online. This “Mikhailov” is the current Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church! (Even ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia has complained bitterly about all these old Soviet apparatchiks still running the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland and never recanting their Soviet past or even accounting for it, Russian Orthodox themselves).

And how has “Holy Orthodoxy” been charitable to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who were liquidated in 1946 at Stalin’s orders with the assistance of the at-the-time Russian Orthodox Church and forced to become Russian Orthodox at gunpoint. Apparently, the current Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow still sees that K.G.B. pseudo-council which sent my Catholic Church’s hierarchy to the gulags as still correct. During the Soviet Union, the Cardinal of our Ukrainian Catholic Church in the free West even wrote an open letter to the Russian Patriarch for mutual forgiveness, even though our church was in the underground in Ukraine. Did “Holy Orthodoxy” ever respond in your words in “cordial and very charitable” fashion to this act of Christian humility from a man whose church was suffering? Nothing. nada. zilch. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wow.

Even today apparently the Pope wishes to visit the millions of faithful Catholics in Ukraine, but the Russian Orthodox Patriarch apparently is objecting because of the very existence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Should the Pope visit Ukraine like this, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch would apparently nullify any possible meeting with the Pope. What charity. This is called blackmail.

And I do find charity among many truly Christian Russian Orthodox. Father Gleb Yakunin for one. While the current Moscow Patriarch was living the high-life Soviet style because of his collaboration with the Soviet regime, this poor Russian Orthodox priest was sitting in the Gulag for insisting that the Russian Orthodox Church not serve the Communist Party. When the Soviet Union collapsed, did Kirill ever apologize to this innocent religious Russian Orthodox man for his efforts at keeping Christ’s message pure. No. What’s more, Gleb Yakunin got excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for writing of the Church’s suffering under communism and those in the K.G.B… This is grounds for excommunication!? Since then he has joined the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church. I always admired Yakunin, and believed he stood for a real orthodox church, not one subservient to Caesar but Jesus Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Yakunin

And Kirill gets to travel to Ukraine to further a political russification campaign in a sovereign country, while our Pope gets blackmailed into not traveling to Ukraine until us pesky Ukrainian Catholics can be dealt with by the Russian Orthodox. Yes, Hesychios, in your words, “very charitable and cordial indeed”. Can you please point me Hesychios to any Russian Orthodox Document condemning or explaining the mass killings of Ukrainian Catholics and forcible coercion into Russian Orthodoxy in 1946. Any Christian outreach on an official level from Moscow to my Ukrainian Catholic Church? I have never found one speck of paper on this subject from the Russian Orthodox, while our hierarchs all the time insist on meeting with their Orthodox counterparts as Christian brothers. Upon receiving no response from the Russian Patriarch for a Christian outreach (at least could have responded), our Cardinal always said don’t worry, we have done the Christian thing and what Christ would have wanted. My Cardinal was right.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474368&page=25

 

[guanophore]

Would it be accurate to say Catholics in the sixteenth century had a moral duty to execute heretics, even though the Church now believes this was simply a popular opinion and that the *real *teaching was that heresy should be opposed?

They certainly believed that they did, and those in positions of authority in Europe at the time certainly reinforced this sense of moral duty.

 

[guanophore]

No, and I haven’t said otherwise. But it is a logical deduction from the condemnation of the contrary, considering the actual history of the time.

Perhaps, but it is also true that it is just a clear statement that it is beyond the purview of fallible human beings to determine the will of the HS. It is also an affirmation that the HS does, at times, apparently will the death of certain persons (Annanias and Sapphira in the book of Acts being examples).

But if Leo was teaching, in the Bull, whatever he was teaching, he was teaching officially.

OTOH, IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM doesn’t seem to be teaching anything.

GKC

Yes, but there are levels of teaching, also. Leo is attempting to address a local problem within a local culture using accepted methods of the time. This does not equate to a Teaching of the Church, at the level that it is doctrine received from the Apostles. As an fallible level of teaching, it may be erroneous. This is the case with the anti-semetic “teachings” as well.

 

[guanophore]

And was that a teaching function?

GKC

Not so much as it is a pastoral function. It is an act of applying the infallible teachings of the Church in a particular situation.

 

[GKC]

Perhaps, but it is also true that it is just a clear statement that it is beyond the purview of fallible human beings to determine the will of the HS. It is also an affirmation that the HS does, at times, apparently will the death of certain persons (Annanias and Sapphira in the book of Acts being examples).

Yes, but there are levels of teaching, also. Leo is attempting to address a local problem within a local culture using accepted methods of the time. This does not equate to a Teaching of the Church, at the level that it is doctrine received from the Apostles. As an fallible level of teaching, it may be erroneous. This is the case with the anti-semetic “teachings” as well.

I agree. But I maintain it was indeed an exercise of the teaching function, under the Ordinary Magisterium. Which indeed may be fallible (contain error), but is none the less teaching, to which assent is required, unless and until the error is definitively corrected. As I said, further along in the thread. Or in some thread, anyway.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

There’s lots of stuff in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, nowhere else.

GKC

So true.

Luke 11:[34] Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness.

 

[GKC]

So true.

Luke 11:[34] Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness.

Sounds right to me.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

He could not “logically” proclaim a teaching out of thin air???

No. Logic must be based upon a premise. In this case, it is assumed that Leo’s Bull was based upon the premises of the Teachings of the Church. No “thin air” allowed.

 

[guanophore]

That, of course, is Dr. McCoy.

GKC

Indeed, but he got it from Shakespeare, who was, as we know, Catholic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No. We don’t know. LOL…I wasn’t aware that that had totally been proven. The skant evidence was circumstantial and supposition at best last time I read about it, which was about a year ago.

Indeed, but he got it from Shakespeare, who was, as we know, Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

I do not believe that God ever commands the killing of children, period.

So you think all those references to slaughtering whole tribes and cities in the OT as a holocaust to God to wipe out the enemies of Israel were really not reflecting the will of God, but just the writers, anthropomorphizing?

 That sick joke was the last straw, opening my eyes to just what a monstrous act was being described. So I stand by my claim: I don't think that this kind of murderous response to a man having a sexual relationship with a woman of another nation (there's no reference to the man in question actually worshiping idols, just the assumption that the woman would influence him to do so) is pleasing to God.

The fact is that those who united themselves physically with idolaters united themselves spiritually as well. This principle is also confirmed in the NT, where Paul points out that sex with a prostitute spiritually joins the members of the Body of Christ to that prostitute. There is also ample subsequent evidence in the OT that physically adultery/fornication inevitably resulted in spiritual. There is a difference between putting someone to death for a crime (death penalty) and “murderous” rage. The death penalty can be completely dispassionate (devoid of murderous intent). However, in the case we are discussion, the text is clear that passion for the Lord was the motive.

I think you would have a very difficult time discrediting the many passages in the OT where the death penalty is commanded. Just do a search of “death” in the Pentateuch alone!

If it is, I have no good reason to say that Osama bin Laden's actions are not pleasing to God as well.

Really? Do you really believe that he is passionate about fidelity to God?

I do not believe that God literally throws people into a lake of fire, no.

It might be more accurate to say that people make their choices, and the consequence is the lake of fire. However, it is clear that people will be thrown into the lake of fire. The fact that this is a spiritual reality, rather than a tangible one, does not make it less literal.

 God gave life and can take it away. But the message of Numbers 25 is that human beings should hurry up and kill the offenders so God doesn't kill us all. I can't accept that as an accurate understanding of God.

This needs to be viewed from the perspective of original sin. We are all born under a death sentence, because we are born in a state of separation from God’s grace. All those who do not embrace His grace, by faith, will have the death sentence carried out. It is not a matter of God having to “kill us all”, as much as it is a matter of preserving the state of grace that has been chosen by the faithful.

It points to something true about God–but the truth to which it points is the Cross, in which God Himself takes on the consequences of our sins and demonstrates His holiness not by killing sinners but by redeeming them.

The method of salvation has not changed. Sinners have always been saved by grace, through faith.

The penalty of death for those who refuse grace has not changed, either.

But as I pointed out much earlier in this thread, the Christological parallel doesn’t hold at all. We don’t believe that Jesus’ humanity is sinful. We don’t believe that Jesus’ humanity does things that Jesus’ divinity doesn’t do. That would be a kind of hyper-Nestorianism!

It is parallel to the extent that Jesus, in His humanity, suffered the limitations of that humanity (in all ways except sin). He grew hungry, thirsty, frustrated and tired. These are reflections of His human nature. It exists alongside of the Divine Nature, that does not experience these limitations. In the same way, the Church has a human nature, and a divine nature. The human nature suffers limitations, but the Divine does not.

I do too!

If you really see the Church as the Body of Christ, with Him as the Head, then you will be in agreement that the Church cannot err. Any error results from disconnection from the Head, who is infallible. That is why individuals in the church can err, but the Church herself cannot.

So no one except a saint is fully a member of the Church?

Any sin separates us from God, and thus, from His One Body, the Church. When one falls from grace, one’s relationship with the Body becomes wounded. Mortal sin separates one from the holiness without which we cannot see God. Persons in a state of grace are in good standing with the Church.

Saints who have been perfected in heaven forevermore are no longer able to fall from grace.

 

[GKC]

Indeed, but he got it from Shakespeare, who was, as we know, Catholic.

Which point, as to the origin of the quote, I also stated, giving the act and scene. (insert deep sigh here).

Whether Shakespeare was RC is problematic. Pearce doesn’t make an iron-clad case. But, could be.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I was basing myself on Sixtus IV’s bull in that he sought to implement fair trials and simple justice for those who were being prosecuted, which in my mind demonstrated that the Church was not intent on burning heretics,

That is a non sequitur. Wanting to treat people fairly does not mean that you don’t want to punish the guilty with a just punishment. Your argument seems to be:

1. Burning people at the stake is unjust
2. Sixtus wanted to treat accused heretics justly
3. Therefore, Sixtus did not want to burn heretics at the stake.
4. Therefore, either Pope Leo did not want to either, or he was contradicting an equally authoritative statement by another Pope. (Note: It seems to me that a bull establishing an Inquisition in Spain is less likely to fall under the “teaching” side of the “teaching/practice” dichotomy than one condemning theological propositions–but that’s not the main point at issue.)

The biggest flaw with this argument is the connection between 2 and 3. The argument assumes that Sixtus thought it was unjust to burn heretics at the stake. There is no evidence for this proposition, and plenty against it.

However, upon further reflection and reading I do not believe that Leo X was affirming the (supposed) teaching that “burning heretics was the will of the Spirit”. I have explained the reasons why in my posts directed to GKC.

Well, your arguments make no more sense to me than they did to him. Do you seriously believe that people in the sixteenth century, reading Exsurge Domine, would have come to any conclusion other than “the Church teaches that heretics should be burned at the stake”? Because that’s what I’m interested in determining. I’m totally fine with Catholics today saying “we can affirm the point we think the Church was making through Leo without saying that heretics should be burned,” just as I can affirm what I think God was saying in Numbers 25 without thinking that God would be pleased if I killed a newly married Hindu-Catholic couple I know of. (A lady in my church has a grandson who is Catholic and just married a Hindu, so I actually have a real situation in mind.)

No, he is not necessarily condemning heresies but errors that are EITHER heretical, scandalous, false, or offensive, therefore we do not know in what capacity he thinks Luther has erred vis a vis statement #33.

Thanks for the correction–I should have been more precise. But as Eck said to Luther when Luther tried the same dodge at Leipzig (speaking of the Council of Constance’s condemnation of propositions from John Hus which Luther was defending), he didn’t say that any of them were Catholic and orthodox. In other words, whatever category of error you put that particular statement in, you still have a formal document of the ordinary magisterium condemning the proposition that God doesn’t want heretics burned at the stake. As GKC said, this clearly is a teaching, however you want to qualify it.

 

[Contarini]

Moreover, you are correct in stating that this bull does not exist in isolation, but then I have to ask how do you define official teaching, i.e., citing Aquinas is not official Church teaching?

I know–that’s why I cited Exsurge Domine and IV Lateran, which are. However, Aquinas fleshes out the reasoning behind the official Church statements. He is, after all, a Doctor of the Church, and his arguments explain why you would find a Council urging the “extermination” of heretics (and why the civil governments would uniformly interpret that word to mean actually killing heretics, and not just exiling or imprisoning them), and why Leo would condemn Luther for condemning the burning of heretics.

I’m not offering some kind of logical proof. I’m offering the kind of probable arguments one normally uses in trying to figure out what people believed historically. The fact that you keep trying to judge my arguments by this extremely (indeed, artificially) high standard of proof just makes my point: you have to create such high standards in order to defend what you think is the Catholic position. You can’t maintain that the Catholic Church has never taught error if you define the “Catholic Church” as the historically discernible institution led by the Pope and bishops, and if you define “taught” in terms of what contemporaries or historians would reasonably conclude from the evidence.

It may be useful to recall (which I had practically forgotten) how we got onto this subject in the first place. Charlemagne II argued that two religious bodies whose teachings disagree with each other can’t both be part of the true Church, and that if I believe Rome erred at some point I’m logically compelled to believe that Rome is not part of the true Church. I am not engaging in this argument to prove that your Church erred by your definition. I’m trying to show that in order to say that your Church didn’t err, you have to create special categories quite different from the ones that, say, I would use in trying to decide whether Anglicanism has ever erred. (For the record, I think the answer is indisputably “yes” to that one!) Therefore, when I say, “Rome has erred, and we have erred, and maybe even the Orthodox have erred, but we’re all part of one Church,” I’m saying something that is wholly consistent on my own terms. And I have reasons to find your definition of “the Church” overly spiritualized and your definition of “error” unnecessarily narrow.

Furthermore, Western Christendom or rather Western states adopted the practice (capital punishment/torture) because it saw fit to implement Roman law. The Church therefore did not allow for such practices because it was following an official teaching but because it was following the secular world.

Yes, although of course Romans didn’t have a category of “heresy.” The Church defined heresy as one of the gravest crimes on the book. You’re right that the conclusion, “Therefore heretics should be executed,” came from late Roman law.

How is this a dubious claim, i.e., the Church never officially taught anti-semitism? Did you want me to prove something that’s not there?

Anti-Judaism, not anti-Semitism (though the lines can sometimes be confusing). No, but I want you not to assume in an argument that something “never” happened when we haven’t even discussed the matter, and when in fact there is lots of evidence suggesting that such a thing did happen. Of course you can explain that evidence away the same way you explain the evidence I’ve been providing regarding the persecution of heretics. My point is simply that it’s a parallel issue raising the same sorts of questions, and you can’t assume that it’s settled in order to use it to settle this one.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

No. Logic must be based upon a premise. In this case, it is assumed that Leo’s Bull was based upon the premises of the Teachings of the Church. No “thin air” allowed.

Funny, but my point is where is this assumption coming from (if this is a teaching of the Church than there should be adequate written evidence for it)?

 

[Contarini]

Funny, but my point is where is this assumption coming from (if this is a teaching of the Church than there should be adequate written evidence for it)?

And I’m applying normal historical methods to figure out what the Bull would have been understood to mean in its own time. You are essentially saying that official teachings can only be interpreted by other official teachings, and that allows you to deny any interpretation (however reasonable, or even historically unavoidable) that you happen to find inconvenient.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

That is a non sequitur. Wanting to treat people fairly does not mean that you don’t want to punish the guilty with a just punishment. Your argument seems to be:

1. Burning people at the stake is unjust
2. Sixtus wanted to treat accused heretics justly
3. Therefore, Sixtus did not want to burn heretics at the stake.
4. Therefore, either Pope Leo did not want to either, or he was contradicting an equally authoritative statement by another Pope. (Note: It seems to me that a bull establishing an Inquisition in Spain is less likely to fall under the “teaching” side of the “teaching/practice” dichotomy than one condemning theological propositions–but that’s not the main point at issue.).

Thank you, for the unnecessary lecture Edwin, but as you can see I already realized my mistake before you did when I wrote: “albeit I see it doesn’t really suffice as an argument”.

Well, your arguments make no more sense to me than they did to him. Do you seriously believe that people in the sixteenth century, reading Exsurge Domine, would have come to any conclusion other than “the Church teaches that heretics should be burned at the stake”? Because that’s what I’m interested in determining.

And do you seriously believe that most people would assume this on so little basis, i.e., if Leo X had explained in what capacity #33 was being regarded (heretical or false or scandalous . . .) then I can understand but not having defined anything I find it hard to accept. Quite frankly we cannot as you say read this in isolation therefore neither would the people in question, i.e., they would have known of any prior (official) teachings of the Church of which there are none claiming that " burning heretics is the will of the Spirit."

Thanks for the correction–I should have been more precise. But as Eck said to Luther when Luther tried the same dodge at Leipzig (speaking of the Council of Constance’s condemnation of propositions from John Hus which Luther was defending), he didn’t say that any of them were Catholic and orthodox. In other words, whatever category of error you put that particular statement in, you still have a formal document of the ordinary magisterium condemning the proposition that God doesn’t want heretics burned at the stake. As GKC said, this clearly is a teaching, however you want to qualify it.

Yes, a teaching which does not define in what capacity proposition # 33 is being condemned, AND it does matter what category of error it falls under as that would tell us what Leo X meant by error (but we don’t have that information). Using the words that Leo X did: “scandalous”, “impious”, “offensive” would not imply a view contrary to the proposition made just keep that in mind.

 

[Contarini]

I agree. The Church is obligated to embrace and defend the Teachings of the Apostles, and it is clear that there were cases where the HS seemed to want people put to death. To say that the HS does not “will” this is beyond our purview as humans. Our lives belong to God, and He can take them if He so desires.

I think that in the first place there are reasonable grounds for arguing whether God actively kills anyone or simply allows them to die. Whether it’s correct to say that God kills people is something on which I’m genuinely undecided. However, certainly life is God’s gift and God has the “right” to withhold it. One major argument against God actively choosing to withdraw the gift would be the Biblical indications that the damned continue to exist in some form eternally and are not simply annihilated. But these are difficult questions and I don’t quite know what I think of them. (Hence the inconsistency of what I’m saying here with my earlier endorsement of Hauerwas’s statement that God can kill whomever God wants to–there’s a sense which I’m sure this is true, but I also believe that God does not desire the death of the sinner and that God’s actions are always lifegiving.)

At any rate, whatever may be the case in this regard, there’s a huge difference between God killing people or allowing them to die and God commanding some people to kill other people. And that’s where I draw the line. When I find someone in the Bible being commanded by God to do a certain thing, and I know that if someone today were to claim such a divine command I would conclude without doubt that they were wicked or insane, then I have to question whether in fact God commanded this act, or whether the Biblical record reflects how the divine commands were understood in a particular cultural context. So the frequent commands to annihilate the enemy are clearly shaped by a cultural context in which you normally kill those enemies whom you think will be a threat, and take the others for slaves and as trophies of your victory.

If the inquisition had not been created, they would have been summarily put to death on the basis of an accusation only. They also were given no chance to recant of heresy, as the inquisition later required.

What is your evidence for this claim? Before the creation of the inquisitions in the 13th century, heretics were tried either by local bishops or by civil rulers. Church courts did not impose the death penalty, so heretics were, by the standards of the time, getting off extremely lightly. Civil rulers certainly tended to take a more summary approach, but I would like to see evidence for your claim that the normal practice was to put accused heretics to death simply on the basis of an accusation. I can’t imagine any ruler adopting such a policy, unless he was a very corrupt ruler and was using the policy selectively to get rid of people he disliked. But more to the point, I know of no evidence that this was the policy. Certainly the Church was concerned with the possibility that heretics were not being fairly treated by civil courts, and that at times of fear and suspicion they were summarily killed. But to suggest that this was the only possibility before the formation of the Inquisitions is surely to exaggerate wildly at best. I’m also dubious about the claim that recantation could not save you in a civil court, though I can see why it wouldn’t normally do so under civil procedure, and it seems a more reasonable claim on the face of it than the other one.

The problem as I understand it was that there was no bridge between Church courts and civil courts. Church courts jealously guarded their prerogatives (that was one of the main issues behind St. Thomas a Becket’s conflict with Henry II), and then as now this could result in offenders escaping just punishment. The Inquisition, if I’m not mistaken, was an attempt to solve this problem–to provide an efficient but fair court that had the full backing of the Church and the ability to hand incorrigible offenders over to civil authorities for execution. If you start with the assumptions that heresy is a serious crime and that execution *is *a just punishment for it, and that the civil authorities ought to defend orthodox Christianity through all the means at their disposal, then this was a reasonable and indeed humane approach.

A couple of books that are useful for the study of this subject are Malcolm Lambert’s Heresies of the High Middle Ages and R. I. Moore’s The Formation of a Persecuting Society.

You keep laying such accusations at the feet of the “Church”, presumably because you equate the actions of certain leaders in a small geographical area with “the Church”.

And I do this because on many other points Catholics routinely identify the actions of these same leaders with the Church. I’m just applying a consistent methodology. You want to have one definition for good stuff and another for bad stuff.