Who is My Brother?

[Shiann]

Moving on from there, one would examine the later use of torture to elicit confessions, learn of the refusal to allow the accused legal counsel, for instance, and along with other evidence, after putting 2 and 2 together, would realize that people who were merely assumed guilty were tortured to elicit confessions and killed.

But this was not the case. Again, these individuals were approached by the inquisitor and tried. If the individual refused to convert or confess, they were excommunicated from the Church for a period of one year- during which time they were allowed to prove their innocence or recant their heresy. If they were stubborn to the Church beyond that point, they WERE heretics.

Regardless, these are all moot since these were all typical ways in which to deal with ANY criminal of that time- let alone a criminal of the Chruch. We have established that the Church has a right to protect herself from religious criminals who would seek to destroy Christ’s True Church- or more simply named ‘heretics’. And actually went out of her way to provide logical, and precise proceedings whereby an individual could be offered an opportunity to speak on his or her behalf and be found innocent.

There certainly wasn’t a good chance for that to happen before the Inquisition was set up.

But, though this was not the thrust of my original series, I would say that, even standing alone, this quote from Lateran IV is still rather damning. A whole year may sound like a rather long time to clear one’s name, until… one realizes what this entailed. As I tried to explain, legal counsel was officially refused to heretics for sometime, based upon the precedent of a number of papal bulls. Nor could the accused cross-examine or even know the name of those who accused him or her. Often, imprisonment was part of the ordeal, which would make it difficult to gather evidence, and others were unwilling to come forward in defense of an accused heretic out of fear of association, lest the same punishments be their fate. Let us say, for instance, that we have the following hypothetical situation…

All these reflect the status of the legal system in place at that time.

A man, let us say a faithful Roman Catholic, is accused by a group of others who know him of being a heretic (either by mistake or out of malice). The Roman authorities take him and then demand that he swear an oath that he is not a heretic. If he is a humble or ignorant man who truly is unwilling to swear, having been taught that such is against the command of Christ, he will be automatically guilty, as decreed by Lateran IV.

Please see mercygate’s post above on swearing… this isn’t against the True Church teaching. And if a man, would refuse to show his allegiance to Christ- on pain of death- how is that the Church’s fault?

Or, as is more likely, let us say that he swears the oath willingly but, through the abounding testimony against him (perhaps he’s had dealings with heretics before out of kindness or ignorance on his part)

We could deal with suppositions all day, but again this was CLEARLY not allowed under any circumstances. If it happened, the Roman Catholic was able to repent and provide evidence of his penance for an entire year after his Inquisition.

Remember, they’ve been instructed to work under the principle of assuming guilt until the accused can prove himself innocent. Now, his unwillingness to confess makes him guilty before the eyes of the court and he is given one year to either confess or recant or prove himself innocent. He is a man with little or no family to speak of and what friends he had will not testify for him (or they, too, have already been suspected as heretics and are in the same state as he) and those who have accused him are respected members of the community. What can he do?

Attend Church regularly, remove all contact with heretics, acts of mercy… etc. Again, you are dealing with a whole lot of “what ifs”.

 

[Shiann]

Well, you might say, he could simply worship after the Roman manner and attest to his belief in all the teachings of

Rome. But, let us say that any one of the following might be required of him that he is unwilling to do…

WHAT? If the man was belonged to the True Church- what part of it would he be unwilling to do? And besides, even if he chose to seperate himself from the Church- HOW IS THIS THE CHURCH’s FAULT? Why do you continually condem the Church on the actions of it’s people?

If this continues, I fear we will have reached an impasse in our discussion, and future converstion will be futile.

1. Now that he is professing faith, he is required to sign a statement confessing his sin of heresy and that he has now recanted. This he is unwilling to do because he never was a heretic and, upon signing, he will have basically destroyed his good name.

1. He is asked to embrace and swear fealty to the current Pope and he is, personally, disgusted with the immorality of the present church and the Pope, in particular. He is unwilling to sign anything or swear to anything which would basically accuse him before Christ of vindicating the evil of the present man who falsely sits in and defiles the chair of Peter.
2. He is required to sign a confession of his own heresy and a document which attests that certain of his known friends or family members who are also accused are themselves heretics. This he will not do because he knows them not to be heretics and to sign such a document would be to sign their death warrant.

Again, all heresay. You do not know that these things occured, and for all intents and purposes, a poor man, living in the middle ages with little education (the little he had would be provided by the CHURCH). If he was truly in love with Christ’s Church- nothing could keep him away. Good name or not. :tsktsk:

The list could go on… The point here is that the decree that those suspected of heresy are guilty until proven innocent makes it more likely that innocent people will suffer. But, as I said before, I listed that particular decree of Lateran IV, not so that it could stand on its own, but as an important part of the progression of the teachings of Rome which (some standing alone but most) taken cumulatively lead to the death of innocent people.

This was the reality of life in the Middle Ages. You have no right to say that every bad part of life during that time was because of the Catholic Church. Because I can guarantee that they were the ONLY authority looking out for the poor, the sick, the infirm…

I believe you are starting to confuse the modern freedoms we experience today- with the situation of the Middle Ages.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

So, it is your position that the article on the Inquisition from EWTN, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia (ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/INQCATEN.HTM)), which outlines precisely that torture without due process which you deny, is a false document without any real substantiation?

In certainly is not. But certainly the huge extent you wish to portray it IS a myth. AND you didn’t qualify any of your quotes with any that stated inquisitors had to follow rigorous guidelines on pain of punishment themselves.

And you think that the heart of your alternative quote, avoids all this…

::sigh::

Certainly not, and I’m sure you can see that now.

Shiann, what is being said here? Indeed, the Inquisitors were punished when they showed too little regard for justice. But how is justice defined if not by papal bulls and canon law? All of these defined, at the time, what was “just” as withholding legal counsel, torture to elicit confessions, which was not rare and was broadly defined, denying the accused any right to know or question their accusers, etc.

Again, these are all realities of the judicial system, social structure, and government systems of the time. And by the way, justice in the Middle Ages has a lot different definition that the one we would define in America today- which of course doesn’t include legal counsel, tortured confessions or the like.

But certainly you are not comparing modern reality with that of midieval reality…

Nor do I believe that the Inquisitors were “gleefully” administering torture or thought themselves to be doing anything but administering justice. It was seen as necessary, important and, in a way, rather useful and ordinary for the time. Ordinary is defined for most people by the common practice and opinion of their day.

If you can live in a day where so many countless thousands can see abortion as perfectly ordinary and even talk about it as the most moral (even humane) choice, if you can understand that Nazi torturers had normal lives and returned home from their day of work and played with their children and kissed their wives and thought and acted like normal fathers, then I don’t know why you would have a problem fathoming that Rome could think an Inquisitor (as the Inquisitor thought himself) perfectly normal and moral and careful as he administered “justice” through excruciating pain. How, on earth, your quote answers anything I’ve argued, you’ll have to explain to me.

Well if you can not see the difference between aborting an innocent human baby, or the ethnic cleansing of the Jews and the formal Inquisition, we truly are at an impasse- and I am afraid nothing I say can convince you otherwise.

I’ve never said that Inquisitors were all these sadistic, twisted men who “gleefully” enjoyed their work a little too much. I’ve usually conceived them as using torture purely as a tool, as believing that they were rigidly following a code of integrity.

Which would be completely correct.

I haven’t come to a problem with Rome because Rome advocated “willi-nillie” torture. Of course, Rome punished a madman like Robert of Bourger. Of course, Rome disciplined its members not to get “out of line.” Rome’s concept of “out of line” was much broader really than mine… and I hope yours also, yet not even this is the issue. The issue is whether Rome’s methods made it likely that some of the victims on the rack who testified against themselves were innocent and burned nonetheless, on the basis of that false testimony.

Who’s false testimony? If the Church could not get a straight answer from an individual after a year’s time- who’s fault is it?

I am slowly beginning to realize your Church would protect every individual (even those who would oppose your church) OVER protecting the actual Church- and therefore Christ Himself!

Consider this, from the EWTN article:

Is this information taken from trial records and documented on an official Roman Catholic site all fabricated?

Why do you insist on presuming an ALL OR NOTHING approach to this debate?

If you cannot see that these words have a different tone when viewed from a historical perspective, no wonder my words are falling short for you!

 

[Shiann]

I imagine that these men recorded the statement that the confession provoked by torture was “true and free” precisely because the opinions of their peers and the liberties granted by Rome allowed them to believe this. If Rome sanctioned and furthered this way of thinking to the detriment of innocent people, is she guilty?

All this talk about the fact that Rome did not allow Inquisitors to become little sadists who “gleefully” enjoyed their work and abused their power misses the entire point. That, in itself, cannot be our standard. Christ did not merely say that His Church would not support the sadistic enjoyment of murder. . . there’s more to it than just that.

You brought up an important resource, next, when quoting from a Prof. Kamen… First, let’s take a look at this just as it is stated for a moment, without any correction. Two percent of 7000 is 140 people. One hundred forty people we can be sure were tortured around fifteen minutes… Do you know how long it would take, by a trained professional, to elicit a confession from you, Shiann? Do you think you could last fifteen minutes under torture by an Inquisitor? How about if you suffered through the torture described in that document I provided giving a sample case? If you didn’t catch it, you can find it here:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html

Thanks for the resource. But again, this is already established evidence for the debate. I fear you are running out of arguments by bringing up old material to make your point again- which is useless to the debate.

I never discounted that the tortures happened- only that they happened under more supervision and formality than you have lead us to believe.

The inquisitorial procedures were surprisingly just and even lenient. In contrast with other tribunals throughout Europe at the time, they appear as almost enlightened. The process began with a summons of the faithful to the church where the inquisitor preached a solemn sermon, the Edit de foi. All heretics were urged to come forward and confess their errors. This period was known as the “time of grace,” which usually lasted between 15-30 days, during which time all transgressors had nothing to fear, since they were promised readmittance to the communion of the faithful with a suitable penance after confession of guilt. Bernard Gui stated that this time of grace was a most salutary and valuable institution and that many persons were reconciled thereby.

For the principal aim of the process was to draw the heretic back into the grace of God; only by persistent stubbornness would he be cut off from the Church and abandoned to the scantier mercy of the State. The Inquisition was first and foremost a penitential and proselytizing office, not a penal tribunal. Unless this is clearly recognized, the Inquisition appears as an unintelligible and meaningless monstrosity. In theory, it was a sinner, and not a criminal, who stood before the Inquisitor. If the lost sheep returned to the fold, the Inquisitor counted himself successful. If not, the heretic died in open rebellion against God, and, as far as the Inquisitor was concerned, his mission was a complete failure.

In 1323, the inquisitor Bernard Gui (unjustly maligned in Umberto Eco’s novel, The Name of the Rose) produced the Practica officii inquisitionis heretice pravitatis, an elaborate and balanced inquisitorial manual. The doctrines and procedures of the inquisitors derived from both theology and canon law, as well as from the early works of Church Fathers and general council and popes. Peters, Inquisition, pp. 60-64.

 

[Shiann]

However long you think you could last, the Inquisitors didn‘t just stop the torture because they felt sorry for the person on the rack. They stopped administering it because they received from the accused either a confession or a promise of a confession…

…

Although the names of witnesses against the accused were suppressed, the accused was given an opportunity to protect himself from false accusations by giving the Inquisitor a detailed list of the names of personal enemies. With this, he could conclusively invalidate certain testimony against him. He also had the power to appeal to a higher authority, even the Papacy if need be.

Despite the apparent prohibition of appeals (appelatione remota), Gregory IX and his successor Innocent IV repeatedly entertained appeals made by complainants and voided unjust decisions. Throughout this whole period it appears that appeals found their way to Rome for redress. In fact, modeled on the long forgotten regulations of the Justinian Code, through the inquisitorial process the Church brought the appeals procedure into the legislation of the Middle Ages, for appeals were quite out of character for the local, feudal manorial courts. The success of the Church system of justice was not lost on secular rulers, who eventually adopted appeals as regular procedure in their own reorganized and centralized court systems. Shannon, The Medieval Inquisition, pp.139-40.

But, perhaps more importantly, this information seems extremely misleading. Allow me to explain why, again returning to the official article I’ve used so often. According to Prof. Kamen, the use of torture is recorded very infrequently (in Valencia) and that for only fifteen minutes. What does the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, made available at EWTN, say of this?:

Torture was first authorized by Innocent IV in the bull Ad exstirpanda of May 15, 1252, with limits that it could not cause the loss of a limb or imperil life, could only be applied once, and then only if the accused seemed already virtually convicted of heresy by manifold and certain proofs. Certain objective studies carried out by recent scholars have argued that torture was practically unknown in the medieval inquisitorial process. The register of Bernard Gui, the inquisitor of Toulouse for six years who examined more than 600 heretics, shows only one instance of where torture was used. Further, in the 930 sentences recorded between 1307 and 1323 (and it is worthwhile to note that meticulous records were kept by paid notaries chosen from civil courts), the majority of the accused were sentenced to imprisonment, the wearing of crosses, and penances. Only 42 were abandoned to the secular arm and burned.

Hamilton, Inquisition, p. 160

No one is arguing that torture happened, nor that burning happened. I am merely taking an afront to the “widespread” or “slaughter” that your evidence tries to show.

That’s very few recorded instances of torture. Why wouldn’t this be important?

I daresay it is important.

Remember, this is not my argument or the argument of an anti-Catholic website. This is the fair testimony of an official Roman Catholic source that has studied the actual trial documents. What of Prof. Kamen’s remark about the fact that, according to the records he has examined, he never found torture occurring more than twice?

Anything lacking evidence is heresay… and equally open to your interpretation *and mine. *I have provided quite a lot of evidence from credible historical sources for my interpretation of the statements you make without evidence…

 

[Shiann]

You might argue that the legislation of several Popes had been mishandled here and that this is merely the cruelty of a few men. However, there is also, I believe, a reasonable response to that. It must be remembered, as the article explains:

None of this was done in secret. It was well known what occurred and the same Popes who had written the legislation and left it open to such interpretation had also remained silent in the midst of this open practice. Indeed:

Therefore, I can only assume that the Popes thought their words were adequately understood and applied by their Inquisitors. Do we know that they were not? It certainly was a different mindset in that day.

It certainly was a different mindset. And not one that would make the Church culpable for the wrongs you say it committed. In fact, I have pointed out that it is possible that the Church was working to FIX the wayward mindset.

All of these practices makes it seem certain that innocent people were finally turned over to be burned. Again, there may be an answer to this problem but the historical facts seem uncomfortably disturbing.

Then you are not reading many of the historical facts I have laid forth.

You can continue to say “the historical facts seem uncomfortably disturbing” but it doesn’t make it so. The evidence you provide does not, conclusively state any of the beliefs you have offered here. And furthermore, the evidence provided by myself and others paints a very different picture. One of the Church trying desprately to protect itself and it’s Faithful from the evils of heresy.

We have shown that it was the intent of the Inquisitors to bring everyone into the Fold. Those who refused to reject the evil of their lives were bound the secular punishment akin to treason- for it was treason of the highest magnitude.

I am sorry if the evidence brought forth has fallen short of helping your clarity on the matter.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

Shiann, I believe you may have hurried through the readings. It seems to show a bit in your misunderstanding of the text. Let me quote the portion which I believe you misread… Shiann, the article is not speaking about people who were wrongly accused. It is saying that, if the heretic freely confessed their heresy of their own accord, then a suitable penance was done. The court is not asking a “suitable penance” from a person who is falsely accused and innocent.

No, it is for ALL ACCUSED (including those accused in error). Those accused in error have an opportunity to dispel the error- prove their innocents- much like you would do during the questioning phase if you were suspected of a crime. If they were shown to be innocent- they were set free. As would seem logical.

Beyond that first trial was a lengthy period of time whereby the falsly accused would be able to make this known. The Church didn’t want to, or knowingly persecute innocents, and the very nature of the process eludes to the fact it wanted to provide EVERY opportunity to those who were guilty- to repent. And it wanted to provide EVERY opportunity to falsely accused individuals to prove their innocence.

Second, if the person did not confess freely, then the trial began. If the accused at once made a “full and free confession,” then the affair was concluded “and not to the disadvantage of the accused.” That last phrase is rather ambiguous.

You may think… though I find it rather telling. "no disadvantage fell on the person who fully and freely confessed.

The truth is, however, that this rarely happened, for the article goes on to say, “But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating.” Why was a simple “testimony” incriminating?

Because they publicly claimed their heresies without guilt. THEY DENIED the Truth of Christ’s Church. They proclaimed themselves heretics. That’s why.

Because the accused was officially seen as guilty until thoroughly proven innocent and sometimes was officially counted as guilty straight away for simply denying to take an oath, which was taken as proof of secret heresy (see Lateran IV).

You know that isn’t all there was to it. The Inquisitors didn’t have to meet monthly quota’s for stake burnings. They were not compelled to incriminate- but to CONVERT.

 

[Shiann]

You are right, however. You are being extremely flippant when you talk in terms of offering a simple phrase about loving the true Church and condemning any other religion. This is EXACTLY what the accused heretic was always saying. Every accused heretic said something like this.

So you would equate seperated brethren with immoral outright heresy…

The court did not allow this to mean much because the accused was seen as guilty based upon testimony from witnesses (some of which had themselves been tortured to elicit testimony against others, as the EWTN article reveals). A simple denial of this testimony was not seen as proof of innocence but as stubborn and obstinate heresy. A CONFESSION WAS REQUIRED.

But the accused was allowed to make a list of persons who would speak against them. If the inquisitors found evidence of a false accusation- that was punishable IMMEDIATELY.

Bernard Gui describes a father who falsely accused his son of heresy. The son’s innocence quickly came to light, and the father was apprehended and sentenced to prison for life.

Peters, Inquisition, pp. 60-64.

Of course, an innocent person is not going to confess to something he is not guilty of and, thus, torture is used to procure that confession, which is then labeled as “true and free” in the court record. Even after this, they may be tortured further to procure from them testimony against their friends or family.

Of course, no innocent person has ever confessed to something they weren’t guilty of in order to free them from the trouble they are in…

But even so, you have yet to provide evidence of the purposeful capturing and ‘successful’ trials of innocents.

What is worse, if the confession is then retracted (because it was obviously false as it was forced), the one who had confessed is labeled a “relapsed heretic” and burned at the stake for this. It was not the individual “determined to speak against the True Church” who was always indicted, Shiann. It was the person who refused to indict himself that was indicted by others even without any solid proof.

This is all conjecture. Again, many sources have indicated that there was AMPLE opporunity for individuals to prove their innocence before they were burned at the stake.

If this is what you call “justice” and “due process” … be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn’t wish such “justice” on my worst enemy.

Certainly not in a ‘representative republic’ America in the year 2005- but those people lived in the middle ages and were ruled by monarchies and dictators. And as much as you would like to avoid it the Church did it’s best to promote charity, free will, and mercy while protecting the Church from the evil of heresy.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Dear lady… I carry about a respect for you in my pocket as I explore this question each day… and, now, I feel as though I have angered you and might even become a troubling source of temptation. I don’t wish to tempt anyone here to sinful behavior… and perhaps we’re all a bit tired.

I believe I can see the weariness a bit in your latest reactions. I do not mean to disrespect you. I say this only out of concern. You just aren’t being even remotely careful anymore. You seem to no longer trouble yourself to read through all my posts in their entirety before you respond but, instead, you give me your initial reactions, breaking apart my posts into little segments, without sufficient consideration of just about anything I’ve said. You ask questions and put up objections that you seem unaware already have their answer a little further down in a later post.

I want very much to speak with you about this… but perhaps out of a weariness with the subject, you do not seem any longer to keep in your mind the chronological sequence of the facts, rearranging them and even losing any semblance of their context. Just as with your initial response to my research, there are simply blatant errors in your review of what I’ve written… and you don’t acknowledge them. Your rather serious mistake in confusing mercenary groups mentioned by Lateran III for the names of heretical sects when the explanation was in the text you were reading through is just one example. You did not even acknowledge your error and it did not seem to encourage you to slow down and be more cautious. You still plow right through with the same assumptions as though you haven’t missed anything.

You have seemingly latched on to the idea that the “year” long grace period mentioned in Lateran IV to prove one’s innocence had absolutely no exceptions, ever, for the rest of the history of the persecution of heretics (almost as though you think after Lateran IV there was no more legislation and definition of procedure) . What is perhaps most alarming is that you’ve seemingly come to the idea that this “year” of grace was always in affect, even before Lateran IV. You do not notice that later legislation made this year, at times, unnecessary because the year itself was ONLY granted for the purpose of moving from mere suspicion to a final verdict. After the year was over, if they have not proved themselves innocent, then the person was judged a true heretic. However, if the person ever confessed to being a heretic, even under torture, no year was needed to prove that the suspect was a heretic. The evidence of confession would be deemed absolutely clear and damning and the proceedings would need go no further.

I am even wondering whether, having looked into all these horrors, your sensibilities have become somewhat numb to much of it so that you are actually now trying to defend the practice of torture to elicit confessions… as though this were either reliable or at all moral… on the grounds that this was either “rare” (utterly ignoring the explanation of this given in the Catholic Encyclopedia article) or simply because it was the “thinking of the day.” What the “thinking of the day” has to do with objective moral implications of Scripture, I don’t know. How you can axcuse behavior because, “in that day” it was thought to be good, is to ignore what Christ said of those, yes even those who think themselves to be doing service to God in their evil, who are guilty and do these things because they don’t know Him.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

I certainly don’t think that there’s any excuse to be found for the Protestant murder of Roman Catholics, even though for Protestants, Roman Catholics were often “heretics” and were legally prosecuted and at times sentenced to grave punishments. In other words, for a time, the tables were turned and the same situation arose from a different side. On the basis of Protestant definitions of “heresy,” one could argue that the legal persecution and murder (yes, it was murder) of “heretic” Roman Caholics was somehow “justified”… But I doubt you would judge these actions with the same leniency and it is my sincere hope that you would not.

If I, out of some strange perversion, tried to defend the practice of Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics on the grounds that this was the “opinion of the day” and that it was all done according to a perfectly legal process and was often carried out by the “secular arm,” etc., according to the legal definition of “heresy” of that time, what would you say to me? I hope you would clearly point out to me that Christ’s standard is not simply a 21st century way of thinking and that nothing can be excused simply by referring to it as “the thinking of the day.”

At any rate, I truly, sincerely, hope that you were only confused about the subject when defending the practice made official by Lateran IV in which suspects are “regarded as heretics” (not merely suspected to be) because they refused to take an oath. This means, by English usage, that they were considered to be or deemed to be heretics, no longer merely suspected. That means that there is no need for a year long grace period to determine their true status because they had moved beyond mere suspicion into “confirmed” heresy. Indeed, I think you understand this well enough as you even responded that, in your opinion, this refusal to swear an oath pretty much made it clear that they were guilty.

Sigh. You compared Inquisitorial methods to a Traffic Violation proceeding to show that, even in America, there are times when a person is guilty until proven innocent. You utterly neglected to mention that Inquisitions were trying cases categorized as capital offenses (heresy). You forgot to mention that nothing in the jurisprudence of the United States would EVER allow assumed guilt to be the standard in capital offense cases (much less the use of torture or the denial of legal counsel). In fact, what you again neglected to mention, is that assumed guilt in capital offense cases is only allowed in countries which we might call immoral totalitarian governments… and rightly do we esteem their legal systems’ notion of “justice” complete mockery of real justice and assume that the people convicted and killed are most often innocent victims…

Sigh. Well, I think this discussion has clearly broken down and perhaps we all need to take a break before things get any worse.

Thank you all for your time and hard work and many of you for your generous diligence. If any new faces (or even the tried and true ones) wish to read through this and give more careful opinions based upon close examination of the evidence, I would be glad to hear them.

Until then… may the LORD bless you all in the abundance of His grace, to the glory of His name.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

Dear lady… I carry about a respect for you in my pocket as I explore this question each day… and, now, I feel as though I have angered you and might even become a troubling source of temptation. I don’t wish to tempt anyone here to sinful behavior… and perhaps we’re all a bit tired.

I respect you very much as well. Please do not take the passion in my posts as anything more than intellectual passion. Believe me- there is no anger there, though I thank you for your concern for any temptations this discussion might dredge up. It is very considerate of you.

I believe I can see the weariness a bit in your latest reactions. I do not mean to disrespect you. I say this only out of concern. You just aren’t being even remotely careful anymore.

I take no disrespect, though I certainly don’t see how I neglected to show care in my responses. I merely was taking another tact, as the previous one was not seeming to making any headway.

You seem to no longer trouble yourself to read through all my posts in their entirety before you respond but, instead, you give me your initial reactions, breaking apart my posts into little segments, without sufficient consideration of just about anything I’ve said. You ask questions and put up objections that you seem unaware already have their answer a little further down in a later post.

I will take a bit of an affront to this. As you can see by the time stamp on all my posts I spent a good chunk of today reviewing your posts that I responded to. I realize you attempt to answer your own questions and make additional points further down in most posts. I chose to respond to nearly every point you made in your most recent bundle of posts- to make sure that we were on the same page for those points. When we are dealing with the massive posts and huge amounts of information- I’m not sure how any other way would be more efficient.

I spent the 4 hours reviewing your posts, but you post this within 20 minutes of my last post. (And by the length of this post, you spent a fair amount of time compiling it as well.) So rather than comment quickly on the posts I’ve offered, take some time to ponder the information- digest the contents, then post on the topic at hand.

I want very much to speak with you about this… but perhaps out of a weariness with the subject, you do not seem any longer to keep in your mind the chronological sequence of the facts, rearranging them and even losing any semblance of their context. Just as with your initial response to my research, there are simply blatant errors in your review of what I’ve written… and you don’t acknowledge them. Your rather serious mistake in confusing mercenary groups mentioned by Lateran III for the names of heretical sects when the explanation was in the text you were reading through is just one example. You did not even acknowledge your error and it did not seem to encourage you to slow down and be more cautious. You still plow right through with the same assumptions as though you haven’t missed anything.

Sir, you just will not concede that the Church and the Faithful were under attack physically from barbarians and spiritually from heretics (and the Cathars WERE heretics). They are, in effect, one in the same! My words still have application.

 

[Shiann]

You have seemingly latched on to the idea that the “year” long grace period mentioned in Lateran IV to prove one’s innocence had absolutely no exceptions, ever, for the rest of the history of the persecution of heretics (almost as though you think after Lateran IV there was no more legislation and definition of procedure) .

My understanding is that we were discussing the Medieval Inquisition period- not the rest of history of the persecution of heretics… If that has changed, let’s make that clear right now. And I certainly do not “latch on” to the grace period, any more than you have “latched on” to the claim of widespread torture by the Church.

What is perhaps most alarming is that you’ve seemingly come to the idea that this “year” of grace was always in affect, even before Lateran IV. You do not notice that later legislation made this year, at times, unnecessary because the year itself was ONLY granted for the purpose of moving from mere suspicion to a final verdict. After the year was over, if they have not proved themselves innocent, then the person was judged a true heretic. However, if the person ever confessed to being a heretic, even under torture, no year was needed to prove that the suspect was a heretic. The evidence of confession would be deemed absolutely clear and damning and the proceedings would need go no further.

I have not come to that idea at all. And yes, the year was unnecessary for heretics that publicly claim their heresies. Though- I daresay I’ve not run into any evidence (during my studies of the Medieval Inquisition) where those who were openly heretics did not receive a timely opportunity to convert. In other words, the heretic was NOT tried, declared heretic and burned on the same day.

I am even wondering whether, having looked into all these horrors, your sensibilities have become somewhat numb to much of it so that you are actually now trying to defend the practice of torture to elicit confessions… as though this were either reliable or at all moral… on the grounds that this was either “rare” (utterly ignoring the explanation of this given in the Catholic Encyclopedia article) or simply because it was the “thinking of the day.”

Shame on you. I certainly am not defending the practice of torture, and I find it a little beneath your intellect to accuse me of that. I am only providing evidence which puts many of your claims into perspective. All history has a certain perspective, and one can find much understanding when history is viewed in this manner. That is not to say one is accepting the history as right, but as true. At this point, we are looking for truth. There has been MUCH myth portrayed about the Inquisition.

What the “thinking of the day” has to do with objective moral implications of Scripture, I don’t know. How you can axcuse behavior because, “in that day” it was thought to be good, is to ignore what Christ said of those, yes even those who think themselves to be doing service to God in their evil, who are guilty and do these things because they don’t know Him.

Again, Scripture itself has much more meaning when integrating the “thinking of the day”. Understanding Jewish culture and religion brings great clarity to many of the parables and lessons Jesus was telling us.

We cannot hope to understand History AT ALL without understanding the thinking of the day. This understanding doesn’t alter morality in the least.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

I certainly don’t think that there’s any excuse to be found for the Protestant murder of Roman Catholics, even though for Protestants, Roman Catholics were often “heretics” and were legally prosecuted and at times sentenced to grave punishments. In other words, for a time, the tables were turned and the same situation arose from a different side. On the basis of Protestant definitions of “heresy,” one could argue that the legal persecution and murder (yes, it was murder) of “heretic” Roman Caholics was somehow “justified”… But I doubt you would judge these actions with the same leniency and it is my sincere hope that you would not.

If I, out of some strange perversion, tried to defend the practice of Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics on the grounds that this was the “opinion of the day” and that it was all done according to a perfectly legal process and was often carried out by the “secular arm,” etc., according to the legal definition of “heresy” of that time, what would you say to me? I hope you would clearly point out to me that Christ’s standard is not simply a 21st century way of thinking and that nothing can be excused simply by referring to it as “the thinking of the day.”

As a Convert to the Church, who came from the Anglican Communion with all its anti-Catholic “issues”, I do view the Protestant murder of Catholics differently than I would view similar behavior today. I **do **make allowances for “the times” because that world was a different world from ours ideologically, politically, physically, and technologically. We would be arrogating a great deal of righteousness to ourselves to condemn by the standards of our own times, from the vantage point of history, a world so different from our own. People actually believed in Truth and that it was important to defend it; they believed in the salvation of immortal souls; they believed that the unity of the State reflected a divine principle; neither the legal system nor the philosophy of jurisprudence were based on the yet-to-be-articulated idea that one should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Shiann’s remarkable, rapid turn-around effort has emphatically addressed the core points you raised. She has shown this whole unfortunate aspect of history to be something quite different from what could appear to have been the case from the initial presentation. As a result, my estimation of the Church’s role in these difficult times has gone up several notches.

LIfe is messy; history is messy; the Church is not only the Mystical Bride without spot or wrinkle but also a brotherhood of men who even after baptism bear the fomes of a fallen nature and are subject to the limitations of the flesh. The Church exists not only in eternal perfection in the Heart of Christ but also in time; she struggles with the world and its evils with all the graces at her command – faithfully, constantly, and generously communicating those graces upon a broken world.

Why would the Lord command us to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” if he thought we would not be daily in need of forgiveness? You will not find such a world or Church this side of the grave.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

I certainly don’t think that there’s any excuse to be found for the Protestant murder of Roman Catholics, even though for Protestants, Roman Catholics were often “heretics” and were legally prosecuted and at times sentenced to grave punishments. In other words, for a time, the tables were turned and the same situation arose from a different side. On the basis of Protestant definitions of “heresy,” one could argue that the legal persecution and murder (yes, it was murder) of “heretic” Roman Caholics was somehow “justified”… But I doubt you would judge these actions with the same leniency and it is my sincere hope that you would not.

But in the beginning we both agreed that to publicly profess disdain for Christ’s Church IS a capital offense. The question here wouldn’t be if protestants would be justified to do this to Catholics (or anyone else who supposedly denied Christ), but whether they would be CORRECT in doing so.

If I, out of some strange perversion, tried to defend the practice of Protestant persecution of Roman Catholics on the grounds that this was the “opinion of the day” and that it was all done according to a perfectly legal process and was often carried out by the “secular arm,” etc., according to the legal definition of “heresy” of that time, what would you say to me? I hope you would clearly point out to me that Christ’s standard is not simply a 21st century way of thinking and that nothing can be excused simply by referring to it as “the thinking of the day.”

Again, the Church has a God given right to defend itself against heresy. The question would be whether any of the protestant religions would be correct in assuming they were the Church with this right.

At any rate, I truly, sincerely, hope that you were only confused about the subject when defending the practice made official by Lateran IV in which suspects are “regarded as heretics” (not merely suspected to be) because they refused to take an oath. This means, by English usage, that they were considered to be or deemed to be heretics, no longer merely suspected. That means that there is no need for a year long grace period to determine their true status because they had moved beyond mere suspicion into “confirmed” heresy.

I believe you missed it, but they year long grace period was FOR those who were deemed heretics. They were excommunicated from the Church :

But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

They were given an opportunity to amend.

Indeed, I think you understand this well enough as you even responded that, in your opinion, this refusal to swear an oath pretty much made it clear that they were guilty.

It made it clear that they could be a Cathar, and worthy of questioning further.

 

[Shiann]

Sigh. You compared Inquisitorial methods to a Traffic Violation proceeding to show that, even in America, there are times when a person is guilty until proven innocent. You utterly neglected to mention that Inquisitions were trying cases categorized as capital offenses (heresy). You forgot to mention that nothing in the jurisprudence of the United States would EVER allow assumed guilt to be the standard in capital offense cases (much less the use of torture or the denial of legal counsel). In fact, what you again neglected to mention, is that assumed guilt in capital offense cases is only allowed in countries which we might call immoral totalitarian governments… and rightly do we esteem their legal systems’ notion of “justice” complete mockery of real justice and assume that the people convicted and killed are most often innocent victims…

… completely missing the point which was that the Inquisition Method judicial system is STILL IN PRACTICE TODAY. If you have given a moments thought- as you claimed (on several occasions) that I have not, you will note that serveral modern judicial systems use this method even on their capital cases.

Sigh. Well, I think this discussion has clearly broken down and perhaps we all need to take a break before things get any worse.

I understand.

Thank you all for your time and hard work and many of you for your generous diligence. If any new faces (or even the tried and true ones) wish to read through this and give more careful opinions based upon close examination of the evidence, I would be glad to hear them.

I appreciate your judgment that my posts were not careful, and that I have not examined the evidence.

May God continue His Blessings on you.

Until then… may the LORD bless you all in the abundance of His grace, to the glory of His name.

And you as well.

 

[estesbob]

Shiann:

…

I appreciate your judgment that my posts were not careful, and that I have not examined the evidence.

May God continue His Blessings on you.

And you as well.

Shiann:

You did a great job of refuting his agrunments. The problem is he was never looking for a discussion. his premise from his first post was that the Catholic Church was a false Church in that it had killed “bretheren”. In short, as i said before, he was a troll.

However I learned a lot from your posts and appreciate the time you spent on research and posting refutations to the nonsense Eden posted.

 

[Shiann]

estesbob:

Shiann:

You did a great job of refuting his agrunments. The problem is he was never looking for a discussion. his premise from his first post was that the Catholic Church was a false Church in that it had killed “bretheren”. In short, as i said before, he was a troll.

However I learned a lot from your posts and appreciate the time you spent on research and posting refutations to the nonsense Eden posted.

Thank you

 

[Mickey]

Hi Shiann!

Absolutey amazing work. Kudos to you! You have put much time and effort into refuting the false premises and preconceived conclusions that EOM has proposed. It was interesting to note that after such a thorough, intelligent, and concise (not to mention time consuming) point by point refutation on your part, EOM responded with comments such as “confused”, “numb”, “not careful”. (Not to mention many sighs). EOM continually begged for someone to respond to his lengthy and tedious posts. And when you finally refuted all of his “air-tight” evidence, he dismissed it as careless and gut reaction response.

God Bless you for the time and effort you have contributed to this thread. You have much more patience and tact than myself.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Shiann, tomorrow, I’ll be securing a copy from the local university library of most of the resources you cited in your responses. I also own another book on the subject already by one of the authors (Peters) that you quoted from. I’ll be pouring over those and over a book on trial records.

I must know as it is essential to the continuation of my research… did you really type out quotes from those works or did you cut and paste the quotations from a website that quoted from the books? If you cut and pasted them, could you give me the links to the websites from which you took the quotes?

You were, rightly and fairly, desirous to examine the context of my quotes which I provided. I would like to do the same with the quotes you provided.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

Well, I think this discussion has clearly broken down and perhaps we all need to take a break before things get any worse.

Sigh. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and give it a rest.