Posted on 10/22/2013 10:38:54 AM PDT by juliosevero
Surprise and fear. Our two weapons are surprise and fear.
We can argue whether this was a good policy or not. In point of fact though it was a reform, it had its own problems that we know about...
Mainly if you're one of the ten thousand.
and ruthless efficiency...
My understanding of the Inquisition is the stated goal was a molehunt, not genocide.
Common Jews were not targeted, and had nothing to fear. All those brought before the Inquisition were officials in the Spanish government, because the king wanted only Catholics in official positions. Still, there never is a reason for torture.
The Church did not condone the torture. You had a situation similar to the Vietnam war where local officials acting in the name of the Church went off the deep end, but it was not a general policy of the Inquisition. The Church is still responsible because it put them in that position, and that is why the pope apologized.
There is a huge difference between saying torture happened during the Inquisition and saying it was the purpose of the Inquisition. Even during the Inquisition, those brought forth preferred the Church courts to the State courts, because they had better rules of evidence and had a better chance of getting out unscathed.
Also, the difference between the Holocaust and the Inquisition is in the original documents that survive from the times. No serious researcher depends on an edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as their source because it is subject to editorializing. The original documents trump any encyclopedia or a stack of PhD opinions, and the original documents do not bear out the Inquisition as a death campaign against the Jews.
Indeed, the Holy Office in the Vatican today is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the Inquisition. The whole point, and the only point, is to determine who is Catholic and who is not. Torture is not part of the program.
Uh...how was the Inquisition *genocide*, exactly?
Actually it wasn’t genocide it was “religiocide”...
Ever read Fox’s Book of Martyrs?..
Here-—>> http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html
Who were executed by the STATE.
"for these causes, as hardened and obstinate in thy crimes, excesses and errors, WE DECLARE THEE OF RIGHT EXCOMMUNICATE AND HERETIC; and after your errors have been destroyed in a public preaching, We declare that you must be abandoned and that We do abandon thee to the secular authority, as a member of Satan, separate from the Church, infected with the leprosy of heresy, in order that you may not corrupt also the other members of Christ; praying this same power, that, as concerns death and the mutilation of the limbs, it may be pleased to moderate its judgment; and if true signs of penitence should appear in thee, that the Sacrament of Penance may be administered to thee. "See what happened there? The Bishop excommunicated Joan..turned her over to the government, and prayed that it might moderate its judgment (probably insincerely).
You want to debate this, learn what you are debating first.
Me too.
I see you have no replies yet.
When they light up the fire under your feet, that will be a comfort I'm sure.
Jesus Christ was executed by the state.
Again, if you want to make the point that people are human, and that the totalitarian instinct runs deep, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to point out that other religions and other movements have used force and intimidation to squelch dissent, you are very right. If you want to point out that in other times and other places it was good catholics getting torched, rather than good catholics doing the torching, then go for it. There probably are plentiful examples to choose from.
If you want to make the point that, all things being equal, getting torched by the state for your beliefs is not that unusual in the overall scheme of things, this last century proves you right.
If you want to make the claim that the guys doing the torching did so under the urgings of the Holy Spirit, or that the ones who turned them over to the state to be torched did so in obedience to the Holy Spirit, then no. Don't go there.
Hostility between Christian sects is, to me, tragic, but it was baked in early back when dissenting could get you killed. Thank God, and I mean it, that religious dissent between Christian brothers these days nets you some snarky comments on an internet board. You wouldn't believe it sometimes to read the commentary, but we actually (mostly) like each other. There was a day, though, when it wasn't like that.
“I am I and my Circumstances”, Ortega y Gaset
There is a deep discrepancy and polarization regarding the Catholic Inquisition; an event which is probably one of the most hated events in the history of mankind. In stark contrast, the Protestant Inquisition is never mentioned, much less condemned. We must distinguish between what is myth and what is reality. Historical events as complex as the horrors committed 500 years ago in the name of religion, must not be judged through the ethical and moral standards of our times, but rather they should be analyzed in accordance with the prevailing norms of the times in which they occurred. There is not defense for the Inquisition, either Catholic or Protestant. But these events should be approached analyzing the circumstances prevailing at the time with an auto-critical attitude, leaving preconceived ideas behind. Today we recoil in horror remembering the Holocaust or the “rape on Peking”, but, Would be accepted uncritically today the total obliteration of Dresden, an open city with no military or strategic value, by incendiary bombs, or the nuclear attacks to Hiroshima y Nagasaki?
THE SPANISH INQUISITION VS. THE PROTESTANT
The Inquisition was established in Spain in 1242 and was not formally abolished until 1834. His strongest activity is recorded between 1478 and 1700, during the reign of the Catholic Kings followed by the Hapsburgs. In terms of the number of executed, the studies by Heningsen and Contreras 44,674 causes open between 1540 and 1700, concluded that stake in the burned 1346 people (less than 9 people per year throughout the Empire).
The British Henry Kamen, known non-Catholic scholar of the Inquisition Spanish, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.
The wars of religion in Germany and France lasted for more than one century and there were hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Inquisition was created by the Kings of Spain to avoid that you happened the same.
Sir James Stephen calculates that in 300 years there were in England 264,000 sentenced to death for various crimes. About 800 per year (more than two per day).
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism: in 1525 preached the nobles: “to kill wound, decapitate, disgorge as many famers you can” Happy if you die in it, you die in obedience to the word divine”. More than one hundred thousand peasants perished.
In Protestant Saxony, blasphemy was death penalty. Calvin sent burning Servet (Catholic physician who discovered the circulation of the blood, and who were eliminated by “counter” to the Bible with such discovery) and many others.
In Germany, more than 100,000 witches were burned. Even children of seven years and the dying elderly. A single judge burned in 16 years 800 witches (an average of 50 people a year).
In 1560 the Scottish Parliament decreed death penalty against all Catholics.
Here are some articles of the English code for Ireland:
“Catholic teaching to other Catholic or Protestant shall be hanged.”
“If a Catholic acquires land, all Protestant has the right to deprive him.”
“Perpetual banishment to every Catholic priest; those who evaded it, are half hanged but kept alive and then dismembered”. What followed?
The Calvinist communities of Paris, Orleans, Rouen, Lyon, Angey at general synod in 1559, enacted death penalty to the heretics.
Do you not know that United States owes its foundation to Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England?
The Spanish Inquisition was not free of the ideas of his time, and participated in general cruelty. But you keep in mind the following points: According to American historian, Philip Wayne Powell (Tree of Hate), “barely more than one hundred persons were executed in Spanish America as a result of Inquisition action during its some 250 years of formal existence.” (31 by the Tribunal of Lima, 47 in Mexico and 3 in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia).
Stark contrast with the Protestant persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England (in 70 years) where were tortured and executed 130 Catholic priests and 60 laymen, or a total 250 killed by the state if one includes those dying in prison.
The last execution of the Inquisition was finally carried out in Spain on July 26, 1826. According to Ernst Schafer, a German Protestant researcher, the number of Protestants in Spain condemned to death in 300 years, from 1520 until 1834, was 220; of them, only 12 were burned.
You see: does not touch nor to one per year. What happens with the image of the Inquisitor stood in front of endless rows of pyres with doomed? It becomes that he is lying.
I don’t have a clue why a pro-lifer would defend the inquisition.
In the Spanish Inquisition, it was responsible for religious offences or heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, and other specific crimes against the faith, committed by Catholics of birth or converted from other religions. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The penalties imposed by the Inquisition were applied by the civil authority, while the ordinary civil courts dealt with civil and criminal offenses.
When a person was denounced by two witnesses began an investigation without them knowing it, including its past, its reputation, its predecessors, their businesses, and partners. If evidence were “clear, certain and specific” (were required the concurrence of the three) that could be certain the charges, then began the process. Then it was cited to the Court or else be arrested him if there was danger that could run away.
It could only remain prisoner if (1) five witnesses, with satisfactory evidence, testified against him. (2) If had decided by common agreement the Bishop, the inquisitors and the Prosecutor, after investigations, which had wrapped heresy in the case; (3) by Decree of the Bishop, under certain conditions. In all cases the approval of the Supreme Council was needed until he could a defendant being arrested. Finally, two doctors had to examine the mental state of the accused.
The prisoner had to receive a view of your case within three days of his arrest. They were then submitted to a judge swearing to tell the truth. Are you reported the charges raised against him, evidence and is urged him to confess and be reconciled with the Church. If the accused refused, then received another view in ten days. Still given another chance if it remained stubborn. After that last chance began the interrogation.
Torquemada’s instructions were that the inquisitors had to be “cautious, and charitable”, looking for nothing more than the truth. During the interrogation should be present as defenders of the reo two Clergy, not members of the Court. After four days read them his statements and the defendant could make any clarification and are granted many new views he requested.
When he finished the interrogation, the Prosecutor presented their evidence to inquisitors, asking his judgment in accordance with the law. Then read you to the accused, from beginning to end, the accusation, with a pause at each article so that the accused could replicate, while a notary took note of their bowel movements.
If he was poor, was assigned to the defendant, a lawyer paid by the Holy Office. If he chose not one determined, then the court appointed one well prepared and great reputation who would defend him with great zeal, loyalty, impartiality and good faith.
The defense counsel had access all minutes them of the trial, could rebut charges of the Prosecutor wings, dismiss witnesses, request new information or new views, and had full access to the accused, which in turn could also see copies of the process, although the names of the witnesses were omitted. The defendant could, however, appoint all his enemies and all those who might have a motive to harm him, things that the Inquisitor took into account.
Unfortunately, torture was normal in those times and, despite all the falsehoods against Torquemada, he tried to limit it and mitigate its, clarifying that it should not be used as a means of punishment but to obtain absolute proof of something that had already been tested more than reasonable doubt. The accused had to have been contradicted in serious matters being evident bad faith, and evidence of prevailing witnesses.
If you came to the conclusion that you should resort to torture, a doctor would examine it to determine if their physical condition could bear it. A doctor had to be present and had to suspend torture if the doctor so ordered.
Catholics who were tied to the legs of four horses during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I of England, were not offered no legal protection. Times of great barbarity were when attached to a monarch English the privilege of the divorce by the beheading of his wife.
The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.
The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its SIX HUNDRED years of existence.
Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.
I don’t. But, being aware of the multiple facets of human nature, there can be no doubt that they are out there. They should carefully study the fate of the German People, in the immediate post WWII.
I would argue the contrary. “Totalitarian tendencies” (extreme hostility to contrary thought) represent the most shallow reaction imaginable.
Because I tried to read your article and I have no idea what the heck you were trying to convey.
I am a Protestant. My very existence is, itself, heretical. Talking not required.
I am not in the habit of thinking in terms of heresy. Per instructions, I leave decisions about heresy to a higher authority. Do not misunderstand. I have thoughts about heresy, but I do not seek to inflict others with those thoughts. Nor do I think to punish others who hold thoughts contrary to my own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.