Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Philosopher Who Became Catholic
ic ^ | June 29, 2009 | Deal Hudson

Posted on 06/29/2009 1:56:47 PM PDT by NYer

Eight years ago today, a famous American philosopher died who had lived as a Catholic the last year of his life. Not so long ago, his name -- Mortimer J. Adler -- was synonymous with the "great books" approach to education he had pioneered with Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago in the 1940s and 1950s. His edition of The Great Books of the Western World is still often seen if you survey the bookshelves of the homes and offices you visit.
 
Adler's pedagogy, like his Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, was rejected by the academy he left in mid-career. He continued to edit, read, and discuss great books at seminars -- like those he taught at the Aspen Institute -- and to write scholarly books. But these were increasingly ignored, so in the late 1970s he took his case to general readers in an excellent memoir, Philosopher at Large: An Intellectual Autobiography, and books like Reforming Education and Aristotle for Everybody. Adler's career began to revive.
 
But it was Bill Moyers's several PBS specials with Adler -- especially his "Six Great Ideas" seminar from the Aspen Institute in 1981 -- that brought Adler back into the public eye. Adler capitalized on the attention with a series of readable books, winning him a new generation of readers. I was one of them. As a young philosophy professor teaching both St. Thomas and the great books, I regarded Adler with awe, knowing that he was a living link to Thomists like Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, who had been his friends.
 
The first time I met Adler I mentioned my fondness for a novelist I was reading, the Australian Nobel Prize winner Patrick White. Adler immediately pulled out a notebook to write down his name and the novels I had mentioned. I was amazed that a philosopher of his stature would care about the opinions of a punky young professor! He encouraged me to stay in touch, and I did.
 
Some years later, Adler asked me to spend three summers with him at the Aspen Institute assisting him in his seminars. Afternoons were often spent smoking cigars and talking philosophy and religion (usually Catholicism). Talking to Mortimer was like talking to nobody else -- his intellectual energy seemed to super-charge my mind, pushing me to think beyond the places where I had stopped before.
 
There was no question too dumb for Mortimer and no assertion so lame that it couldn't be the source of another 30 minutes of conversation. During those summers in Aspen we talked for hours and never noticed the time passing, until someone would finally come to remind us about dinner. (It was Adler, by the way, who told me that cigars never taste better than first thing in the morning.)
 
 
When I met Mortimer he had not yet suffered the heart condition that led him to his late-life conversion in 1986 to Christianity. When I asked him, at our first meeting in Atlanta, why his love for St. Thomas Aquinas had not led him into the Church, he replied, "Faith is a gift, and I have not received it." Rather than ending the conversation, that turned out to be a darned good beginning.
 
He had been attracted to Catholicism for many years, but when he finally received "the gift of faith" he joined a different church. (Rumor has it that his wonderful -- and ardently Episcopal -- wife, Caroline, made sure of that.) Mortimer became a serious, church-attending Christian, albeit of the liberal variety, reading books by Bishop Spong and others. He once took me to a bookstore to buy me the latest title by Spong, but fortunately they were out.
 
The more we talked the more I realized Mortimer really wanted to be a Roman Catholic, but issues like abortion and the resistance of his family and friends were keeping him away. I tried to show him that his own Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics of act-potency led him to understand the necessity of protecting unborn life. But just at that moment, Mortimer would uncharacteristically mutter, "It's all too complicated," and change the subject. But I knew that he knew he was being inconsistent. I didn't have to press him -- because I knew he knew, and it was only a matter of time before he acquiesced.
 
At several of our seminars was the Catholic prelate of San Jose, Bishop Pierre DuMaine. The bishop and I would sometimes tag-team the philosopher on the Catholic Church, and we would all end up laughing about how Mortimer deflected the inevitable conclusion. As it turns out, Bishop DuMaine did not stop the Aspen conversations.
 
After Mortimer finally retired, and Caroline passed away, he moved to the West Coast to spend his final years. We kept in touch by phone, and I called him as soon as I heard from Bishop DuMaine that he had been received into the Catholic Church. To my ears, Mortimer sounded relieved and at peace that he had finally taken that step. The philosopher who had helped bring so many into the Church had himself finally arrived.
 
♦ ♦ ♦
 
Five Books to Read by Mortimer J. Adler:
 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: adler; bookreview; convert; greatbooks; mortimeradler

Deal W. Hudson is
the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster).

1 posted on 06/29/2009 1:56:47 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 06/29/2009 1:57:34 PM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My priest just told me about this site.

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/index.php

It is really cool and offers free CDs, tapes and MP3 downloads.


3 posted on 06/29/2009 1:59:57 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My priest just told me about this site.

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/index.php

It is really cool and offers free CDs, tapes and MP3 downloads.


4 posted on 06/29/2009 1:59:59 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

My priest just told me about this site.

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/index.php

It is really cool and offers free CDs, tapes and MP3 downloads.


5 posted on 06/29/2009 2:00:05 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

He was a prolific writer and all of the books recommended are great, especially “10 Philosophical Mistakes”! In addition, as editor of the Great Books series he composed the introductory 2 volume Syntopicon, consisting of extended essays on all the “Great Ideas” which are referenced throughout the collection. Used individual copies of the The Syntopicon are readily available via the internet. It’s a treasure.

One funny anecdote about Adler was that he never graduated as an undergraduate from Columbia because he refused to fulfill the PE requirement! Later, in his 80’s, the university finally gave him his bachelors degree and he went through graduation exercises with all the other students.


6 posted on 06/29/2009 2:08:05 PM PDT by Ozone34 ("There are only two philosophies: Thomism and bullshitism!" -Leon Bloy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
sounds like it's th - th - three times better than the other thing! (wink and nod...)
7 posted on 06/29/2009 2:14:33 PM PDT by Jacksonian Grouch (God has granted us Freedom; we owe Him our courage in return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"Adler's pedagogy, like his Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, was rejected by the academy he left in mid-career."

And most often still is, without a hearing.

8 posted on 06/29/2009 2:16:40 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ozone34

The Great Ideads are also sold as a stand alone book, but it doesn’t have the the Syntopicon.


9 posted on 06/29/2009 2:33:15 PM PDT by Excellence (Meet your new mother-in-law - the United States Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Nice! Actually, I never knew that Mortimer Adler had become a Catholic.

I wish more Jews would become Catholic. Starting with St. Paul, some of our best evangelizers have been Jewish converts.


10 posted on 06/29/2009 2:35:52 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**After Mortimer finally retired, and Caroline passed away, he moved to the West Coast to spend his final years. We kept in touch by phone, and I called him as soon as I heard from Bishop DuMaine that he had been received into the Catholic Church. To my ears, Mortimer sounded relieved and at peace that he had finally taken that step. The philosopher who had helped bring so many into the Church had himself finally arrived.**

Wow! What a story!


11 posted on 06/29/2009 2:41:15 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
From the website you linked to, the section called Two-Minute Apologetics:

#1) Ingrain this into your psyche...the Bible is a Catholic book! The Catholic Church gave it to the world!

Uh...what about Judaism? I seem to recall that they were around for 3000 years before the Catholic Church.

12 posted on 06/29/2009 2:43:08 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Five Books to Read by Mortimer J. Adler:

also good were

Intellect

Desires, Right and Wrong

Some Questions About Language

13 posted on 06/29/2009 3:00:15 PM PDT by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation

About fifteen years ago I discovered the works of Mortimer Adler.

A little over a decade ago I discovered that he had become a Christian, specifically an Episcopalian. His wife had been an Episcopalian.

Then I discovered he was still alive and living in some sort of assisted living center where he was plugging away daily working on a book. He even kept up with emails sent to him through Radical Academy.

About ten years ago - and I mean that rather exactly, 1999 or 2000 - I wrote to him and asked why the man who always encouraged people to go back to the sources in philosophy had not gone into the Catholic faith.

I always wondered if he ever read my email.

I later read that he had become a Catholic and passed away shortly afterward. He died on June 28, 2001. He was 98.

Did he ever read my email? I’ll never know. At least not on this earth.


14 posted on 06/29/2009 3:28:28 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

You wrote:

“Uh...what about Judaism? I seem to recall that they were around for 3000 years before the Catholic Church.”

What about them? Did those Jews 5,000 years ago use the New Testament?

The Bible is less than 2,000 years old. The Old Testament is older than that of course.


15 posted on 06/29/2009 3:30:36 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Thanks, I just added that to my favorites!


16 posted on 06/29/2009 3:39:14 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

That’s quite a post, there, sir. You will find out if he read your email eventually.

Obviously, the author and the local bishop have tracked and kept asking him deep questions.


17 posted on 06/29/2009 3:47:13 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You wrote:

“That’s quite a post, there, sir. You will find out if he read your email eventually.”

You don’t want to know how many times I kicked myself for not saving a copy of that email!!!


18 posted on 06/29/2009 3:55:30 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

**You don’t want to know how many times I kicked myself for not saving a copy of that email!!!**

LOL! That has been my experience too. (Sometimes I will send FReepmails to myself as well as others — don’t ask me why, I just do it once in awhile.


19 posted on 06/29/2009 4:00:44 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

http://www.greatbooks.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World
(includes a list of the books)


20 posted on 06/29/2009 4:03:26 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I thought the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments. Jesus based His entire life path on the Old Testament. If the author of this apologetic meant New Testament, he should have said New Testament.


21 posted on 06/29/2009 4:11:10 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

Thats awesome! I like that site


22 posted on 06/29/2009 4:42:54 PM PDT by AuroraLeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: giotto

You wrote:

“I thought the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments.”

The Bible includes both the Old and New Testaments.

“Jesus based His entire life path on the Old Testament.”

No, the Old Testament was a prophecy of Jesus’ life.

“If the author of this apologetic meant New Testament, he should have said New Testament.”

No, he’s still right. Look again:

“Ingrain this into your psyche...the Bible is a Catholic book! The Catholic Church gave it to the world!”

1) The Bible, if we use your logic (i.e. “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”), can only be called Catholic because its two parts were coupled together by the Catholic Church.

2) The Catholic Church did give the Bible to the world. a) The Bible - as you yourself mentioned - has two testaments. They, once again, were coupled together by the Catholic Church so what is called the Bible can only have come about and have become known to the world through the agency of the Catholic Church. b) The Catholic Church copied and disseminated the Bibles of ancient and medieval times. Thus, the Bible became known to the world only through the Catholic Church.


23 posted on 06/29/2009 5:12:59 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You seem to be quibbling in saying that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world when it combined the Old and the New Testaments. But the word Bible was used before Jesus lived, according to Wikipedia:

Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia ("the books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[7] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[8] The Online Etymology Dictionary states, "The Christian scripture was referred to in Greek as Ta Biblia as early as c.223."[4]

24 posted on 06/29/2009 5:48:51 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: giotto

You wrote:

“You seem to be quibbling in saying that the Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world when it combined the Old and the New Testaments.”

What I am doing is being logically consistent. Let me show you how you are not being logically consistent (again):

You originally wrote:

“...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”

Now, instead, you’re emphasizing this:

“Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia (”the books”) was “an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,”

So, which is it? Is the Old Testament THE Bible or isn’t it? I would say - and I am irrefutably correct in this regard according to the post are arguing about - that the Bible IS NOT just the Old Testament, but that it includes the New Testament as well. And you agree with me. Or at least you did a couple of posts ago. Now, however, you are emphasizing something else.

Get your story straight.

“But the word Bible was used before Jesus lived, according to Wikipedia:”

No. The word Bible as we know it was not used. The Greek word, biblia, not BIBLE, but BIBLIA was used. Biblia means books. It’s just the Greek word (plural) for books. When we use the word Bible it doesn’t mean many books. It mean ONE book. ONE book with two testaments - and Jews never had more than ONE testament.

My argument is consistent. Yours is not.

“Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia (”the books”) was “an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,”[7]”

And yet I have NEVER heard anyone in a typical English language conversation say “the biblia” or “the books” when he meant to just say “the Bible”. And, again, as you yourself said at the earlier: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”

Be consistent.


25 posted on 06/29/2009 7:13:33 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Bi⋅ble
  /ˈbaɪbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bahy-buhl] Show IPA
Use bible in a Sentence
–noun
1. 	the collection of sacred writings of the Christian 
religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
2. 	Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of 
sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians 
as the Old Testament.
3. 	(often lowercase) the sacred writings of any 
religion.
4. 	(lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, 
etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: 
He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' 
bible.
Origin:
1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem. 
sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy 
books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, 
equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port 
where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix


26 posted on 06/29/2009 7:35:04 PM PDT by giotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Deal Hudson has written a great piece here.


27 posted on 06/29/2009 7:47:11 PM PDT by jcpryor (http://christopherpryor.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giotto

You wrote:

“1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian
religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.”

Now, did Jews have THAT? Did Jews then (or now) have a New Testament?

NOPE.

“2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of
sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians
as the Old Testament.”

And let’s remember what you said the Bible was: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”

“3. (often lowercase) the sacred writings of any
religion.”

So you would be just fine with saying the Qur’an is the Bible too now? ROFLOL!

“4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical,
etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable:
He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers’
bible.”

Clearly doesn’t apply to what we’re talking about.

“Origin:
1300–50; ME bible, bibel < OF bible < ML biblia (fem.
sing.) < Gk, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy
books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus,
equiv. to býbl(os) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port
where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion n. suffix”

Nothing here disputes what I said in the least. THE Bible is what we were talking about. Remember, it has TWO testaments as you said:

“...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”

Do Jews have two testaments or not?

As I said in the last post (and you have been utterly unable to refute):

So, which is it? Is the Old Testament THE Bible or isn’t it? I would say - and I am irrefutably correct in this regard according to the post are arguing about - that the Bible IS NOT just the Old Testament, but that it includes the New Testament as well. And you agree with me. Or at least you did a couple of posts ago. Now, however, you are emphasizing something else.

Once again, here are your words: “...the word “Bible” included both the old and new Testaments”

Your words. You have to live with them, not me. I have been consistent and consistently right all along here.

Again, how many testaments do the Jews have?


28 posted on 06/29/2009 7:49:49 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Once upon a time, I received a 16 MM film of Mortimer Adler’s lecture on Epictetus. The can was supposed to contain a film on calculus. I said what the heck and showed the film to my high school class. To my great surprise, they were enthralled by the film. He had about 50 IQ points on the brightest of us, yet he made it all clear and entertaining without condescending. Unfortunately, it was the only film by him in the district film library, because the kids wanted more, and not just to avoid work. He was a great teacher.


29 posted on 06/29/2009 8:01:05 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
Doesn't always work out: Torquemada was of Jewish descent. During the 15th Century so many Spanish Jews converted that, despite the best work of the Inquisition, a huge percent of all Spaniards have some Jewish ancestry.
30 posted on 06/29/2009 8:06:58 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

“despite the best work of the Inquisition, a huge percent of all Spaniards have some Jewish ancestry.”

Oh, good grief. I guess the lies will never stop until Our Lord returns to cast the father of lies into the pit.

Jews were (shouting here) encouraged (back to inside voice) to convert. Encouraged.

Further, no person who could say, “I am a Jew. Everyone knows it, and I have never claimed to be anything else,” was ever laid a hand on by the Inquisition.

The Inquisition tried only people suspected of pretending to convert, while secretly remaining Jewish. Further, the Inquisition was far more just than the secular courts that would have tortured and executed suspects on the flimsiest of evidence.

Pop quiz: Of all the people tried by the Spanish Inquisition, how many were executed?

Anybody? It’s been posted here many times. Hasn’t even one of the Church’s detractors bothered to attend to that figure, and what it signifies?


31 posted on 06/29/2009 9:23:14 PM PDT by dsc (A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Well, “Old” Catholics found it convenient to accuse a lot of people of pretending, because it was a good way of getting hold of their estates. Probably the Jews who converted were about as sincere as the Christians and Jews who had converted to Islam in earlier years, but the times were uncertain and the Catholic kings didn’t trust the Jews, Christian or not, thinking that blood was thicker than water, The proof is, of course, the expulsion of Jews in 1492.


32 posted on 06/29/2009 9:36:58 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

The writing of the Old Testament begins with Adam writing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters of Genesis.


33 posted on 06/29/2009 9:47:55 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You wrote:

“The writing of the Old Testament begins with Adam writing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters of Genesis.”

Sorry, but that is not an orthodox Jewish or Christian belief. Your idea is essentially a recent quack idea based upon NOTHING. Well, there is that whole misinterpretation of Genesis where some poor benightedly ignorant people believe that Adam wrote a few chapters just because it says that “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1). It is, of course, utter nonsense to believe Adam wrote any part of Genesis based up Genesis 5:1, but in this day and age in which so few people truly study the scriptures or their history such crack pot ideas shouldn’t surprise anyone. Look at how many people believe the Dake Bible’s assertions that there were people BEFORE Adam who lived on into Adam’s era. Nutty. Just nutty.


34 posted on 06/29/2009 10:06:09 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Adler bumpus ad summum


35 posted on 06/29/2009 11:00:24 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
utter nonsense to believe Adam wrote any part of Genesis

Why?

36 posted on 06/29/2009 11:19:56 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; dsc

The expulsion of the Jews was basically because Isabel felt that she didn;’t have the resources to protect them anymore. There had been anti-Jewish riots in some cities in Northern Spain, egged on primarily by people who were jealous of the Jews, who often held good positions in court. This was right after the unification of Spain (when the Muslims were finally overcome and territorial unity under Ferdinand and Isabel was achieved), and there were power struggles between the King, the local nobility, and the growing non-titled middle class.

The Jews were perceived as favorites of the King, and hence were often targets of the jealousy of other people who either wanted to be favorites themselves or wanted to get rid of the king altogether.

In southern Spain, a group of Jews was found conspiring with the Muslims to help restore them to power, and this turned into a key incident that led to more rioting, with the result that Isabel finally announced that she couldn’t guarantee their safety anymore.

Under Spanish agreements with the Jews, Jews lived in their own communities within Spanish cities, but were protected by the Crown. They swore allegiance and paid taxes to the Spanish Crown and in exchange were protected and permitted to run their own communities. While she confiscated much of the wealth of these communities (although many of them had seen the handwriting on the wall and already moved it), the expulsion cost the Crown a huge amount of taxes and income, and also removed some of the Court’s most valuable members. Thus, it was something that she didn’t want to do and delayed for a long time.

Most Muslims were also expelled at that time, because they had violated their agreements after the fall of Granada and were re-arming to attack Spain again, but a large number of Muslim peasants and agricultural workers were allowed to stay because they were not considered a threat. However, only a few years later, encouraged by Arab contacts, they also began to arm and began attacking their non-Muslim Spanish neighbors. Some years after that, after some particularly bloody attacks, all the Muslims were expelled as well.


37 posted on 06/30/2009 4:16:04 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You wrote:

“Why?”

1) There’s no written evidence for it.
2) There’s no historical evidence for it.
3) There’s no reliable tradition for it.
4) Moses has always been considered the author according to Jews and Christians.
5) Adam as the author is a recent invention.
6) Adam as the author is a recent invention by Christians who are already on the fringes of Christianity.
7) Those who believe in it are crackpots in other respects regarding the faith.
8) There is no evidence Adam could write.
9) The belief is not supported at all in the New Testament.
10) There’s no logic to the theory.


38 posted on 06/30/2009 5:36:45 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: livius

Well, indeed. The upshot of the efforts of the Crowns to unite the country was similar to what happened in our own times in the former Yugoslavia. Henry Kamin says that after about twenty years, the Inquisition began to settle into its major long term role which was to certify the “purity” of families, Ironical, because the process invited corruption. Over the centuries, families had crossed and recrossed the religious divide, to the extent that many had an ancestery they had to conceal. To me, the great irony is that the English created the Black Legend, and depicted the horrors of the auto de fe,” even though few Protestants were actually molested, and at a time when Elizabeth’s government was ruthlessly ferreting out priests and drawing and quartering them and not treating “puritans” much better. “Star-Chamber” has
long since passed out of the historical consciousness while the Inquisition has never been forgotten.


39 posted on 06/30/2009 6:01:32 AM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Everyone one of your points is an assumption, not evidence. There is very interesting research being done in this area which you apparently are not aware of. I would be happy to send you links to that research.


40 posted on 06/30/2009 7:52:40 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You wrote:

“Everyone one of your points is an assumption, not evidence.”

No, what you’re posting is the assumption. I posted things such as this:

1) There’s no written evidence for it.

That’s just a fact. Period. No where in the Bible does it say Adam wrote a single word of the Bible. That’s not an assumption.

2) There’s no historical evidence for it.

Ditto. There’s no historical evidence for it either. No monument, no textual evidence, NOTHING.

3) There’s no reliable tradition for it.

If you knew of such evidence you would have already posted it.

4) Moses has always been considered the author according to Jews and Christians.

Irrefutable. It is simply irrefutable that Jews and Christians have always believed Moses - not Adam - was the author of Genesis.

5) Adam as the author is a recent invention.

Isn’t true that that idea is a recent invention?

6) Adam as the author is a recent invention by Christians who are already on the fringes of Christianity.

That’s also true isn’t it? What main body of Christians believes Adam wrote scripture? Name it.

7) Those who believe in it are crackpots in other respects regarding the faith.

Absolutely and irrefutably true.

8) There is no evidence Adam could write.

Again, irrefutable. There is no such evidence at all.

9) The belief is not supported at all in the New Testament.

In the New Testament and in NT times it was understood that Moses was the author.

10) There’s no logic to the theory.

Also irrefutably true.

These aren’t assumption. Nor can you overturn them. They are not perfectly conclusive, but then again nothing is to someone who wants to believe in foolish and novel ideas because they old and true ones don’t tickle their ears anymore.

“There is very interesting research being done in this area which you apparently are not aware of.”

There is no interesting research being done in this area. Crackpots, who could just as easily have worked on batboy articles for the Weekly World News, are inventing assumptions about Adam because they believe it furthers the aims of creationists. Sadly, they are mistaken and foolish. Inventing myths does not rigorously promote truths.

“I would be happy to send you links to that research.”

I’ve already seen the “research”. It’s nonsense.

It’s all based on a ridiculously inflated importance given to ONE VERSE:

“This is the book of the generations of Adam.”

Nowhere in that verse does it say Adam wrote anything yet fools are pretending it does say that:

http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally (All based on ONE verse)

http://www.nwcreation.net/genesisauthor.html (All based on ONE verse)

http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm (note: these are British-Israelite crackpots; and all based on ONE verse)

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/genesis.html (all based on ONE verse)

http://bible-matters.com/who-wrote-genesis/ (All based on ONE verse)

I have seen the “research” and it isn’t research at all. All of the crackpots who adopt this belief are basing it on ONE verse that they clearly do not comprehend correctly. NOTHING in “This is the book of the generations of Adam” suggests Adam wrote anything, ever. Genesis 5:1 no more says that Adam wrote it, than Matthew 1:1 says Jesus wrote that chapter of Matthew.

There is NO RESEARCH. NONE.


41 posted on 06/30/2009 8:25:06 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
research

What "research" have you seen?

42 posted on 06/30/2009 9:41:53 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
crackpots in other respects regarding the faith

What would those "other respects" be?

43 posted on 06/30/2009 9:48:19 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You wrote:

“What “research” have you seen?”

Look at the links. Read. Repeat.


44 posted on 06/30/2009 2:39:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

You wrote:

“What would those “other respects” be?”

Did you even bother to read my post all the way through? I posted links. You ignored them. Now you’re asking how the believers in this crackpot theory are crackpots? Depends on the crackpot in question. I noted one was a believer in British Israelitism. Crackpot right there.


45 posted on 06/30/2009 2:41:53 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

“Well, “Old” Catholics found it convenient to accuse a lot of people of pretending, because it was a good way of getting hold of their estates.”

All these groundless accusations...Why don’t you study up on the Black Legend.

“The proof is, of course, the expulsion of Jews in 1492.”

Nonsense.


46 posted on 06/30/2009 3:38:02 PM PDT by dsc (A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: livius; RobbyS; dsc

livius:

Good post there. I would like to add to it:

One of the best studies on the subject is by Henry Kamen, Professor of History who has taught at numerous U.S. Universities, including UCLA and the Univ. of Chicago. He is a Jewish-British citizen and I think is currently a research fellow in Spain and his analysis supports the Vatican’s recent publication of the number, and who, were condemned in the Inquistion, which contradicts much of the nonsense that is out there about this subject.

I suggest folks here at a minimum go to amazon.com and examine his work on the Spanish Inquisition. I am continually surprised by the lack of intellectual honesty with some individuals on this board, who are Protestant [although more so towards secular-leftist, neo-pagans, etc.] It seems deconstructionisism, which at its core is a Marxist and relativistic ideology, is rampant, in how many folks approach this subject.

The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1480 in the context of the Spanish Reconquest of their homeland from the Muslim invaders, who had overrun their country in the late 7th century resulting in the longest war in history. The Spanish inquisition was designed to confront Catholic heresy, which was seen as being a threat to the state. Specifically, it was targeting conversos, i.e. persons who had converted from Islam and/or Judaism for political gain. There is a growing consensus among scholars that indeed many of the conversos lived double lives and conspired with the Moslems during the Spanish Catholics war of reconquest. It is true that torture was used and some were put to death by the state, if convicted twice which Catholic Historian Warren Carroll, in his Volume 3 of History of Christianity: The Glory of CHristendom notes can’t be defended. However, he notes that torture and being put to death were not unique to Spain. Most sources today document that some 15,000 persons were found guilty by the Inquisition and about 2,000 were put to death during Isabella’s reign. Many Catholic Saints were in fact charged in the inquisition and cleared, including St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, and ST. THeresa of Avila.

As Carroll notes (p. 608) in Volume 3 of his work, “The Glory of Christendom”, the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Moslems or Jews, only over professed Christians who were still living as Jews or Moslems.
Shortly after the Spanish Inquisition was commenced in 1480, the war of reconquest of Spain began again as on December 26, 1481, the Moslems attacked Granada. Isabella responded with and all out military effort which finally ended what was a 759 year struggle!!! to to drive the Moslems out. In addition, shortly after the reconquest, Isabella in March 1492, issued a decree to expel all Jews from Spain. Warren Carroll (p. 681 fn) writes “Much has been made of in recent years of Isabel’s decree in March 1492 expelling all Jews from Castille as showing that she was not always good and just. None but God is always good and just. This was the one definitely unjust act in Isabel’s thirty-three year reign; though some Jewish subjects had been proved to be, or could reasonably be expected to be traitors, and some had been proved by the inquisition to have enticed conversos to betray and blaspheme the Christian Faith, the edict of expulsion covered all without exception, the innocent majority along with guilty minority. Those exiled were not otherwise harshly treated; they were given four months to wind up their affairs and take all they wished with them except precious metal, an their persons were under royal protection throughout that time. Yet, the expulsion was still unjust (See Carrolls Isabel of Spain, pp. 207-210 for more detail).

It is obvious that many modern people look at the Spanish Inquisition only to make polemics and it is obvious that most people, including some on FREP, “have never studied the subject.” I have no bitterness towards Anglicans because after Henry VII made himself head of the Church, hundreds of loyal Catholics went to the chopping block. It is a sad part of history. In fact, it is my opinion that Traditional Anglicans are sort of members of the family, who have been away for a while. Calvin’s Geneva was the first Christian police state and many were put to death there as well, for such things as dancing. Luther called for the killing of German peasants in the “peasent revolt” and thousands died there. Yet, it is the Catholic Church that always gets the coverage. Intrinsically, there is a reason for this and that is “Satan”, and I believe there is such a thing, and Satan ultimately knows the real thing, and it is the Catholic Church, hence all the attacks on it. Still, it has survived 2,000 years and will be here after all on this board are dead and buried.

While modern man looks at heresy as a joke, the folks of the 15th century took it very seriously, as did orthodox Christians in every period beforehand. Now, all Catholic agree today that the Church needs to deal with heretics without using the state to make it a state crime. For the record, this is true in countries that went Protestant in the 16th century and persecuted Catholics.

And one thing I always point out to my agnostic and secular-leftist friends, is that the crimes of the last century brought about by Nazism and Communism were carried out by two men who stated they hated Christianity. Hitler was an apostate Catholic and Stalin was an apostate Orthodox Christian. Between them, there were some 100 million people lost. Perhaps something similar to the Spanish Inquisition, “without the torture” could have been used to stop Hitler and Stalin in that if convicted of heresy, folks would not have followed those two evil men. However, modern man has “made himself God” or some political philosophy and thus it probably would have been a mute point anyway.

Again, I am not justify torture and executions for heresy. Isabella’s Spain and the Church permitted both; they should not have. In this context, perhaps Senator John McCain is correct in that maybe the U.S. should not use torture as a means of self defense. The arguments of Isabella’s Spain, fighting off the Moslem invaders, is remarkably similar to the arguments made by those who justify the United States torturing Moslem POWs today. Now for the record, I am all for defeating the Islamist Jihadist and I personally see the war on terrorism as the continuation of a 1,300 year struggle between the forces of good and forces of evil.

In summary, the Spanish Inquisition should be seen in the context of the 15th century and in the context of Spain’s 759 year conflict to retake their Land from the Moslem invaders. All other attempts, IMO, are nothing more than Marxist Deconstuctionism or anti-Catholic polemics. Further, the Spanish Inquisition was no different from any other courts during its time, and in fact, the criteria for evidence was among the best in the era. Also, non-Catholic never were tried under the inquisition, so this nonsense that all non-Catholics were wound up and tried in the Inquisition is a fairy tale.

Pax et bonum


47 posted on 06/30/2009 8:56:28 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

As a student of history, I have often been surprised to learn how little so-called educated men know of history. In addition to the Inquisition, there is the example of the Crusades. Try sometime to ask someone from an “elite” college about Lepanto and how it related to the Crusades. See if they know who Sulieman the Magnificent was. Ask them the name of the greatest power in Europe in the year 1600. My guess is that you could ask Barry Obama about any of these topics and the answer he would give would show a void of information deep enough to sink a battleship in.


48 posted on 06/30/2009 9:41:44 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

Yes, I’m familiar with Kamen’s work and it is very good indeed.

I think you have hit on the problem with the Inquisition, which was the fact that it was just too tempting for the State to use it to punish its enemies.

The Inquisition actually functioned by a legal code that was much more advanced than any in civil society at the time. For example, it was forbidden to accept confessions extracted under torture, and torture (other than imprisonment) was not used; however, it was used by the State, and of course ambitious Inquisitors would turn their investigees over to the State to do whatever it wanted with them. One of the flaws of the system was that individual Inquisitors had great power. This was theoretically to keep them honest and free from outside influence, but of course, we all know what absolute power does...

But as you say, the concept of suppressing and eliminating heresy and keeping doctrine and practice pure is vitally important. It is a very good point that the rise of a Hitler or a Stalin, who both set up cults that were rivals to the Church, might have been stopped by active attempts to eliminate these heresies before they got strong enough to be unstoppable.

I think our Pope realizes the importance of doctrinal purity and I hope there is some way the Church can bring back this focus. Doctrine is not just theory, but affects individual human lives and human societies, and this was essentially what the Inquisition (in its best aspects) realized.


49 posted on 07/01/2009 3:38:34 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson