How the 6th Century Church handled Sex Abuse (warning: graphic)

The Chronicle of John Malalas

[kosta50]

But the rulers would be acting on their own initiative, applying civil punishments at their discretion to punish perversions of the church's moral teachings

That is precisely the argument of the Roman Catholic Church in defense of the Inquisition. The Church was trying to help the suspects. If they failed to repent, the Church had no choice but to release the suspects to the civil authorities, and civil laws called for execution of tose convicted of witchcraft.

That all sounds reasonable and fair for the mindset of the time, except that the process of extracting the truth and the whole Inquisitonary legal system of hidden/secret witnesses and judges being the jury at the same time made for very primitive judicial process according to our standards today, which are generally used to condemn the Inquisition.

But there was a system to this madness (not that ours is necessarily flawless!), and it turns out that relatively few people were put to death as a result of Inquisitionary trials in Spain, contrary to earlier assertions.

One must also remember that individual Orthodox officials (in medieval Russia, for example) instituted their own form of "penance," such as denial of communion for three years for menstruating women suspected of being "unclean" when in hurch.

The Church never taught that killing was good, and even St. Augstine's 'just' war theory, later on perverted, called for self-defense as the very last option. But, as is usually the case, good intentions got mixed up with human corruption.

[Agrarian]

I responded because the title stated that it was the church, and the article cites "sacred ordinance," without specifying a canon.

[annalex]

Christos Voskres!

the process of extracting the truth and the whole Inquisitonary legal system of hidden/secret witnesses and judges being the jury at the same time made for very primitive judicial process according to our standards today

Very true. But also, the jurisprudence of the Holy Inquisition was the best legal practice of the time. Common criminals in Spain were known to blaspheme in order to be trasferred to the Inquisition and avoid the civil courts.

There is no doubt that if the Holy Inquisition were reinstated in full today, it would employ the modern system of justice, complete with adversarial defense and protections against self-incrimination.

[Antoninus]

True -- I saw that when I read the text, but the title implies otherwise.

Ah, you're right. I did poorly when supplying the title. Admittedly, however, the emperor's position as both a civic and religious leader at this time in history makes it at least partially correct. Let's not forget that this particular emperor attempted to vigorously manipulate doctrine, and removed bishops, patriarchs, and even Popes by force.

[ConservativeMind]

Fortunately, these people had accepted the New Testament, so it could be enforced by the Church.

[Gondring]

The Church didn't carry out the investigations or the punishments. They were done by the civic authority.

The Church did carry out investigations, turning over "heretics" to the civil authorities for punishment. Why would civil authorities consider heresy a crime? Because they claimed Divine authority to their actions.

The Church also instigated many actions.

I'm a direct descendant of the last man to be burned at the stake in England for "heresy"...his children were taken to this continent by his brother, where they established Baptist churchs in New England. Yes, it was King James (ironic that so many Baptist churches use the KJV, eh?) who ordered the execution, but it was at the instigation of the Church. If the Church wishes secular authorities to look to it for guidance, then the responsibility for the guidance they give rests upon the Church.

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

[peter the great]

One of the other subjects that is of great consequence today for the Roman Catholic Church of that being married clergy. It was at one of the councils where the Church fathers decided their policy regarding this issue. It was the Eastern Church fathers who reasoned that if you did not allow for a married clergy what would happen is that in some cases what you would have is clergy seeking illicit sexual outlets. I am a little surprised that with the press as liberal as they are that in the main stream media that quote has not seen the light of day.

[Tantumergo]

"That all sounds reasonable and fair for the mindset of the time, except that the process of extracting the truth and the whole Inquisitonary legal system of hidden/secret witnesses and judges being the jury at the same time made for very primitive judicial process according to our standards today, which are generally used to condemn the Inquisition."

This insistence of judging the past by today's standards is symptomatic of Modernism which has infected historical studies in the West as much as it has infected biblical exigesis and theology.

Another factor which they tend not to mention when discussing the inquisition is that many people preferred to be tried before the inquisition and ecclesiastical courts because these were more just and merciful (especially for the poor) than their civic counterparts. Again this is just a matter of historical context - criminal and civil justice was much more "brutal" in those days when judged by today's standards.

However, I do think Emperor Justinian was onto something...!!! ;)

BTW a very Happy and Blessed Easter to all you Easterners!
Christos Aneste!!

[Gondring]

>>[...]examined and condemned by Victor, the city prefect, who punished them: he tortured Isaiah severely and exiled him and he amputated Alexander's genitals and paraded him around on a litter.

>Fortunately, these people had accepted the New Testament, so it could be enforced by the Church.

My Bible knowledge is lacking...perhaps you can point out to me where torture was prescribed in the New Testament. Thanks!

[Tantumergo]

"Why would civil authorities consider heresy a crime?"

Because back then everybody understood that the identity and social cohesion of a nation was built primarily on the religion held in common by it's citizens.

Heresy and schism had potentially massive ramifications for social unrest, undermining of fiscal and legal systems, and the destruction of a common public morality. There has never been such a thing as a successful "multicultural" society. This concept is a relatively modern invention which is built on a utopian pipe-dream.

Any society which attempts to achieve the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions (multi-cults) can only do so by adopting a radically secular constitution and relegating religion generally to the sphere of the private forum and expelling it from the public square.

The inevitable result is that secularism itself becomes the de facto national religion with all the attendant relativism and destruction of that society's morality. Such nations become more authoritarian than the theocracies which they were invented to replace, but lack the justice and moral basis of the former systems.

The moral disintegration and death of Western societies is occurring precisely because we rejected the punishment of heretics and schismatics, and decided to ascribe "rights" to false religions.

[ConservativeMind]

The New Testament is not the only thing Christ encouraged.

Until Christ's death, all Christians needed to be Jews as well. He didn't say the Old Testament was to be done away with but it was to be considered fulfilled through Him as the King they had expected to come.

In the Old Testament, stonings (beatings with rocks until dead) were common within the nation of Israel for numerous sexual offenses (Deuteronomy and Exodus), although sometimes people got away with "murder" (as in David and Bathsheba's husband) if they were not ultimately stoned.

In the New Testament, I am not aware of any Scriptural reference that rids us of these punishments. Can you tell me where they were prohibited?

Some were made eunuchs for the Kingdom, as mentioned in earlier posts. For those who had accepted Christ and were in leadership positions, I see no problems with having made them a eunuch because of their sins as part of their repentance process. It sure beat being put to death by default.

Also, if you think about it, those who vest their powers into an organization such as the Church were willing to submit themselves to the punishments meted out through that authority. The Church reigned in people's lives then. I'm sure that such punishments, if given by the church, would have been considered humane at the time. We still have torture today in many societies, of which some follow more along the lines of the Old Testament via the Muslim faith.

[ArrogantBustard]

Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemens' Club ping.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***The moral disintegration and death of Western societies is occurring precisely because we rejected the punishment of heretics and schismatics, and decided to ascribe "rights" to false religions.***


I believe it is because real Christians stopped being salt and light and became overly concerned with the earthly affairs and posessions.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***In the Old Testament, stonings (beatings with rocks until dead) were common within the nation of Israel for numerous sexual offenses... In the New Testament, I am not aware of any Scriptural reference that rids us of these punishments. Can you tell me where they were prohibited?***


"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

[Selous]

One must also remember that individual Orthodox officials (in medieval Russia, for example) instituted their own form of "penance," such as denial of communion for three years for menstruating women suspected of being "unclean" when in church.

I don’t wish to hijack the topic of this thread but your comment above struck a chord in my memory. When I was a young altar boy (several centuries ago!) in Scotland there was a practice in the Catholic church known (at least locally) as “churching”. Very pre-Vatican II of course and I cannot remember it’s purpose. My hazy memory tells me that it was a post-natal ceremony somehow relating to a “cleansing” process. It would usually take place in the evening and at a side altar and involve only the woman and a priest in hushed prayer.

Any enquiry as what was going on from we inquisitive young servers, clearing up in the sacristy for the next morning’s mass, was usually met with a stern admonishment from Father that it we were too young to understand. Never did get around to enquiring as an adult and by then it was well and truly canned along with so much else.

I realise that you are Orthodox, but perhaps you have come across this “cleansing/churching” in a more modern context. How about you, Tantumergo?

[Selous]

Any society which attempts to achieve the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions (multi-cults) can only do so by adopting a radically secular constitution and relegating religion generally to the sphere of the private forum and expelling it from the public square.

As witness, we lucky citizens of the EU, eh?

Well, until the advent of The Peoples’s Republic of Eurabia that is.

[FormerLib]

...and condemned by Victor, the city prefect, who punished them...

Actually, this appears to be more of an example of how the public sector dealt with sexual misconduct back then.

[siunevada]

From then on there was fear amongst those afflicted with homosexual lust.

There's an understatement.

[FormerLib]

...and condemned by Victor, the city prefect, who punished them...

Actually, this appears to be more of an example of how the public sector dealt with sexual misconduct back then.

[siunevada]

Actually, this appears to be more of an example of how the public sector dealt with sexual misconduct back then.

I think this show the interlocking responsibilities of Church and State that used to be referred to as Christendom. Much as when the 'horrors' of the Inquisition are salivated over; it seems always to be a neglected point that heresy was a civil crime punished by the civil authority not the Church authorities.