Inquisition

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Has this pope, or any pope, ever apologized for the inquisition?

-- Boyce Mouton (bmouton@clandjop.com), July 20, 1998

Answers

Dear Boyce, I believe that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have apologized for the Inquisition. The Inquistion, though real and wrong, has been exagerated, as many non-Catholic scholars are coming to show (they have no vested interest in proving this). In the over 330 papal encyclicals and the documents of 21 ecumenical councils, there are only a tiny number of ambiguous sentences that anyone could interpret as harming religious liberty. Carfeful study of them in context shows them to be congruent with modern Catholic teaching, as Father William Most has done at www.ewtn.com. It's very helpful actually to go back and read the documents of the medieval councils. You'll be amazed at how much the writers tried to be fair in their rules and laws. Yours in Christ, Chris

-- chris B -- October 15, 1998.

To whom it may concern,

I want to know all about Inquistion.

-- Andrea Thomas (andreathomas@32hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.


To whom it may concern,

I want to know all about Inquistion.

Thank You and God Bless You!

-- Andrea Thomas (andreathomas@32hotmail.com), February 15, 2000.


Hello, Andrea.

Please start with the short essay to be found at the "Catholic Answers" site by clicking here. (http://www.catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp)

If you want to pursue your studies with books, please rely on the advice of eminent Catholic historian (founder of Christendom College), Dr. Warren Carroll. He recently wrote these words: "Much the best recent book on the Spanish Inquisition is (Jewish author) Henry Kamen's THE SPANISH INQUISITION."
Dr. Carroll also recommends his own recent book, ISABEL OF SPAIN, THE CATHOLIC QUEEN.

Please be aware that was is called "the inquisition" was actually a series of actions in various nations over a long period of time ("late medieval to early modern times," says Dr. Carroll). What took place varied from mild to severe. People who criticize the Church usually have in mind the "Spanish Inquisition."

God bless you.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 15, 2000.

What I wrote at the top of this thread (about three and a half years ago) was basically wrong. I have a full essay here on the subject, which gives plenty of quotations as to the Magisterium:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006heB

In Christ, Chris

-- Chris B -- June 15, 2002.



-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.Com), December 03, 2003

Answers

Asking a Catholic about the Inquisition is like asking a Nazi about the Holocaust.

-- J Biscuits (thefilthohgodthefilth@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

If you don't care about the truth don't ask the Catholic Church. You won't learn the truth about the Inquisition by asking the Church's sworn enemies. During the persecutions of Christians in ancient Rome, Nero circulated the lie that Christians had burned down the City. He did that to cover his own crime.

By your logic, the only one whose word you would have taken is NERO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2003.


Asking a Catholic about the Inquisition is like asking a Nazi about the Holocaust.

hahahahahaha, granted that EVERY historian of the time was catholic, you HAVE to take our word for it. otherwise you just make up what you want to hear. whats funny is that your statement should have been...

"asking a protestant about the inquisition is like asking a nazi about the jews"

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 04, 2003.


BRAVO, Eugene and Paul H !!!

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

To whom it may concern:

Doing some research about the conversos may shed some light on the Inquisition and the motives for their eradication.

.......................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.



Before any research, let me say the Inquisition always gave a man his chance to recant, give his confession of faith and be saved. If he refused, he could leave Spain and do as he pleased.

Many pretended to recant; then remained in Spain as surreptitious unbelievers, even receiving sacraments sacrilegiously pretending to be faithful catholics. They were in fact, enemies or the state, plotting the overthrow with Moslem enemies. This is why some of them were burned at the stake.

Even in this extreme, they were offered the grace of repentence before dying. The STATE carried ot all executions. The state of course, had that authority. Yes; all the ministers of state were Catholics; but they served their sovereigns, with the consent of the Spanish prelates. Nevertheless, there were incidents in which a convict appealed to the Pope and received justice. It wasn't an unjust system for that era.

There were actually no safeguards of the kind-- to protect the hundreds of women in our American colonies from gross injustice by protestants. They were accused without any legal recourse and burned or hanged for the ''crime'' of witchcraft; by so-called Bible Christians.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2003.


You must remember that the Inqusition was a tool of the Spanish government, not the Church. The Spaniards went crazy about blood purity and uniformity after 1492. And so Isabel and Ferdinand set up the Inquisition to investigate blood purity. The Pope at this time didn't have much control over what was going on.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Eugene hits it right on the nail--

"Many pretended to recant; then remained in Spain as surreptitious unbelievers, even receiving sacraments sacrilegiously pretending to be faithful catholics. They were in fact, enemies or the state, plotting the overthrow with Moslem enemies. This is why some of them were burned at the stake."

I don't think that the average heretic or non-believer was the major concern. It was the converso, as described above by Eugene. The converso was that seed of destruction that had to be eliminated. How they were eliminated conformed to the methods of their times, but not the methods of today. Today, we have politics, economics, and technology that aid in converting those in need.

.....................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.


Only about 2000 persons were burnt as heretics during the Spanish Inquisition. Though this number is only a small fraction of what the Black Legend routinely alleged, it is nevertheless sobering enough. Almost all those executed were conversos or New Christians, converts, that is, from Judaism or Islam who were convicted of secretly practicing their former religion.

Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD) During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. [This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.]

Currently in North America, more babies die from abortion in 2 days than the total number of people who died at the hands of the Inquisition during its entire 500 year duration! If you want to speak out against a society of death, you have a great opportunity right now!

Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition may have actually saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war. The deaths at the hands of protestants (on both sides) during The Peasants' War (1524-1525) far outnumbered the deaths during the Inquisition. It is estimated that 100,000 peasants, alone, were killed, some by grave atrocities.

Nevertheless the Inquisition was inexcusable. I also echo the voice of John Paul II "Forgive us Lord, Never Again"

ref: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112- 96/article2.html http://davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/PeasW1ar.asp http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1850-PWG/pwg6.html http://www.bartleby.com/65/pe/PeasWar.html http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/german_peasants_war.htm

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.


What is

'The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith'?

....................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.



Q. What is 'The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith'?

It isn't a medieval court if that is what your after.

It holds a very important function in the Church. Other religious bodies which do not have such a department fragment and loose their theological foundations (ref the Episcopalians today and the Unitarians during the last century).

According to Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, "Pastor Bonus", promulgated by the Holy Father John Paul II on June 28, 1988, «the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.»

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


"It isn't a medieval court if that is what your after. "

Why would you think that, Bill?

I want facts.

..............................................................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.


I gave you facts, not sure what you are after here. ??? Maybe you need to restate your question.

In Christ, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


At the very least, a clarification of The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith would head them up at the pass before the anti-types would begin their assumptions. (I have read these assumptions, but feel that I'm merely reading more propaganda against the Church.)

...............................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.


Ok, thanks.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.



Rod, I'm fishing for an answer here, because I still don't know the question, so forgive me if I miss the mark. Here are some facts about the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF).

One of the main functions of the cardinals is to act as advisors and assistants to the Roman Pontiff in the government of the Universal Church. Some of them discharge this responsibility heading the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the central administrative organ of the Church. There are nine congregations in the Curia (they are like departments in the United States government). The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is the oldest, founded in 1542 by Pope Paul III. Originally the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was called the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. St. Pius X changed its name to S.C. of the Holy Office. The congregation was reorganized and name changed to its present form by Paul VI in 1965.

The congregation does not create dogma or doctrine, it defends it. Doctrine and dogma is recognized by the Magistarium (the Bishops as a whole). It does not create any sort of law. The Code of Canon Law (established by the Magistarium) deals with questions of discipline in the Catholic Church. The CDF looks at cases where Catholic Bishops have not acted, or can not act on issues of faith and morals and compares what is happening with Catholic dogma and makes a ruling. Appeals against rulings of the CDF may be taken to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome. Again, the duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world. The congregation promotes in a collegial fashion encounters and initiatives to "spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem "in danger" because of new and unacceptable doctrines.”

This is the congregation the liberals love to hate because it comes down to this congregation to discipline or correct a particular theologian who's teaching is not in line with the Magistarium or traditional Church teaching on faith and morals.

As I pointed out before, for a Church to last 2000 years (or for that matter any institution to last that long), you must have an arm within the Church to do this, otherwise you will end up with anarchy. Faith and morals cannot be relativistic in nature. Again, all we have to do is look at the current plight of the Episcopalians or what has happened with the Unitarians to see what happens if you do not.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.


Thanks, Bill.

I truly appreciate the time you've taken to give your good information. I have a few books that paint a poor picture of the subject ; I'd rather not go into details.

..............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.


The Congregation is the modern day name for the inquisition.

Just a name change.

Cardinal Ratzinger , the enforcer,has already nailed many of those considered outside the mainstream like Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, Ernesto Cardenal, Hans Kung,...

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (EGONZALEZ@SRLA.ORG), December 10, 2003.


It was once called the Holy Inquisition, Elpidio. This word isn't a pejorative, as so many ignorant Catholic- bashers believe.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn't quite like the former office, though many things about it may be similar. As to the work; yes-- it still consists of correcting and denouncing error. You can call Cardinal Ratzinger an ''enforcer'' if your taste runs to the Machiavellian; who cares?

Doing God's Will is the Catholic Church's foremost obligation. There's nothing in that to be ashamed of. Only ignorant people find us reprehensible for that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.


P.S.--
Please explain Elpidio; WHY are Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, Ernesto Cardenal, Hans Kung, -- ''those considered outside the mainstream''--? ? ?

Is that a mainstream somewhere on the planet Pluto? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.


While you're taking a stab at explaining things for Eugene, Elpidio, why not throw in why you think you can come to a Catholic forum and talk about a "prince of the Church" (a man who is actually very kind, gentle, and soft-spoken) as nailing people?

Also mention why you stopped after the names of just four dissenters (or heretics)? No, don't bother to mention why -- because we know that Cardinal Ratzinger has condemned the errors of not many more than those four -- so you couldn't have made the list much longer. When one considers that he has been heading the CDF for over 20 years, one can see that he has hardly ever come down like a ton of bricks on anyone. All the more reason for you to have kept quiet (as you have been nice enough to do for most of the last few months).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.


I just re-read your post, Elpidio, and was reminded that, when I went after you for the word, "nailed," I should also have swatted you for the other insult -- "the enforcer."

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Eugene,

Not since Napoleon arrested Pope Pius for refusing to Crown him around 1800, the Church had enforcers like Domenic(Domingo, the founder of the Dominicans) Guzman in France from about 1200.

Then Torquemada. Later the one that nailed Luther.

From 1800 til 1982 we did not have an enforcer.

Then came Cardinal Ratzinger.

He silenced all debate.

Those that refused got a letter.

How many got a letter? ask him. I believe more than 1000.

From those who supported Liberation Theology, to those who espoused marriage in the priesthood, priesthood for women, that a council is higher than a Pope,...

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 11, 2003.


Getting a "letter" is being "nailed"?

No. Getting a letter is a mild fraternal correction -- well-deserved, I might add.

I can't recall your ever taking this kind of defiant attitude, Elpidio -- actually repeating the words ("nail" and "enforcer") that I condemned and asked you to withdraw. I hope that someone is impersonating you. I didn't think that you would ever take this kind of backward slide into overt anti-Catholicism.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.


I couldn't think of a better synonym.

I am not an English teacher.

English is my second language which I acquired at age 17.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 11, 2003.


"Then Torquemada. Later the one that nailed Luther. From 1800 til 1982 we did not have an enforcer. Then came Cardinal Ratzinger. He silenced all debate. Those that refused got a letter. How many got a letter? ask him. I believe more than 1000."

This is foolishness. I don't think the any of the actual facts back any of this up. Sure seems like fiction to me. Cardinal Ratzinger is NOTHING like Torquemada nor does he use any of the techniques that Torquemada used. And I have absolutely no idea what "From 1800 til 1982 we did not have an enforcer." is suppose to mean. The congregation was certainly in place during that period, and there was someone in a similar position as Cardinal Ratzinger during that period. But the important point here is that Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't make law, he simply defends doctrine...and his ways of protecting doctrine are extremely mild, especially when compared to present day Islamic doctrinal defenders, or as you insist to campare him with: Torquemada. He is also extremely mild in his approach to heretics as compared to Martin Luther who advocated murder of heretics, the confiscation of their property and the turning out of their families. What you wrote is simply nonsense when you compare it with actual history.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.


Ys, Nelson, Ratzinger is a milder type.

Why, because the church can no longer count on with the support of the state to carry on the sentences.

Napoleon broke the monopoly of the Church when by jailing Pope Pius and dissolving the Holy Roman Empire, he took away the judicial power of the church.

Holy Roman emperors ordered the burning of Huss around 1415 and Luther escaped with his life when Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, grandson of the previous ordered Luther's arrest and execution.

That is why I was opposed to Chris Butler's Constitution for a Catholic Monarchy. Maybe he sensed something when I discovered his plans that he practiced self censorship. He erased all of his threads.

John G. restored some of them because John felt Chris went too far.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 12, 2003.


We keep track of everything you post here, Elpodio--
Not for Cardinal Ratzinger. To show your students at the middle school who thought you were sane.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

I have seen no indication that the current Vatican (or even one last century) wished to torture or kill anyone in any state, even the ones that it can infulence greatly. Sorry to disillusion you.

In Christ Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.


High School, Eugene.

As long as there is no Catholic Monarchy...Nelson,...I am OK.

History is written by the Victors not the defeated ones.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 13, 2003.


You're stuck on non sequiturs. We aren't arguing history. Your grasp of it is deficient. Just depends on what you value in reading matter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.

Eugene, What, exactly is your point? I can be slow sometimes, sorry.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.


Apparently Elpidio has disagreements with the known history of our Catholic Church. He claims the Church has done things which aren't recorded.

But the premises he gives for supporting his belief are faulty ones. I wish he would cite reliable sources for his suspicions. All we see is insinuations. Not much relevance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2003.


Elpidio, you wrote:
"Maybe he sensed something when I discovered his plans that he practiced self censorship. He erased all of his threads."

You are mistaken. Somewhere between April and June of this year, in a fit of anger at certain people, he deleted a bunch of opening posts on threads that he had started over the previous four or five years.

Then, about a month ago, after having been away from forum for about five months, he (or a confedereate) deleted almost all complete threads on which he had posted a message. I feel quite sure that he did this because I restored two of the opening messages that he had previously deleted. (I had "backup" copies of those threads).

You also wrote: "John G. restored some of them because John felt Chris went too far."

What? Even deleting a single post 1/2 year ago was going "too far." I began to restore the illicitly deleted threads (1) out of respect for other people who had spent many hours writing messages on them and (2) to help future lurkers and researchers to have more archived threads from which to learn. By now, I would have restored an additional 100 or more threads, but I stopped restoring while waiting to find out whether or not I am being forced to leave the forum at the end of February.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.


I got it, John G.

Eugene, I can tell history is not one of your major hobbies.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 15, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ