quote:

---

Drawing on these documents and on historical research, the Secret Files series tells its tale through painstakingly detailed recreations of pivotal events – from the Inquisition's all-out war on the Cathars in 13th- and 14th-century France, to its last determined effort to maintain power in the face of the 19th-century's rising democratic tide.

---

quote:

---

It was produced and directed by Emmy Award-winning filmmaker David Rabinovitch, and features narration by actor Colm Feore (Trudeau).

---

Broadcast time is 10 pm EST, 7 pm PST.
If you miss it, it's repeated Thursday night an hour later.

The Cathars were dualists, so when physics supposedly showed that dualism applied on the subatomic level, the Situationists affected to believe that this vindicated the Cathars.

I suppose the Situationists admired the Cathars as uncompromising radicals opposed to the orthodoxy of the day, but at this point I can't remember much else about them.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

I can't remember much else about them.

---

One of the problems is that there is almost no original source material written by Cathars in existence any more.

So their views have to be teased out of Catholic Church documents, which report on their activities with great outrage. For example, all sorts of sexual goings-on, shared wives, and so forth, were reported.

quote:

---

. . . Torquemada's horrifying final solution for the conversos: the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492.

---

At first I thought she was some actress, hired to read the words of some contemporary writer. But it soon became clear she was an authority on the subject in her own right (and write). And what a babe!

ETA: Turns out she is an actress after all!

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

One of the problems is that there is almost no original source material written by Cathars in existence any more.

---

quote:

---

Torquemada's horrifying final solution for the conversos

---

quote:

---

Actually I was referring to the Situationists, who did leave some original source material lying around...

---

Yes, I believe that would be "The Honeymooners" and "I love Lucy."

Budda bump tsh.

We could have some fun. Some seem surprised that Vision would run something from the darkest annals of Christian history, but maybe it's because Vision is controled by Protestants, and the Inquisition is a Catholic thing.

Don't know if that's true, but it would be a fun seed to sow.

I would be interested to hear from any Catholics who watched the program as to how they feel about adhering to an organization with such an odious tradition. Thay can't blame it on a few bad apples, a few "extremists." This was mainstream, official doctrine and practice, sanctioned at the highest levels, and it lasted for 600 years.

That the land had been diverse and tolerant up till then resonates for me with our current times. Now it is the "terrorists" that must be listened to and watched and imprisoned.

What happens in a land that falls into fear and hatred and all the rewards offered are for betrayal?

Edited to add, I guess the answer to the question is obvious, perhaps my question is really how do we stop this happening to our land?

[ 09 February 2006: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

Mat 25:34-36 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me. (KJV)

ETA: yes, I know the argument that the church (plural) is actually involved in all these things all over the world. But churches also have great treasure all over the world, while many are still hungry, sick, and homeless.

[ 09 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

The Inquisitors ruthlessly hunt down the Cathars, turning those few who escape their grasp into desperate fugitives. Finally, in 1308, they descend upon the remote French village of Montaillou, the last stronghold of the Cathars, and take the entire community prisoner. Years of interrogation and condemnation, suspicion and fear will follow.

Among those caught in the terrifying grip of the Inquisition are Beatrice de Planisoles, a beautiful noblewoman, and village priest Pierre Clergue, her secret lover – and betrayer.

---

I have a flower that I plucked from the base of the ruins of Beatrice's castle pressed within the pages of my copy of Ladourie's Montaillou.

"By 1542, he succeeds in convincing Pope Paul III to establish an Inquisition. In the years that follow, the Palace of the Inquisition will become Rome's most feared address, while the growing climate of terror will stifle the free exchange of ideas in Venice.

But in mid-16th century Rome, the church wasn't singing the same tune. Science and the emerging discipline of medicine were seen as heretical works of the devil. Scientific books and anatomy texts were suppressed and banned by the Inquisition, along with Protestant and Jewish books, and ancient unpublished manuscripts that were lost forever to the flames.

Being a publisher in the early days of the printing press was a hazardous enterprise; printing the "wrong" book could get you tortured to death by the Inquisition. Some heretics were actually boiled alive in the Piazza Navona by these noble men of faith.

The death of Pope Paul IV, architect of the Roman Inquisition, was the occasion for joyful celebration on the streets of Rome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The Roman Catholic Church were the Nazis of the 15th century.

I would be interested to hear from any Catholics who watched the program as to how they feel about adhering to an organization with such an odious tradition. Thay can't blame it on a few bad apples, a few "extremists." This was mainstream, official doctrine and practice, sanctioned at the highest levels, and it lasted for 600 years.

In particular I'd like to see how anyone can justify regarding the church as having any moral authority at all.

---

Hi
I am a Catholic and found the piece to be highly propagandistic. I am no scholar of medieval history, but I have read enough on the matter to have been rather taken aback at the treatment of the Cathar / Albigensian inquisition.

We are speaking of a time radically different from our own but one that scholars have shed considerable light upon. Suffice it to say here, that I found the first installment misleading and dishonest in its' presentation and I suspect, in its purpose.

I believe it was tailored to appeal to certain sensiblities I find regrettable. That said, the infamous "Spanish Inquisition" the black legend is rather a fixture of the Western psyche and if anything, scholarly treatments have considerably muted its claims upon the popular imagination. Hence my problem with these entertainments of questionable intent.

Like trial by ordeal, duels, trial by fire and the general employment of pain to the body to save the soul, there is much to regret in Western history which is very much about Catholicism. Military penalties for towns that didn't surrender when offered a chance come to mind.

Despite what I find to be a fundamentally dishomest portrayal reminiscent of the tall tales of the 17th century, it remains however indisputably true that in what was primarily an act of the state (Aragon and Castille) bolstered by some envious citizenry, some terrible injustices were suffered and the office of the inquision was employed despite protests by at least one pope, in furthereing these acts.

Any gross injustice is indefensible by definition, and there is no denying the suffering of so many throughout Western history. In this quite dishonest (thusfar) series, I hope no one anticiaptes a defence of the indefensible.

But one can ask of any historian or person who purports to be doing history is a reasonable approximation of truth; the good, bad and ugly.

Since Judas, Saint Peter the Christ-denying pope, the Borgias, the geopolitical contrivances behind Portugal's involvement in slavery, etc, etc. human failings are all over.

While I do not think much at all of the integrity in these recent episodes, I most certainly do not have any problem believing that any person Catholic or otherwise can theoretically do great evil in the name of good. These TV portrayals I believe manifest this same potential of our nature.

Since I have known and was taught about these things from about the age of twelve or so, I wonder at the seeming relish they afford to so many today.

As to justifying my Catholicism, I would offer the following observations. I believe that the teaching and claims of the Catholic church are true. I would go further and state that in this philosophically post-modern world, they are the only fully consistent and fully reasonable voice on the planet. I am a Catholic because Catholicism is true. Christ did rise form the dead. He founded a church with apostolic sucession, and has guided her in her teaching and sacraments ever since.

If John Paul II had eloped with the cleaning lady and Mother Theresa was found to have murdered a lover in a fit of rage, Catholicism would still be true and the gates of hell will not preavail.

Historically the Roman Catholic church in her manifold insistence upon the inestimable value of this, our world and all lives within, has furthered and explosion of knowledge and order and good beyond calculation.

Following an earlier and primary state-sanctioned unjust killing,this astounding institution grew from persons being fed to lions through the fall of the Roman Empire, the dark ages and the severe incursions of Islamic territorial agression that threatened the very existence of Christendom,to a flowering in the middle ages which in concert with Greek thought provided the spiritual and intellectual foundation that was to unlock the very mysteries of the umiverse.

While I constantly fail to live up to the vision of human integrity I am called to, and by my own willful acts, one thing I most liked about Catholicism with all of her saints and sinners was that she always called forth and sought what was truly good in the human person. She continues to do so. Just as one would expect.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Paul 2057 ]

Yet you have not mentioned anything that was portrayed or stated in the series that was untrue, and in fact you have conceded the truth of much of it. The program is based on the actual transcripts and other formerly secret files of the Inquisition. One of the consultants who appears on camera is a senior Vatican official. Others are reputable historians. The program is being broadcast on the Vision network - hardly an outfit that is hostile to the Christian church.

Still, you manage to cast vague aspersions on its accuracy and integrity.

And to justify your adherence to this religion you offer nothing but tautologies and circular reasoning. You are a Catholic because you believe catholicism is true. And the sky is blue because it's, well, blue.

You assert with confidence that Jesus founded the church and "has guided her in her teaching and sacraments ever since." So I guess we have Jesus to blame for the atrocities and crimes against humanity that were sanctioned by the highest levels of the church over many centuries and in many lands.

According to you, we have the church to thank for the "flowering in the middle ages". Get a grip, padre. They're not called the Dark Ages for nothing, you know.

quote:

---

According to you, we have the church to thank for the "flowering in the middle ages". Get a grip, padre. They're not called the Dark Ages for nothing, you know.

---

You don't seem to be very educated on either this period of history or the European philsophical/educational tradition.

The "Dark Age," originally named the obscurum saeculum by a German scholar, was a period of political and religious instability caused by the fall of the Empire. Europe was parcelled into city states and feudal states. Monasteries became centres of enlightenment in preserving Europe's culture, they also became centres of learning not otherwise available; the position of monasteries in rural centres meant that some education was provided to rural people and 'full' education to anyone who wanted to become a monk or a nun. In urban centres, schools were connected to the cathedrals.

Due to the educated Muslims in Spain, the Greek philsophical tradition was reintroduced to Europe around the 8th? century. Through the religious schools in Europe, the Greek philosophical trandition was moulded and transformed Christian philosophy. These historical occurences eventually lead to humanism and the reintroduction of Classical traditions in the Renaissance and eventually led to the Enlightenment.

http://tinyurl.com/cyd8t

The RC Church reacted to, and was shaped and influenced by, these intellectual and scientific developments, which were spurred by the rise of mercantilism and the revolution of the printing press, among other things. Among their reactions were the atrocities of the Inquisition, as documented in this program.

But they were far from the driving force behind these major intellectual and social upheavals. They fought tooth and nail every step of the way against scientific research and experimentation, and against the rise of ideas of personal liberty and freedom of thought and inquiry that characterized the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Why you felt the need to share with us your factoid about the Protestants exaggerating the Spanish Inquisition is a mystery to me. If it has anything at all to do with the television programs that this thread is about, perhaps you would care to tell us some of the exaggerations about the Spanish Inquisition that have been perpetuated by this series - particularly last week's episode.

The Protestants may have exaggerated the Inquisition for their own ends. But the truth of the Inquisition is bad enough and well-known enough that we don't have to rely on the exaggerations of heretics to know that it was an abomination in the history of humanity on Earth.

The program about the Italian Inquisition is repeated tonight on Vision TV at 11:00 EST, for those who missed it.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Why you felt the need to share with us your factoid about the Protestants exaggerating the Spanish Inquisition is a mystery to me.

---

I believe this actually to be true. It is important to understand that our view of the Spanish Inquisition was largely generated in England, by those who considered themselves in a death-struggle with "Papism."

That element of English history is often downplayed, although reading original sources brings it vividly back to life.

For example, John Locke, famed liberal theoretician, wrote his Essay of Toleration to explain why toleration is a good thing. But he very explicitly says that Catholics are exempt from any toleration, because of their "pernicious views."

Let's start another thread to talk about the crimes of the Protestant Church(es) - the witch burning (which the Catholics did as well), the burning of heretics (ditto), the slaughter of Catholics by Elizabeth I and Oliver Cromwell, the Thirty Years' War, the periodic massacres of Jews, etc.

But this thread is about the Inquisition.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Why you felt the need to share with us your factoid about the Protestants exaggerating the Spanish Inquisition is a mystery to me. If it has anything at all to do with the television programs that this thread is about, perhaps you would care to tell us some of the exaggerations about the Spanish Inquisition that have been perpetuated by this series - particularly last week's episode.

---

The exaggeration would be the number of those actually killed; going from around 2,000-3,000 to hundreds of thousands is a large leap. The point in all this is that there is still much misinformation and a careful historian has to be careful in wading through it all.

As to the Inquisition, it must be remembered that it was only as violent as the civil authorities allowed (if we remember, this all goes back to Augustine of Hippo who argued that the state had the authority to suppress heretics through means of force; which is how the Donatists were screwed).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euhemeros:
The exaggeration would be the number of those actually killed; going from around 2,000-3,000 to hundreds of thousands is a large leap.

---

quote:

---

Who says "hundreds of thousands"? Not the producers of this series. The official website says "Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment." I don't recall in the first three episodes anyone saying the toll was in the hundreds of thousands.

---

I never said that this TV series said 'hundreds of thousands'; all I pointed out is that historians must be careful of misinformation.

quote:

---

So the issue of exaggeration is a red herring in this thread. The program we are discussing does not exaggerate the facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euhemeros:
Exaggeration is important as I doubt that the inquisition would have as much attention paid to it if it wasn't so exaggerated through the past few hundred years and if it wasn't constantly used in polemics.

---

As this TV series demonstrates, without the need of any exaggeration at all, the story of the Inquisition (of which the series only gets to scratch the surface) is intriguing, fascinating, horrifying, and astonishing, and deserves to be recognized as one of the important themes of European history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
There was a very good film on the witchburnings from the national film board called the 'Burning Times' ( I think) and it should be available at your local library. There was another film that went with that one and darned if I can remember the title.
I have read several books covering the witch burnings and other practices that effected women severely but I cannot find one that seemed to be definitive. The records have been kept secret in many cases or were lost in fires, floods and wars over the years.
The Catholics and Protestants were both guilty and I don't believe that the burnings went on any longer in Protestant countries than in Catholic countries. The churches had lots of help in targetting women for the fires, politicians and the wealthy elite cooperated with the church in many instances. In some European cities there were no women left alive, of any age, after the burnings had taken place.
Women that were old and a burden were conveniently disposed of as were women that could pay for their own trials, it was a growth industry of old Europe.
Ranges in numbers of women condemned go from a low of 50,000 women over about a 250-300 year period to 2,000,000, so the opinions vary widely.

---

From what I got on the 'net* about the witch-hunts, there seems to be a consensus about informed people that the Church (whether Catholic or Protestant) wasn't involved really in the witch hunts, cases of witchcraft were generally sent to secular courts. There is also a consensus of about 100 000 witch trials for a number of executed "witches" of about 40 000 to 50 000, 20-25% of whom were men. According to Wikipedia's article on the subject, the "9 millions" figure originates from a women's rights activist in the 19th century, so we have to be careful about our sources, obviously this one had a clear bias (even if we agree with the source's opinions on women's right, doesn't mean we should give a blank cheque to what she said), was in a period in history when information was harder to accumulate and when the documents were almost impossible to study, especially for a woman.

I think we've got to be careful about what information we get about such things in the past. A lot of misinformation and propaganda have passed into what was commonly accepted as the "truth" for different reasons, historical studies have just started shaking them. Just one glaring example, we still call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages and have an extremely poor vision of them, still most recent historical studies are telling us that its "darkness" has been greatly exaggerated. The term itself came with the early humanists who loved the "classical period" (Rome and Greece in the Antiquity) and disliked the intervening years between themselves and the classical age because it had given up on the knowledge of the classical period, thus dubbing them the Dark Ages or Middle Ages (Between the Classical Age and the Modern Age which was in their heads a revival of the classical age). In the same form, we have experienced in the past centuries religious schisms and wars, and rebellion against the religious order, and we have inherited from those the propaganda religions made against each other to paint each other as evil as possible. So historians have to work to divide fact from propaganda, and shake our beliefs, I know they were when I first consulted on-line information on the Inquisition and learned that actually their courts were relatively lenient compared to the secular courts of the time, torture was not as common as I was told and the Inquisition didn't have the right to mutilate the bodies of the people it tortured.

quote:

---

The Inquisition is not some trivial event that would be shrugged off but for the exaggerations of the enemies of the Church.

---

Then we're in agreement.

quote:

---

All the more so because of the stark contrast between the true story of the Inquisition and the exaggerated (to put it mildly) picture of unmitigated divine beneficence that Catholic apologists have sought to present as the face of their Church over the last millennium. Case in point: the posting of Paul 2057 in this thread.

---

Modern Catholic triumphalism is certainly a worry, epescially when it pollutes history. Take the book popular with conservative Catholic circles in the US: Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic church, by H.W. Crocker III.

quote:

---

From what I got on the 'net* about the witch-hunts, there seems to be a consensus about informed people that the Church (whether Catholic or Protestant) wasn't involved really in the witch hunts, cases of witchcraft were generally sent to secular courts.

---

Wikipedia is normally a good start, since it is easily modified, the version of the articles is generally the result of a consensus, except when disputes begin in which case the article page shows this. You can also check the website's references.

As to the x millions number, I think we can safely consider them bullshit. I've seen of no one who gave any credibility to them except people with a direct agenda linked to it: neo-pagans and certain feminist authors, who tend to romantize the victims either as pagans victims of christian persecution (unlikely since the hunts started after 1400, before that, the Church's position was that belief that witches existed wasn't Christian) or as independent strong women victim of the patriarchal system (more likely, but just a little, it certainly doesn't explain why the majority of victims in many Eastern European countries were male, and in France it was evenly split, or why often, like in the case of Salem, the accusations came from women).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
It's particularly galling for the Vatican to accumulate great treasure when the Mission of the Church is to minister as in Matthew 25:

Mat 25:34-36 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me. (KJV)

ETA: yes, I know the argument that the church (plural) is actually involved in all these things all over the world. But churches also have great treasure all over the world, while many are still hungry, sick, and homeless.

[ 09 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

---

As a matter of fact every year, there is a special collection for the pope's charities which are pretty considerable, and the Vatican has run a deficit for as long as I can remember. Our local parish gets by and we are saving for a new roof. Priests last I heard get a couple of hundred bucks a month plus tips.

On paper, real estate would be worth quite a bit, but a lot of new churches and schools are being built in the burbs as well. The poor, and catholic participation in socially conscious endeavors will bear this out, are constantly a part of Catholic liturgy and sensibility. E.G. a few years ago in Canada the single largest demographic in the NDP was catholic women.

Catholicism instlled in me as it says in church documents "a preferential option for the poor".
Canadian stats clearly show that "religious" people in Canada are the main contributors to charities and social justice-oriented projects.

The Canadian labor movement (which particular congress or group I don't now recall) used Pope John-Paul II's "Laborem Exercens" (On Human Work) which as is part of a long tradition of Papal encyclicals decries "economistic" thinking, alienating terms like the work "force" and economic activity that is not justified by service to the human community. It was (is) a brilliant document.

On Human Work

I do suppose that the Vatican museum, part of which is usually on tour somewhere in the world as a repository of western civilizatiob is worth a buck or two on paper all right, but I don't think that there's any hoarding going on. It is considered a treasure of world history that is held in trust for the world.

In a culture that lauds the superficial appeal of conspicuous consumption, held to be a sin incidentally, there will always be a tension in my life and that of the entire church vis-a-vis the poor but she tells us all very clearly and consistently that we will find Christ in the poor and suffering who will be first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
Catholicism instlled in me as it says in church documents "a preferential option for the poor".
Canadian stats clearly show that "religious" people in Canada are the main contributors to charities and social justice-oriented projects.

---

To the extent that Canada is like the United States, giving to religious organizations -- and by religious people -- is more a form of mutual aid than of charity.

quote:

---

If crowds really have any wisdom, we have to consider putting our dollar in the collection plate. Religious organizations receive something like 60 percent of all the individual giving that occurs in this country [i.e., the US], and that's not counting religious schools or faith-based social services. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that these donations do much to help the needy. Churches put most of their charitable receipts into ongoing operations—buildings, salaries, and the like—spending that essentially helps the giver by keeping his church going. "In this sense," writes Rob Reich, a Stanford political scientist who is writing a book on ethics, policy, and philanthropy, "religious groups look less like public charities and more like mutual benefit societies."

---

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

certain feminist authors, who tend to romantize the victims either as pagans victims of christian persecution (unlikely since the hunts started after 1400, before that, the Church's position was that belief that witches existed wasn't Christian) or as independent strong women victim of the patriarchal system (more likely, but just a little, it certainly doesn't explain why the majority of victims in many Eastern European countries were male, and in France it was evenly split,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Well, you've called it highly propagandistic, misleading, fundamentally dishonest, of questionable intent, and you don't think much of its integrity.

Yet you have not mentioned anything that was portrayed or stated in the series that was untrue, and in fact you have conceded the truth of much of it. The program is based on the actual transcripts and other formerly secret files of the Inquisition. One of the consultants who appears on camera is a senior Vatican official. Others are reputable historians. The program is being broadcast on the Vision network - hardly an outfit that is hostile to the Christian church.

Still, you manage to cast vague aspersions on its accuracy and integrity.

And to justify your adherence to this religion you offer nothing but tautologies and circular reasoning. You are a Catholic because you believe catholicism is true. And the sky is blue because it's, well, blue.

You assert with confidence that Jesus founded the church and "has guided her in her teaching and sacraments ever since." So I guess we have Jesus to blame for the atrocities and crimes against humanity that were sanctioned by the highest levels of the church over many centuries and in many lands.

According to you, we have the church to thank for the "flowering in the middle ages". Get a grip, padre. They're not called the Dark Ages for nothing, you know.

The final clunker was your fatuous assertion, which flies in the face of the entire history of the Church (not just the Inquisition, though that was bad enough), that the church "always called forth and sought what was truly good in the human person" and "continues to do so". A shining example being good old infallible Pope Paul IV, no doubt. Or are you more of a Torquemada fan?

---

Let's try to keep a civil tone to this ok? I'm not really all that interested in a pissing contest.

I will include a link to what I think to be a fairly reasonable consideration of the inquisition, rather than labor to express the same less competently. In brief, when Catholicism was adopted by the Roman emperor, along with it came Roman secular civil law and its completely ordinary tortures and death sentences, e.g. Jesus.
The church leadership resisted the temporal and material approach for some hundreds of years but did in fact fall into the world view as was comnon with every other culture in the world, that religious unity was critical to the health of not just souls, but to all of society. Common as mud.

And so the employment of the secular means was in a time of great faith if less charity, a deviation from true christian principles. Elizabeth I in England murdered many more in the same period, and Luther along with his intense hatred of Jews did not hestitate to burn heritics as well, finding justifications in the old testament and elsewhere.

People, and I mean the average guy on the street really did believe that it was better to suffer temporal suffering and even death to save the soul, or the souls of one's society. Heresy, like orthodoxy was not considered a light matter at all, but the only critical matter, and one carrying severe implications for the very life of the society. It is still common human behaviour to consider lots of things worth dying for, and they are right. In a society wherein, God, the church, feudal authorities who owed their title to the "divine right od kings" and their subjects and vasssals made for a powerful cascade of interests who had no problems with turning heretics over to the Roman tradition of punishment. This was completely natural and unrremarkable.

The Spanish inquisition which was very much not a work of the church proper, but rather a very political enterprise for political purposes misused an office of the church. Strange but true nonetheless, by the standards of jurisprudence law and punishment, it was a comparitively civil procedure for it's time when compared to other country's practices. The series doesn't even hint of this.

Mass executions without trial or any sort of due process were a feature of the French Revolution where killings occurred at a horendous rate. Spain was never that bad.

The most significant flaw of this series is that it skims context, precinds from pointing out that civilization in general was like this.

And it's not like "civilization" has changed much, one of the reasons why I find the sublime doctrine of original sin (cover your ears)a fully sound one. Luther's hatred of Jews along with the intelligensia's adoption of Darwinian theory in social planning helped to visit a monstrous evil of modern secular origin. The good citizens of Germany and their fuhrer. Hundreds of thousands dying in an unjust war in Iraq.

The TV series has education and justice as a secondary interest. It has a target. And it is obvious. The attempts at window dressing will satisfy some.

Spanish Inquisition

It is true as well of course, that the spiritual realm; the realm of ideas is the truly critical realm, where an awful lot of the rotten stuff we can do originates. The realm of beliefs and ideas is the critical realm for any hope of acheivable goals. Christ was most interested in our minds and our hearts.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Paul 2057 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I guess it is true that, when someone is criticizing the Spanish Inquisition, it is irrelevant to point out that the English were doing similar things.

I often make this argument myself, when arguing with members of the Communist Party who respond to critiques of Cuba with commentary about abuses in the United States.

---

Not really. The monnstrous acts of Elizabeth I have direct parallels with the Spanish Inquisition. Direct. The relevance for inclusion is to point out exactly what this entertainment doesn't do: point out that bad as it was, it was ORDINARY. Ironically the Spanish inquisition pales into utter insignificance in the litany of human malefaction. It was very, very civil by today's standards.

The analogy with Communist vs. Capitalist abuses compares quite considerably different entities. State capitalism vs. individualistic capitalism. One makes a god of the state, the other a god of the individual. That is not the case with the ordinary civil organization and guiding principles of developing Europe. The worldview was essentially shared in its premises.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Who says "hundreds of thousands"? Not the producers of this series. The official website says "Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment." I don't recall in the first three episodes anyone saying the toll was in the hundreds of thousands.

So the issue of exaggeration is a red herring in this thread. The program we are discussing does not exaggerate the facts.

---

I repectfully disagree. One can mislead through simple misdirection. To leave the number at an indefinite "thousands" and add that it continued for 600 years is grossly misleading, as was the constant reference to the "church" as being behind it. No mention was made that I caught of how the Pope protested repeatedly at the excesses of the usurpation of the office of the church.

The whole tone of this "entertainment" is singularly malevelant and perjorative, right from the opening titles.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The Inquisition is not some trivial event that would be shrugged off but for the exaggerations of the enemies of the Church.

As this TV series demonstrates, without the need of any exaggeration at all, the story of the Inquisition (of which the series only gets to scratch the surface) is intriguing, fascinating, horrifying, and astonishing, and deserves to be recognized as one of the important themes of European history.

All the more so because of the stark contrast between the true story of the Inquisition and the exaggerated (to put it mildly) picture of unmitigated divine beneficence that Catholic apologists have sought to present as the face of their Church over the last millennium. Case in point: the posting of Paul 2057 in this thread.

---

I will attempt to resist the temptation to respond in kind. As I've written elsewhere, I like good hard boychecking in a hockey game, but I'm not really interested in a pissing contest.

As another has posted: if you really don't know the near TOTAL role that Roman Catholicism had in the preservation of classic Greco/Roman culture after the pax Romane, the philosohical formation of the entire Western world, even unto Descartes and Hegel, not to mention your mind and those of most who will ever read these words, and you really just don't know, then I would ask you to consider words like information, acuality, potential, form and matter, words that still permeate our intellectual disciplines e.g. literature, law, and so much a part of how westerners carve up reality that it IS YOU.

Now. If you want to suggest that this ACTUAL FORMATION and immanent heritage to again use the concepts, is the result of a previously unknown small band of roving greek sailors, or some other intriguing fancy, then please feel free, but you are simply and very seriously, if truth is a value, misinFORMED as Aristotle would say. To criticize the church which spans our history you really should learn just a little bit about it.

In another post you labelled my reamarks "fatuous".

For your sake, if not mine, of for a simple interest in accuracy for its own sake, re-read. what I wrote.

As I came to consider this most stunning of the world's in0stitutions in world history and its incredible origins, I read her teachings, and her wisdom. I found them to be ...of course,,,divine.
I find her view clear and reasonable and above all with a holy interest in what is true and good.

The failings of her memnbers are the cost of a universe designed for a relationahip of love. Even the planets are attracted to each other.

They are also about the only folks who don't buy into dumbo materialism, the consequence of Descartes' big ego and a fatal error. Aristotle thought that one good definition of sanity was having a real grasp of the nature of reality in your mind. Not having this is a fairly useful description of insanity, and I find an awful lot of this around.

Reason itself is under attack in this in many ways dumbest of generations in our culture of distracton and disintegration.

quote:

---

...if you really don't know the near TOTAL role that Roman Catholicism had in the preservation of classic Greco/Roman culture after the pax Romane...

---

"Near TOTAL" role? Nonsense.

Medieval Islam has a better claim to have so preserved elements of ancient Greek culture, at least.

Incidentally, the phrase "pax Romana" is one of those propagandistic ones, like "pax Britannica" or "pax Americana," that -- to put it as mildly as possible -- covers a power of sins.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euhemeros:

Modern Catholic triumphalism is certainly a worry, epescially when it pollutes history. Take the book popular with conservative Catholic circles in the US: Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic church, by H.W. Crocker III.

http://tinyurl.com/cosn8

---

I'm a fairly big boy and don't mind people disageeing with my comments, especially if I'm wrong. Don't feel it necessary to bait from the sidelines. Do come straight to any points one may wish to make. But do make them.

While I have not read Triumph and have no criticisms for or against it, I would certainly maintain that Catholicism has been and continues to be in very similar fashion the most astonishing force for good in world hitory.

It would be rather stupid to be a part of her if one didn't see the divine within wouldn't it?

Whatever you might mean by "trimphalism" I have simply no idea however.

Is there a suggestion in anything I wrote, that I have disregarded either actual history or a reasonable presentation of its relattionships, then fire away? Think I hit my heard too hard on the ice, don't get out much or am woefully easily influenced as seems to be the case with at least one individual, them by all means, call me out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:

simonvallee do you have any links for any of this? There are no records or descriptions of any records I can recall reading, claiming that most of the victims of the burnings were male, except for a really weird guy that posts on the net and has a website - although gay men were often the targets and they just had to be accused of being gay they didn't have to be suspected of witch craft.

---

I said that in certain regions (not overall, the most enthusiastic countries like Germany killed mostly women so the majority of victimes were female overall), the majority of the victims were males, there is a passage on the site I posted earlier about some instances, I'll quote it here:

"Robin Briggs calculates that 20 to 25 percent of Europeans executed for witchcraft between the 14th and 17th centuries were male. Regional variations are again notable. France was "a fascinating exception to the wider pattern, for over much of the country witchcraft seems to have had no obvious link with gender at all. Of nearly 1,300 witches whose cases went to the parlement of Paris on appeal, just over half were men.[...] There are some extreme cases in peripheral regions of Europe, with men accounting for 90 percent of the accused in Iceland, 60 percent in Estonia and nearly 50 per cent in Finland."

Since the site is called "Gendercide Watch", I think we can be sure it's not an anti-feminist website. http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

There is also a site on it on a university's women's history department, http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

"In some areas, like Russia, the large majority of victims were male."

BTW, you said victims of the "burnings", this is factually incorrect, not all, not even a majority, of the people were burned. Beheading, hanging and other manners of killings were actually more "popular".

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
Since the site is called "Gendercide Watch", I think we can be sure it's not an anti-feminist website.

---

Can we?

quote:

---

The difficulty with Warren's framing of gendercide, though -- and this is true for the feminist analysis of gender-selective human-rights abuses as a whole -- is that the inclusive definition is not matched by an inclusive analysis of the mass killing of non-combatant men. Gendercide Watch was founded to encourage just such an inclusive approach. We believe that state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly targeted men through history, and that this phenomenon is pervasive in the modern world as well. Despite this prevalence of gendercide against males -- especially younger, "battle-age" men -- the subject has received almost no attention across a wide range of policy areas, humanitarian initiatives, and academic disciplines. We at Gendercide Watch feel it is one of the great taboos of the contemporary age, and must be ignored no longer.

We offer case-study treatments of gendercide against men in political, military, and ethnic conflicts over the last century-and-a-quarter. If the case-studies numerically outweigh those of mass killings of women in wars and other conflicts, this reflects our conviction that men are, indeed, generally the victims of the most severe gender-selective atrocities in such situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:

As I have said in my post researchers don't really agree on the numbers so it depends on who you think is the best researcher and who has the best sources.
The documentary by the NFB is well documented with many different veiwpoints. I have gone back to some of my books because of this thread and I think I'll go over some of the material again. I wouldn't trust the net for information without confirmation from another source. There has been a movement lately to rewrite the research and whitewash the involvement of the churches involved.
The church held such overwhelming power over all aspects of life in the last millenium that to say secular governments would have acted independantly on sentencing people with no input from the clergy is hard to believe.

---

I think SATAN was a livelier presence in the typical mind of the Middle Ages (which followed the Dark Ages.

Clerics were with some startling exceptions, quite often hardly educated, though in many ways, a peasant of that day had a lot more common sense then many of us today.

There was nothing that happened that wasn't in some way involving the church. (The church of most of our distant relatives.

I really haven't studied the terrible things done to "witches" and know that both Catholic and Protestant societies were involved. To what degree and extent the churches aided or resisted the "barbarity" (now there's a word with a rich hitory) I don't know. The average man and woman on the street felt very very serious about God and church and state and home, and had no problem typically with burning Catholic or Protestant heretics or witches.

quote:

---

I think SATAN was a livelier presence in the typical mind of the Middle Ages (which followed the Dark Ages.

---

Medieval historians don't talk about the "Dark Ages" anymore -- except in the very narrow sense of a period of about 300 years of British history, from around the first quarter of the 5th century until the 8th century, for which very few written records exist.

From the soc.history.medieval FAQ:

quote:

---

"Dark Ages" as a term is not much liked by today's medievalists, but it is still in use amongst popular writers and the general public. There are two variateions [sic] as to the origin of the name. The first of these is the percieved decline following the collapse of the Roman Empire. This is the definition which has led to the phrase being disliked, as it is not actually true that the period was significantly more barbaric than those immediately before or after.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

I must admit that my comment was based upon a news item that I think I heard on the radio at least several years ago. It stated clearly that religious people generally gave more. ( I also distinctly remember that they had happier sex lives as well.)

But the point your source quotes makes sense, and I certainly don't have any counterindications from other sources.

I support a couple of Catholic charities; a number of people I know have adopted families around the world, and I support to some degree other pretty worthwile outfits.

One difference in the Canadian thing is that a lot of Canadians really push for help and consideration for the guy down the streeet who just got globalized and so we have more social spending. The US is more individually involved when involved, and it would not surprise me if that emphasis weren't reflected in the study you mentionned. I do find that Canada is more like the US, day by day however and greatly bemoan this fact.

One last note, lest I sound like I consider myself and anyone "religious" or otherwise some paragon of pristine virtue. I really don't. I'm a pretty average Joe with more faults than I usually want to admit to to anybody, especially myself, hate going to confession and would rather sleep in than get up for mass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

"Near TOTAL" role? Excrement.

Medieval Islam has a better claim to have so preserved elements of ancient Greek culture, at least.

Incidentally, the phrase "pax Romana" is one of those propagandistic ones, like "pax Britannica" or "pax Americana," that -- to put it as mildly as possible -- covers a power of sins.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

NO argument. If I remember correctly it was Andronichus (Spelling uncertain)of Rhodes who unearthed the works of Aritotle and too Averroes and Jewish scholars like Maimonedes made significant contributions, but I am talking about the western civilizaton, and it was roman Catholicism that virtually totally was responsible for the staggering dynamic when Christianity and Greek thought got married.

No ship.

Also, again, no problem with your characterization of the Pax Romani. But the Pax referred to is not like the relatively brief period of peace enjoyed in the Middle ages which was a peace predicated upon statesmenship and a certain commonality, but rather it was a peace brought about by material means, force of arms.

quote:

---

...it was roman Catholicism that virtually totally was responsible for the staggering dynamic when Christianity and Greek thought got married.

---

I can't argue with this, but that's because I don't know what it means. Or could mean.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
[QB][/QB]

---

Thanks. There's a lot to the usages alright, and I certainly don't remember them all, but I refer to the period following the fall of Rome and have a vague Medeival notion in ,my head as to when it ended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
Just before you posted that, I took "excrement" out of my original post, thinking that it sounded a little harsh. Ah, well.

I can't argue with this, but that's because I don't know what it means. Or could mean.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

---

Heh, heh, heh. Good for you. I wish I had five bucks for everything I should have taken back but didn't. Funny how words gain weight in typefonts,eh?

Ya, it was a pretty garbled phrase. Sorry about that. My putative point is that it was the scholastics, Thomas Aqinas wt al, who performed the synthesis of Christain revelation and Aristotle, and this is the specific and primary intellectual European heritage.

I frankly don't remeber the points of divergence between the Averroists and Jewish commentaries, and I don't have any grounds whatever to dispute strong claims for Islamic scholarship and influence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
People, and I mean the average guy on the street really did believe that it was better to suffer temporal suffering and even death to save the soul, or the souls of one's society.

---

quote:

---

Heresy, like orthodoxy was not considered a light matter at all, but the only critical matter. It is still common human behaviour to consider lots of things worth dying for, and they are right. In a society wherein, God, the church, feudal authority who owed their title to the "divine right" and their subjects made turning heretics over to the Roman tradition of punishment completely natural and unrremarkable.

---

quote:

---

The Spanish inquisition which was very much not a work of the church but rather a very political act for political purposes misusing an office of the church was nonetheless a comparitively very civil procedure for it's time when compared to other country's practices.

---

The Spanish Inquisition was instituted by Ferdinand and Isabella, and in that sense it was separate and apart from the rest of the Inquisition.

But the Church was very much involved. Not only was the Inquisitor General appointed by the pope, but the major thrust of the Spanish Inquisition was to test the sincerity of Jews and Muslims who had converted to Christianity. The worst of the Inquisitors General, Torquemada, has become synonymous with fanatical cruelty in the name of religious persecution, and rightly so. The Spanish Inquisition lasted almost four centuries, and was far more brutal and better organized than the Inquisition in other countries.

quote:

---

Mass executions without trial or any sort of due process were a feature of the French Revolution where mass killings occurred at a horendous rate.

---

At least the guillotine was usually quick and painless; the Inquisition sought to maximize the pain suffered by its victims before they died, as a means of terrorizing the population.

quote:

---

The most significant flaw of this series is that it skims context, precinds from pointing out that civilization in general was like this.

---

quote:

---

And it's not like "civilization" has changed much, one of the reasons why I find the sublime doctrine of original sin (cover your ears)a fully sound one. Luther's hatred of Jews along with the intelligensia's adoption of Darwinian theory in social planning helped to visit a monstrous evil of modern secular origin.

---

Charles Darwin was not a social philosopher. He was a scientist. I know that makes him evil in the eyes of your Church, but that's no reason to slander him by associating his name with tyranny.

quote:

---

Ironically the Spanish inquisition pales into utter insignificance in the litany of human malefaction. It was very, very civil by today's standards.

---

quote:

---

I repectfully disagree. One can mislead through simple misdirection. To leave the number at an indefinite "thousands" and add that it continued for 600 years is grossly misleading, as was the constant reference to the "church" as being behind it. No mention was made that I caught of how the Pope protested repeatedly at the excesses of the usurpation of the office of the church.

---

Did the Inquisition not continue for 600 years? Did the Popes come to the defence of the thousands who were martyred by their followers in the name of the Catholic church? Of course not.

It is you who are trying to mislead people about the Inquisition. And it's all in support of your own personal agenda, which is to glorify your church and bury its true history of corruption, venality, and cruelty.

quote:

---

As I came to consider this most stunning of the world's in0stitutions in world history and its incredible origins, I read her teachings, and her wisdom. I found them to be ...of course,,,divine.

I find her view clear and reasonable and above all with a holy interest in what is true and good.

The failings of her memnbers are the cost of a universe designed for a relationahip of love. Even the planets are attracted to each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:

Thanks. There's a lot to the usages alright, and I certainly don't remember them all, but I refer to the period following the fall of Rome and have a vague Medeival notion in ,my head as to when it ended.

A common and I think quite groundless use seeks to include the Middle Ages and anything religious, which is in fact the vessel of the renewed flame of civilization as monks from Manx and Ireland set about relighting classical learning. The light.

---

quote:

---

At least the guillotine was usually quick and painless; the Inquisition sought to maximize the pain suffered by its victims before they died, as a means of terrorizing the population.

---

Nowhere have I seen any such accusations supported by any historian. In fact, initially the Inquisition was forbidden to use torture (unlike the secular courts of the days), then it was allowed but only on the condition that it neither treatens life nor limb. A famous inquisitor (Bernard Gui) apparently even said that he found torture inefficient as it forced a confession.

The Spanish Inquisition should be seen mostly as a political tool to repress minority religions and cultures in Spain to unify the country, for this is what it truly was. The Pope had very few if any influence over it, one even sent a letter asking directly for more leniency on the part of the Inquisition.

If you search information on legal systems and punishment in the Middle Ages, you'll find that the Inquisition is actually tame by the standards of the day. Even going to "beacons of civilization" like the Roman Empire or its survivor the Byzantine Empire shows that barbarism was very well alive in them. For example, the Byzantines once won a great victory against the Bulgarians, they captured 14 000 of them. They had them divided in groups of 100 men, and gouged the eyes out of all the men in each group except one who was allowed to keep an eye, to lead the others home. Who can forget what the Romans did to the rebelled slaves under Spartacus after their defeat, crucifying them all the way to Rome. Crucifixion was also a very horrible way to die, it could take days. Compared to that, the Inquisition which couldn't threaten life or limb with torture (and was supposed to limit torture to 15 minutes, under presence of a physician according to some sources I've seen) and had to give the condemned to secular authorities for execution was tame. It doesn't make it right of course, punishing or killing people for their beliefs will always be wrong, but I am annoyed by the ridiculous exaggeration and lack of perspective on it just as a way to slander the Church and Catholics.

Historians say Inquisition wasn't that bad

quote:

---

So how does it feel to belong to a church whose history of murder and torture exceeds even that of the Reign of Terror in 18th century France? Where was the due process in the secret trials of the Inquisition, with no right to counsel or to face one's accuser?

---

First, comparing the actions of the Church with an history of millenia to a few years in a certain country is not very fair. If we make a death toll per year, I think we'll find that La Terreur was much worse. Second, the Inquisition's trials allowed people to get lawyers (at least in its medieval form), but those lawyers would lose their right to practice if the accused was recognized guilty. As to facing their accusers, you're right, the Inquisition didn't let them do it, but they allowed the accused to name those who bore them mortal hatred, which would make it impossible for them to make a testimony.

Also, note that the burning/killing of witches is not directly linked to Christianity and its churches, in many cases Pagan regions did do so. That's why in the 9th to 11th century, the Catholic Church actually went and told the local authorities of certain regions (incl. Scandinavia where conversion was recent) to stop burning "witches", that it was unchristian to do so, for it was unchristian to believe that witches had any power.

quote:

---

Charles Darwin was not a social philosopher. He was a scientist. I know that makes him evil in the eyes of your Church, but that's no reason to slander him by associating his name with tyranny.

---

quote:

---

Also, note that the burning/killing of witches is not directly linked to Christianity and its churches, in many cases Pagan regions did do so.

---

quote:

---

This statement is, by all sources I have researched, a false one.

---

I see no argument that supports what you claimed in what you later said. The fact is that hunting witches was common in pagan societies, the belief in witches casting evil spells on people and putting curses on harvests is one that has pagan roots and against which the Catholic Church stood in its early days, declaring such belief unchristian. That the Church later decided to participate to some extent (even if the secular world of the time was far more involved) is undeniable.

quote:

---

There is one site on the web that mentions Phillip of France in the 1300's who defied the Pope and ended up burning all of the leaders of the Knights of Templar and claiming their wealth, which apparently was what he wanted all along.

---

quote:

---

...Third, the only witch-hunting manual most people have seen was written by an inquisitor. In the 1970's, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text's demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church's "official" position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus...

---

quote:

---

To deny the involvement of the Christian churches in persecuting women and some men in the time period being discussed on this thread, is simply contradicting every source on the matter.

---

I never did so, I only said that the Church itself wasn't normally actively involved in it, which is true according to the sources. The very large majority of victims were sentenced and executed through secular courts. Priests may have participated, but the Church generally wasn't the major participant in them. In fact, I think it's only fair to note that in the 9th to 11th century, the Catholic Church actually tried to stop witch-hunts.

As to the Malleus Maleficarum... guard yourself for some surprising facts, found on Wikipedia and in an on-line essay by an historian:

-The Malleus Maleficarum was never endorsed nor accepted by the Catholic Church. The book includes a papal bull, but the Pope never read the book and couldn't have endorsed it, he simply issued it because the author complained that he had a bad reception amongst other priests in his efforts toward writing and publishing it.

-The Inquisition condemned the book and of course didn't use it. In fact, quite the opposite, the Inquisition condemned the author of the book for writing it in conflict with recognized Catholic dogma and with the legal proceedings they used, and for forging a false endorsement from the University of Cologne.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
Nowhere have I seen any such accusations supported by any historian.

---

The public pomp and ceremony of the auto da fe was an important festive spectacle and social occasion, celebrating the power of the Catholic Church with a huge procession to the site of a heretic's public execution.

quote:

---

In fact, initially the Inquisition was forbidden to use torture (unlike the secular courts of the days), then it was allowed but only on the condition that it neither treatens life nor limb.

---

The standard you describe sounds very similar to the official US policy today - the one that led to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

The Church regarded torture as a rite of purification, a way of purging evil. If the inquisitor thought the accused was not sincere in his or her recantation of heresy, he was required to apply torture without mercy for the sake of the accused's immortal soul.

quote:

---

A famous inquisitor (Bernard Gui) apparently even said that he found torture inefficient as it forced a confession.

---

quote:

---

The Spanish Inquisition should be seen mostly as a political tool to repress minority religions and cultures in Spain to unify the country, for this is what it truly was.

---

The Spanish Inquisition was started by the Pope at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella.
Your pathetic attempts to distance the Catholic Church from the Inquisition by suggesting that the Church was standing by helplessly on the sidelines are quite disingenuous. The Catholic Church was profoundly political, and the pervasive force of religion throughout all social and political aspects of medieval society is recognized by even apologists for the Church, such as Marvin R. O'Connell:

quote:

---

…to speak of "Church and State" during the Middle Ages, and indeed much later, is to draw a distinction without a difference. That the civil and ecclesiastical entities represented essentially separate spheres, that religion should be a strictly private matter left to the choice of each individual, that persons of conflicting religious views or with no religious views at all could live in fruitful harmony - these ideas were unknown during the time the Roman inquisitors were harassing the Albigensians in the south of France, and unknown also when, two centuries later, Ferdinand and Isabella asked for the establishment of an Inquisition unique to Spain. Pope Sixtus IV, in granting their request, explicitly testified to the principle that it was the first duty of kings to nurture and defend the faith of their people, and implicitly he professed what was for him and his contemporaries a truism, that no society could exist without religious uniformity, that - to appropriate a celebrated statement of another era - "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Here was a conviction fully appreciated, incidentally, by the likes of Elizabeth I and the Dutch Calvinists, who gave it full rein in their own persecution-policies.

---

quote:

---

As suggested above, a Europe-wide consensus had indeed developed during the Middle Ages that religious dissidents could not be tolerated if true religion and harmonious society were to endure. Add to this the universal conviction that heretics adhered to their objectionable opinions not out of conscience but out of bad will, and it comes as no surprise that increasingly stringent laws were enacted throughout Christendom against those who refused to conform. Since such a refusal was judged the worst possible crime, the ultimate penalty for it everywhere was the worst form of capital punishment imaginable, burning at the stake. Though this ferocious sentence was carried out relatively rarely, the prospect of it did act as a deterrent and did induce all except the most stout-hearted to disavow their heterodoxies once brought to light by a judicial process.

---

quote:

---

If you search information on legal systems and punishment in the Middle Ages, you'll find that the Inquisition is actually tame by the standards of the day.

---

Torture is practised in many of the world's countries today. I suppose that would justify the modern Catholic Church practising some “tamer” form of torture, if it chose to do so?

The historians who said the Inquisition “wasn't that bad” were all hand-picked by the Vatican to view the secret archives of the Inquisition. Big surprise when they said it wasn't that bad; 125,000 people had been tried for heresy by the Spanish Inquisition alone, but “only” 1% had been murdered. Not nearly as bad as nearby Portugal, where the execution rate was 5.7%. The vast majority, of course, in order to escape death, were required to confess their heresy and, in addition, cast suspicion of heresy upon their neighbours. Claiming innocence was futile, unless you could quickly and accurately identify your anonymous accuser as an enemy. What percentage, in each case, had been mutilated and tortured, or imprisoned for decades, or had their lives, livelihoods, and families otherwise ruined, but were allowed to live, the historians didn't say.

quote:

---

First, comparing the actions of the Church with an history of millenia to a few years in a certain country is not very fair. If we make a death toll per year, I think we'll find that La Terreur was much worse.

---

The death toll doesn't tell the whole story anyway. Thousands more were tortured by the Inquisition but not killed. Many were imprisoned for long periods of time. Many more were publicly shamed and humiliated by having to wear special clothing or signs, and their lives were ruined. Who knows how many good, intelligent people were shown the instruments of torture before they recanted their “heresies”, and were intimidated into silence by the Church for the rest of their days, as famously happened to Galileo. The ideology of total, abject conformity to irrational beliefs that was being promulgated by the Inquisition had a chilling - nay, crushing - effect on intellectual inquiry of any kind by those who were outside the Church hierarchy. This, of course, allowed the Church to claim, without lying, that it was the sole repository and guardian of human knowledge and education in the middle ages. It was a monopoly they earned by crushing all competitors.

It is dishonest to compare the Inquisition with medieval criminal and civil law systems. In the first place, as the Church pretended to stand for “Christian” principles like mercy and forgiveness, it ought to have been opposing the excesses of medieval “justice” rather than emulating them. Instead, the Church's imprimatur on torture was an encouragement to the use of brutality in civil and criminal law.

In the second place, the Inquisition was punishing people who had committed no “crimes” of any kind, other than non-conformism. They had not broken any laws or harmed anyone; they just didn't share the beliefs of the Church. In short, the Inquisition had nothing to do with “justice”, even in the primitive medieval sense of the word.

I know that “Saint” Thomas Aquinas would disagree with me. "If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power,” he wrote, “there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy."

quote:

---

Second, the Inquisition's trials allowed people to get lawyers (at least in its medieval form), but those lawyers would lose their right to practice if the accused was recognized guilty. As to facing their accusers, you're right, the Inquisition didn't let them do it, but they allowed the accused to name those who bore them mortal hatred, which would make it impossible for them to make a testimony.

---

quote:

---

Come now, "the Catholic Church sees all scientists as evil"! That's completely dumb. Get your rabid anti-catholicism under control. Sure, the Catholic Church is not white as snow, far from it, it has done and continues to do wrong actions, but to paint it as a bunch of greedy, evil, opportunistic, pedophiliac, retarded, anti-science old men is completely stupid and shows an intolerance and generalization that wouldn't be tolerated against other groups.

---

My remarks that you quoted were a response to a libel against Charles Darwin made by Paul 2057, who suggested, albeit obliquely, that Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was some kind of evil social theory that had led to unspeakable crimes. It's undeniable that the Catholic Church has had a hate on for Darwin since day one. Defeating his scientific ideas of the origin of species has been a major project of the Catholic and other Christian churches in the United States and elsewhere for many decades now.

quote:

---

Yes, Philippe le Bel used his influence on the Pope to force an Inquisition into their affairs and to dismantle the order because he feared their influence and they had refused to loan him money. Though it is incorrect to claim that they ordered their leaders burned. The leaders were not burned because they had confessed to certain heresies, but because they had confessed then taken those confessions back, claiming that their order was innocent. A bit like Jeanne d'Arc, she wasn't burned because she had worn men's clothings and acted like a man (though that was a crime in the legal system of the time), but because after confessing and having been sentenced to some kind of imprisonment, she had gone back on her confession and worn men's clothings again. Then she was burned as an "unrepentant heretic".

---

There is a point quite long past when what one rights is simply reprehensible, nut really, you should be embarassed. I am embarassed for you.

Roman Catholicism has no problem whatever with evolutionary theory, including recombinant DNA and natural selection. Such ideas were expounded by Saint Augustine in the 4th century for God's sake. It doesn't require much interest in presenting truth to discover this no-brainer. If, that is one is even remotely interested in simple brute facts.

A Catholic priest and his famous genteic experiments with peas comprise some of the earliest work in the study of genetics.

I will leave it to others to judge the integrity and honesty of such posts which one would think would be almost impossible in the 21st century, but there it is in black and white. Inquisitors had much higer standards.

I will respond to the misdirection logical fallacies and ignorance, but not with a view to changing the mind of anyone so steeped in whatever it is. Rather just to counter the what seems and sounds an awful lot like bile and anti-Catholic bigotry with some simple facts.

Incidentally. Those interested in a dispassionate consideration of the 70 years or so of Darwin's influence in the halls of academe that preceded and in signifiacant ways provided an intellectual climate for the eugenics of the Nazis will discover this to be completely true.

A great many scientists tripped over themselves to endear themselves to the nazis and a great many others just kept their heads low and didn't make any noise, competing strenuously for their money. There were few exceptions. Haekel an avid Darwinist in particular advanced the eugenic principles found in Hitler's racial purity theory.

Many are familiar with The "Origin", but should also consider content in the "Descent of Man", where it is explicitly stated that the survival of the fittest principles do and must apply to human beings as well. The Judeo-Christian idea that the human person is made in the image and likeness of God and commanded our respect was replaced in many instances by the new amoral philosophy.

This is no libel on Darwin, but easily researched historical fact on a very significant contributing factor in nazi eugenics as was Luther's teaching and anti-semitic attitudes a not insignificant factor in the holocaust.

Incidentally, while I find some fundamental protestant theological positions to be at variance with both history and the faith of the apostles and further consider protestantism responsible for a host of social ills that have in many instances wreaked havoc on human society, I have no particular interest in detailing them ad nauseam, bashing and condemning and starting a fight. My fascination with evil is really quite limited.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Paul 2057 ]

Blaming Darwin for the rise of Nazism? That's rich.

Your ignorant remarks nicely illustrate my point about the almost fanatical hatred the Catholic Church has traditionally had towards Darwinism.

German scientists drew from this source and the intelligensia embraced it. Where did you think it came from? Desist in your own libels. Read.

Some Eugenic Ideas in Darwin, The Descent of Man,

1st ed., 1871 / 2nd ed., 1874.

Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ...

Must faithful Catholics accept evolution as true? No, but they may accept it, with the proper theological qualifications in place, without contradicting their faith.

Whether man's body actually evolved from a subhuman species isn't, as such, a theological issue even if, indirectly, it may have some theological implications; it is mainly a question of scientific evidence. Perhaps John Paul agrees with those who think the scientific evidence supports evolution. But Catholics, as Catholics, are not obliged to hold that scientific assessment.

In recent years the theory of evolution has been challenged by critics who contend that the scientific evidence doesn't support it. Some critics even attack the theory as a form of naturalism, the philosophical view that nature is all there is-no God, no supernatural, no transcendental order of being. The idea is that human existence can, at least in principle, be wholly explained in terms of scientific laws.

Evolution, on this view, wholly accounts for human origins, in purely physical terms.

Whatever the scientific evidence for evolution, a purely naturalistic formulation of the theory won't hold up philosophically or theologically, anymore than a purely naturalistic account of human nature as it exists today will.

Human beings possess spiritual souls.
That means, among other things, that we have intellects and wills, neither of which can be entirely reduced to merely natural, scientific explanations without jettisoning the reliability of all human thought and human freedom.

For, as C. S. Lewis and others have argued, unless at least some of our thoughts aren't explicable wholly in terms of the physical processes of the natural world, the very scientific idea of nature itself is unreliable.

For it, too, would be merely the product of biochemically determined thinking.

And unless at least some of our choices aren't wholly produced by the operation of purely natural, physical laws, all our choices, including moral decisions to kill, lie, cheat or steal, would be mere products of nature.

We would make them because the physical, biochemical processes of the universe compel us to; we couldn't do otherwise.

Now we all think people's thoughts or decisions are at least sometimes explicable in terms of mere physical processes. When, for instance, a drunkard tells us he's seen a pink elephant, we explain it entirely in terms of alcohol's effect on his nervous system. Or when a captured loyal soldier divulges strategic secrets to the enemy under the influence of conditioning and drugs, we don't consider him a traitor. We say he was brainwashed, and explain his actions that way rather than as a free decision to betray his country.

Those who would reduce the human mind to matter- philosophical naturalists-claim that all human thoughts and decisions are similarly reducible to particular states of brain chemistry.

But no naturalist really thinks all thoughts as unreliable as his theory suggests and few, we can suspect, would deny human freedom altogether.

For doing so, as we have seen, would undermine science-indeed, all knowledge.

If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false.

A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true.

He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket.

He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

A Crucial Distinction
Obviously, John Paul II distinguishes between evolutionary theories compatible with sound philosophy and theology, and those, such as naturalism, which aren't. In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he spoke of "theories of evolution," rather than simply the theory of evolution, to make the distinction. Believers who defend or attack evolution should make the same distinction.

When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed, it should be challenged on those grounds.

But when a view of evolution doesn't contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with what John Paul II calls "the truth about man"-then its validity depends on the scientific evidence.

Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds.

That distinction will, no doubt, displease those who think the theory of evolution not only scientifically false but theologically erroneous. Little can be said to persuade Fundamentalist Protestants otherwise.

But Catholics who criticize Pope John Paul II for not condemning evolution should recall Pope Pius XII's now half-century old teaching, and avoid trying, in their anti-evolutionary fervor, to be more Catholic than the pope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
M. SPECTOR WROTE: I believe I have complete control of my rabid anti-Catholicism. You, however, might want to rethink your adherence to the hey-nobody's-perfect school of Catholic apologetics.
My remarks that you quoted were a response to a libel against Charles Darwin made by Paul 2057, who suggested, albeit obliquely, that Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was some kind of evil social theory that had led to unspeakable crimes. It's undeniable that the Catholic Church has had a hate on for Darwin since day one. Defeating his scientific ideas of the origin of species has been a major project of the Catholic and other Christian churches in the United States and elsewhere for many decades now.
quote:

There is a point quite long past, when what one rights is simply reprehensible. I don't know what private issue inspires your obsessive animosity. It is certainly not a love of truth, history or justice.I am a littel embarassed for you.

Roman Catholicism has no problem whatever with evolutionary theory, including recombinant DNA and natural selection.

Such ideas were expounded by Saint Augustine in the 4th century for God's sake and later by Thomas Aguinas. Did you think they just emerged with Darwin?

It doesn't require much interest in presenting truth to discover this no-brainer. If, that is one is even remotely interested in simple brute facts.

A Catholic priest and his famous genteic experiments with peas comprise some of the earliest work in the study of genetics.

I will leave it to others to judge the integrity and honesty of such posts which one would think would be almost impossible in the 21st century, but there it is in black and white. Inquisitors had much higer standards.

I will respond to the misdirection logical fallacies and ignorance, but not with a view to changing the mind of anyone so steeped in whatever it is. Rather just to counter the what seems and sounds an awful lot like bile and anti-Catholic bigotry with some simple facts.

Incidentally. Those interested in a dispassionate consideration of the 70 years or so of Darwin's influence in the halls of academe that preceded and in signifiacant ways provided an intellectual climate for the eugenics of the Nazis will discover this to be completely true.

A great many scientists tripped over themselves to endear themselves to the nazis and a great many others just kept their heads low and didn't make any noise, competing strenuously for their money. There were few exceptions. Haekel an avid Darwinist in particular advanced the eugenic principles found in Hitler's racial purity theory.

Many are familiar with The "Origin", but should also consider content in the "Descent of Man", where it is explicitly stated that the survival of the fittest principles do and must apply to human beings as well. The Judeo-Christian idea that the human person is made in the image and likeness of God and commanded our respect was replaced in many instances by the new amoral philosophy.

This is no libel on Darwin, but easily researched historical fact on a very significant contributing factor in nazi eugenics as was Luther's teaching and anti-semitic attitudes a not insignificant factor in the holocaust.

Incidentally, while I find some fundamental protestant theological positions to be at variance with both history and the faith of the apostles and further consider protestantism responsible for a host of social ills that have in many instances wreaked havoc on human society, I have no particular interest in detailing them ad nauseam, bashing and condemning and starting a fight. My fascination with evil is really quite limited.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Paul 2057 ]

---

Context

Ferdinand's main aim was to consolidate the independent realms that he had gained by his marriage to Isabella into a single state to be left to his heir. Ferdinand was an astute politician, and developed close ties with St. Peter's in Rome as part of his political manoeuvering. However, he did not want the Pope to control the Inquisition in Spain, as he was jealous of any other power within his borders.

The Pope did not want the Inquisition established in Spain at all, but Ferdinand insisted. He prevailed upon Rodrigo Borgia, then Bishop of Valencia and the Papal Vice-Chancellor as well as a cardinal, to lobby Rome on his behalf. Borgia was partially successful, as Pope Sixtus IV sanctioned the Inquisition only in the state of Castile. Later, Borgia was to have Spain's support for his own papacy as Pope Alexander VI.

Sixtus IV was Pope when the Spanish Inquisition was instituted in Seville. He worked against it, but bowed to pressure from Ferdinand, who threatened to withhold military support from his kingdom of Sicily. Sixtus issued a papal Bull establishing the order in 1478. Nevertheless, Sixtus was unhappy with the excesses of the Inquisition and took measures to suppress their abuses.

The Pope disapproved of the extreme measures being taken by Ferdinand, and categorically disallowed their spread to the kingdom of Aragon. He alleged that the Inquisition was a cynical ploy by Ferdinand and Isabella to confiscate the Jews' property. Despite his title of "Most Catholic King", and his ongoing attempts to woo the Pope to his side politically, Ferdinand continued to resist direct Papal influence in his lands. He decided to use strong-arm tactics against the Pope.

Ferdinand had some important levers he could use to bend the Pope to his will. Venice, traditionally the defender against the Turks in the East, was greatly weakened after a protracted war which lasted from 1463 to 1479. The Turks had taken possession of Greece and the Greek islands. France, as always, was looking for signs of weakness which it could use to its advantage. And in the midst of all these threats, in August of 1480 the Sultan of Turkey had attacked Italy itself, at the port of Otranto, with several thousand janissaries who pillaged the countryside for three days, largely unopposed.

Under these conditions, Ferdinand's position in Sicily — he was king of Sicily as well as Aragon and several other kingdoms — gave him the leverage he needed. He threatened to withhold military support for the Holy See, and the Pope relented.

Sure, the Inquisition resorted to torture, as most if not all courts of the time did, but it had big restrictions on how to do it to limit pain. Does it make it right? Hell no. But it's unfair to attack the Church for it, for in the context of the time, its position might well have been mildly progressive. You say the guidelines are about the same as the US' on the War on Terror now, you're probably right, the big fucking difference you don't get is that the US is NOW, the Inquisition was 700 years ago in a time where life was very cheap and "human rights" hadn't even been evoked as far as I know.

Yes, the "crimes" hunted by the Inquisition weren't even crimes to start with, and it was bad. However, it's called context. At the same time, a samurai could cut down a peasant on the spot if he thought he didn't give him enough respect and not even be annoyed by the authorities. Centuries before, Muslims had duked it out in a civil war over some aspects of their faith, in the middle ages, IIRC, it was not rare for Shiites to be killed by Sunnis who considered them heretics. Medieval society was not prone to freedom and social liberties, and didn't tolerate differences much, and not just in Europe, but in Asia too.

You can't treat historical actions as if they were presently taking place. You can't ask an present organization to bear the guilt for things it did a millenia before, especially not in the case when if you place those actions in the context of the time, you find out they actually were less bad than the average of the time. Talk about the Church's stupid policies on condoms and, well, most manners relating to sex, that's fair game and a matter for action. But doing smear attempts to try to make people feel ashamed of their religious identification through what the Church did centuries ago reeks of anti-Catholic bigotry.

quote:

---

You are making this into a numbers game,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Do your anti-scientific pamphleteering elsewhere, please.

This thread is for discussion of the Secret Files of the Inquisition.

---

quote:

---

Your ignorant remarks nicely illustrate my point about the almost fanatical hatred the Catholic Church has traditionally had towards Darwinism.

In point of fact, the Nazis had a lot more friends among your church than they did among evolutionary scientists.

---

It's a bit bizarre that you would ascribe as much power to the Catholic Church as you do. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps, like art, religion is partly a reflection of society and probably to some degree a combination of current thought with previous collective wisdom? Some athiests have evolved to this position (e.g. James Connolly). Religion always operates within a context and is shaped by that context. But if you are going to raise the issue of "Hitler's Pope", you should probably have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge Archbishop Romero, the five American nuns who were mudered by right wing death squads, the numerous Jesuit priests who fought and died along side the FMLN, and that is just El Salvador.

quote:

---

Somewhere in between there are serious scholars that are trying to understand what happened. I have heard it argued that there only 100,000 actual records of witch trials that have been recovered so far, therefore there could be no more than 100,000 people accused of witchcraft. I find this extremely suspicious research as it doesn't take into account atrociously bad record keeping to begin with in an almost universally illiterate society, the fact that records are organic material and susceptible to rot and mildew, and the fact that in some of the worst areas of witch persecution there have been 2 WW in which whole cities were bombed reapeatedly resulting in the permanent loss of all kinds of records.

---

Actually, the number is an estimate based on how much has been discovered and an estimate to compensate for missing records. Historians aren't dumb. In fact, if you check the site Contrarian posted, IIRC, it mentionned that when they discover the records in regions where they had only an estimate before, normally the number goes down, not up.

BTW, "male academia"? Science doesn't have a gender, to disregard the studies made by certain scientists because they are male is ridiculous. It's that kind of thinking that makes me refuse to be called a feminist even if I am in favor of sexual equality. Also, in the matter of the study of ancient history, any scholar is a "ivory tower scholar", there's no way to go out on the field and study the subject up close.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
Sure, the actions by today's standards are horrible, but by medieval standards, and even before, they were pretty tame.

---

I don't want to get into a big theological argument. I just want to point out that it is a dishonest cop-out to try to excuse the crimes of the Church, committed in the name of an eternally moral and loving God, by saying standards were different back then. God didn't think so, so who are you to disagree?

Then of course you undercut your own argument by referring to monstrous crimes committed in the 20th century by non-religious people [as if you were trying to refute a position, not held by anybody in this thread, that being Catholic makes you commit horrible crimes that non-Catholics wouldn't dream of doing], which of course tends to show that medieval times were actually no more or less brutal than modern times. So your whole historical moral relativism argument goes out the window.

Everyone trying to justify, excuse, or minimize evils committed in the past eventually resorts to the moral relativism argument. Even a span of a few decades can serve in such arguments as an enormous moral turnaround. For example, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among the greatest war crimes ever, are sought to be excused because the morality of warfare was so much "different" back then [as if 21st century warfare were any more moral, or medieval methods were any less]. And people were making that argument in the 1970s! But the same people wouldn't dream of making moral-relativist arguments to minimize the Nazi Holocaust, which actually pre-dated Hiroshima.

Even the Vatican was forced, after centuries of denial, to admit that their treatment of Galileo was wrong. They don't try to cling to the moral relativist position that says Galileo got off lightly compared to the other victims of the Inquisition like Giordano Bruno.

Also, I fear that Islam is stuck in the middle ages and wishes to stay there. I see a close similarity between Islam and the old Church.

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: libertarian ]

quote:

---

...I don't want to get into a big theological argument. I just want to point out that it is a dishonest cop-out to try to excuse the crimes of the Church, committed in the name of an eternally moral and loving God, by saying standards were different back then. God didn't think so, so who are you to disagree?...

---

quote:

---

If your God is eternal and unchanging then his moral teachings and standards must be eternal and unchanging also. His church must of necessity embody his teachings and eternal moral standards. Yet you seek to excuse the church's immorality during the middle ages, on the basis that everybody else was supposedly just as mean and rotten back then as the Inquisition was. Even your God?

I don't want to get into a big theological argument. I just want to point out that it is a dishonest cop-out to try to excuse the crimes of the Church, committed in the name of an eternally moral and loving God, by saying standards were different back then. God didn't think so, so who are you to disagree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The Roman Catholic Church were the Nazis of the 15th century.

I would be interested to hear from any Catholics who watched the program as to how they feel about adhering to an organization with such an odious tradition. Thay can't blame it on a few bad apples, a few "extremists." This was mainstream, official doctrine and practice, sanctioned at the highest levels, and it lasted for 600 years.

In particular I'd like to see how anyone can justify regarding the church as having any moral authority at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
But that's where you falsely lump in literalists with Catholics and other religious groups who have evolutionary religions.

---

How many amendments have there been to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?

How many revisions have there been of the Bible?

quote:

---

If your God is eternal and unchanging then his moral teachings and standards must be eternal and unchanging also. His church must of necessity embody his teachings and eternal moral standards. Yet you seek to excuse the church's immorality during the middle ages, on the basis that everybody else was supposedly just as mean and rotten back then as the Inquisition was. Even your God?

---

You seek to make an equivalent that doesn't exist between the Church and God, it's quite surprising to see your weak argument that since God is supposed to be unchanging, the Church must also be unchanging. People can be wrong, texts can be badly interpreted, since the Catholic Church has a s a policy that the Bible is not the litteral truth and must be interpreted, there is of course the possibility of human failing in its interpretation (and I don't give a shit about the Old Testament too).

If you try to make me say that these actions aren't wrong, you will never succeed, I never considered them right. The difference is I don't exaggerate nor do I pretend that the social norms are intemporal. Even if my own approach to morals is Kantian (no set of law but simple principles to establish moral conduct), I understand that the social norms and the culture influence people on their ability to take decisions on what is moral or not. In that, I do believe that we are more advanced than the medieval mindset, we have evolved, but we must remember that people in the Middle Ages had different perceptions of what surrounded them, of what was right and what was not, to expect them to take decisions like we did and have the same moral concepts is irrealistic. Therefore, the actions should be seen for what they truly are, terrible wrongs committed because they didn't know better, they were short-sighted on many moral matters because their reflexions on the subject weren't pushed as hard as ours now are. The important thing is that they know better now.

quote:

---

Then of course you undercut your own argument by referring to monstrous crimes committed in the 20th century by non-religious people [as if you were trying to refute a position, not held by anybody in this thread, that being Catholic makes you commit horrible crimes that non-Catholics wouldn't dream of doing], which of course tends to show that medieval times were actually no more or less brutal than modern times. So your whole historical moral relativism argument goes out the window.

---

First, I didn't make the comments about the 20th century.

Second, medieval times were more brutal even if horrors have happened recently. It shows merely that barbarism is always at the gate and only through education and fostering intelligence can we avoid falling back in the progress we made. Even now, in many countries, especially in the third world, ignorant people still hold mindsets we would call medieval. The same tribalism, the negation of individual integrity and the same lack of regard for those not of the group. In the Middle Ages, people wouldn't even wince if we told them an invading Christian army slaughtered the population of a Muslim town they conquered as happened in Jerusalem, and they would only feel the desire for revenge and not indignation if they heard of a Muslim army slaughtering the population of a Christian city they conquered as they did in Constantinople. It was expected, it was the primitive mindset.

Third, I'm not arguing for moral relativism, I'm arguing that our perception of what morals are depends on what we were taught, on what we believe we know. It's not that what is moral or not is relative, it is that none of us can pretend to know for sure and completely about morals. Other people with other teachings and concepts will arrive to different conclusions, for so we are humans, imperfect creatures in body and mind. The important is that we struggle to better ourselves and humanity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
simonvallee I am not discussing science- I haven't even mentioned it in any of my posts. I am talking about researchers in the field of the Inquisition and the European Witch Hunts and several of the male researchers have an obvious agenda as i described in my post. Having said that I note that some of the female researchers have an equal if opposite agenda.
Your posts are all over the map, and you're essentially arguing your points from the separation of church and state which is not accurate or useful in a debate on the first 1,500 years of Christianity or more specifically the period from around the 11th to the 17th centuries.
I also find your apologist tone for the church's role in a repressive society to be obvious and not very useful in advancing the discussion. To really discover the position of women in society as defined by the church you need go no further than the church decrees themselves, which I have noticed that you ignore. The writing of some of the saints of the church when it came to women is downright frightening.
I don't feel that anything new has been added to this thread as far as real knowledge goes so I will bow out and continue some research on the subject. Some of the essays and researchers linked to on this thread are very suspect. Jenny Gibbons for instance has a masters in history, from where? None of her credentials in any of the places her article is posted can be verified, some of the male researchers are linked to sites representing Christian publications with an obvious stake in denying the role of Christianity in denigrating women.

---

Are you not an "apologist" for feninism? And what are the roots of feminism if not a marxist atheistic materialism as expounded through engels and others who decided to look at life through the rather limited lens of power and supposed exploitation

I'm no right wing capitalist by the way, but rather a left-leaning liberal as are so many Catholic but Marxists liked the idea of matriachy for which there is virtually no evidence on the planet, as it was their view, that the family was a byproduct of the evil of private property. This perverse and stupid notion fit their ideal of children really being entities of the state as they moved inexorably toward the Hegelian heaven.

It was also part of their secular faith, that men as more involved with actual work external to the family were just better, and concommitently denigraded women as women and mothers and wives.

They gain status, as is common with many feminists theorists insofar as they are like men. An absurd and woman-rejecting rductio.

The founding, dare I say seminal voice of feminism was of course Simone de Beauvoir, who picked up similar dialectics from her semi-significant other ("semi" in that they had such a perverse and unhappy relationship), Sartre aheistic existentialsm, including the usual false dialectic.

It's all about "freedom", a denial of essence in favour of existence. Atheism was postulated because, if God exists then there would be values independent of one's own "self-making". She had some really serious self-esteem issues. To her, even twelve year old girls were "thwarted boys".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
Nonsense, the Catholic Church was one of the few organizations that actually fought against eugenics. In fact, if you want to play the numbers game for the twentieth century you will find massacres by secular forces all over the place. I'm not saying that secularism neccesarily leads to genocide, but the replacement of God or Gods by human totalitarian leaders was not a wonderful experience for people in the Soviet Union, Kampuchea, Germany, North Korea, China etc...

It's a bit bizarre that you would ascribe as much power to the Catholic Church as you do. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps, like art, religion is partly a reflection of society and probably to some degree a combination of current thought with previous collective wisdom? Some athiests have evolved to this position (e.g. James Connolly). Religion always operates within a context and is shaped by that context. But if you are going to raise the issue of "Hitler's Pope", you should probably have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge Archbishop Romero, the five American nuns who were mudered by right wing death squads, the numerous Jesuit priests who fought and died along side the FMLN, and that is just El Salvador.

Now that I think about it, the inquisition was largely about sweeping dramatic accusations being made with little to no evidence. Hmmmm....

---

If there is one thing that now, really pisses me off at the immensity of the hypocrisy and injustice, it is that vile and odius blatantly false, even monstrous accusation against pope Pius XII.

Started by the Hitler youth playright, who had later joined Marxist-leftist groups, he took this fabrication of coldwar "agitprop" agitation - propaganda designed to undermine the moral authority of the West, there was absolutely nothing to this foul bit of crud as very well detailed in "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" by Rabbi David G. Dalin. Rabbi Dalin states unreservedly that this perfidious campagn of deceit has gone so far as to usurp even the monstrous evil and suffering of the holocaust in the service of relativist secular agendas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
But that's where you falsely lump in literalists with Catholics and other religious groups who have evolutionary religions. Catholicism, Islam, Judaism etc... all have central tenets to their respective religions, but have clerics to interpret the word. The cleric class is not infallible and the word can be misinterpreted and even corrupted. Galileo is a perfect example of how Catholicism is different from the evangelical groups who take the Bible literally. The Vatican concedes from time to time that it has erred. Otherwise we would never have had Vatican II. The point is this, as Catholics we believe that we don't fully understand God or that which is commanded of us. Obviously, if you don't have full comprehension you are fallible. Literalist religious practioners are a different kettle as they do believe that they fully comprehend God and what is commanded of them. The key difference is humility, and we Catholics are born to be humble and to feel guilty about everything.

---

Heh heh.

I might be mistaken in this, but I can't take the posts of this guy seriously. Surely almost no one can have so little intellectual grasp of simple concepts and clearly presented positions and remain so befogged and absurdly inquisitorial.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
... Surely almost no one can have so little intellectual grasp of simple concepts and clearly presented positions and remain so befogged and absurdly inquisitorial.

I know that vice dulls the intellect, but this dull?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:

Heh heh.

I might be mistaken in this, but I can't take the posts of this guy seriously. Surely almost no one can have so little intellectual grasp of simple concepts and clearly presented positions and remain so befogged and absurdly inquisitorial.

I know that vice dulls the intellect, but this dull?!

---

Of course, the occasional dullard reinforces my belief that the Catholic church got it wrong a very long time ago. People like you keep religion going in the wrong direction... Namely away from the Creator, as opposed to closer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:

First, I didn't make the comments about the 20th century.

Second, medieval times were more brutal even if horrors have happened recently. It shows merely that barbarism is always at the gate and only through education and fostering intelligence can we avoid falling back in the progress we made. Even now, in many countries, especially in the third world, ignorant people still hold mindsets we would call medieval. The same tribalism, the negation of individual integrity and the same lack of regard for those not of the group. In the Middle Ages, people wouldn't even wince if we told them an invading Christian army slaughtered the population of a Muslim town they conquered as happened in Jerusalem, and they would only feel the desire for revenge and not indignation if they heard of a Muslim army slaughtering the population of a Christian city they conquered as they did in Constantinople. It was expected, it was the primitive mindset.

Third, I'm not arguing for moral relativism, I'm arguing that our perception of what morals are depends on what we were taught, on what we believe we know. It's not that what is moral or not is relative, it is that none of us can pretend to know for sure and completely about morals. Other people with other teachings and concepts will arrive to different conclusions, for so we are humans, imperfect creatures in body and mind. The important is that we struggle to better ourselves and humanity.

Fourth, nobody is excusing anything, we are only saying that you are unfair in your judgment of the Church because of your dogmatic anti-Catholicism. That actions have to be taken in context and that they have to be judged accordingly. It doesn't make them less wrong, but it gives perspective and it lessens the attempts of smear that some do, like you for instance. It seems to me however that when the normal accepted norm is that torture is acceptable and almost nobody contests it, that limitating it to lessen suffering caused by it may not be right, but it's a step in the right direction, towards recognizing that it is not right because we limit it as we consider it inherently wrong.

---

A little cant on why Kant can't.
Ok, so I'm not very funny...oh well..

The guy who wrote the following quote, Peter Kreeft, is currently a professor of philosophy at
Boston College, and apparently a surfing nut.

I particualrly like his work, and happened upon this bit on Kant.

A critique of Kant's critiqie

I must (guiltily of course) confess that one of my very favourite thinkers Dr. Anthony Rizzi the distinguished physicist and author of "The Science before Science", (which seeks to stop the craizies like "possible" universes and other modern madnesses (with many avid devotees).

On Kant Rizzi said in part, "Kant (inadvertantly), taking the empiriometric as the whole of physica. He wanted, as mentionned earlier, Newton's mechanics to have a certainty it did not have.He wanted the dialectical "science" to have t demonstrative value that only physica (philosophy of mobile being) itself, not its tool, empiriometric physics had. He proceeded to make the empiriometric the ground of all philosophy. In so doing he stood the way we (actually) think on its head.

He thus became a Cartesian as he put beings of reason or at least things acting like beings of reason as the first things that we know.

In other words, (emphasis mine), i...it gives him no ability to back up and see that beings of reason themselves are founded on the reall.

(Me)
By missing the fact that we experince first things first, sensory knowledge, he ended up stuck inside his head. An idealist, with no way back to reality.

quote:

---

Heh heh.

I might be mistaken in this, but I can't take the posts of this guy seriously. Surely almost no one can have so little intellectual grasp of simple concepts and clearly presented positions and remain so befogged and absurdly inquisitorial.

I know that vice dulls the intellect, but this dull?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Much like you in your idiotic comments about feminism.

---

May I recommend you read up on "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir and If I am incorrect about Engels please disabuse me. And too my comments on matriarchy and the currently ascendent androgenous orientation.

Coincidentally the head of Harvard University was forced to step down for having suggested, against currently favoured dogma, that maybe women were'nt gallopong into the sciences and math for gender reasons.

May I recommend for your pleasure, "The Wonder of Boys" and "The Wonder of Girs" by Michael Gurion

Any contributions are welome, especially if they'll help me ferret out the idiocy you see, that I don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
When I took my RCIA class I learned a lot about my faith. I was initially attracted back to the church through focusing on the more "revolutionary" passages such as the upsetting of the moneylenders tables in the temple as well reconciling my socialism with the church. As I went on through that class and as I became a regular practising Catholic and through interacting with Priests and a family member who has given their life to the faith I have come to appreciate that Catholicism, and the lesson of Jesus Christ is less about judgement and overturning tables then it is about humility, forgiveness, and grace. I hope for your sake, that one day you will be able to reflect some of those lessons.

---

At a certain point, in the face of complete disregard for fairly well considered and reasonable responses to complex issues, I begin to question the sincerity and good will of interloquitors. Having been labelled fatuous and having been repeatedly accused of defending all manner of nonsense, I do in fact question the value of such continued correspondence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Of course, the occasional dullard reinforces my belief that the Catholic church got it wrong a very long time ago. People like you keep religion going in the wrong direction... Namely away from the Creator, as opposed to closer.

Debate. It's tough when your beliefs get attacked. But when you reinforce that which the attackers are saying by your own words. I would suggest finding tendable ground would be appropriate, as this battle was lost for you before you got here Paul.

---

My beliefs are just fine, thankyou. If you have followed the postings of Spector, and think that he is showing even the slightest indication that he attends at all to content in reply, then I have missed something you found.

I stated quite a bit earlier that I'm was not interested in a pissing match, and have bourne considerably more abuse, misdirection and misquoting than I usually find profitable to continue.

Suggesting quite lightly a comprehension problem
was intended to be neither diagnostic, or mortally wounding, but to put an end to what I perceived to be and continue to perceive as an insincere rant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
simonvallee I am not discussing science- I haven't even mentioned it in any of my posts. I am talking about researchers in the field of the Inquisition and the European Witch Hunts and several of the male researchers have an obvious agenda as i described in my post. Having said that I note that some of the female researchers have an equal if opposite agenda.
Your posts are all over the map, and you're essentially arguing your points from the separation of church and state which is not accurate or useful in a debate on the first 1,500 years of Christianity or more specifically the period from around the 11th to the 17th centuries.
I also find your apologist tone for the church's role in a repressive society to be obvious and not very useful in advancing the discussion. To really discover the position of women in society as defined by the church you need go no further than the church decrees themselves, which I have noticed that you ignore. The writing of some of the saints of the church when it came to women is downright frightening.
I don't feel that anything new has been added to this thread as far as real knowledge goes so I will bow out and continue some research on the subject. Some of the essays and researchers linked to on this thread are very suspect. Jenny Gibbons for instance has a masters in history, from where? None of her credentials in any of the places her article is posted can be verified, some of the male researchers are linked to sites representing Christian publications with an obvious stake in denying the role of Christianity in denigrating women.

---

What tells you that the researchers (male and female, BTW, last I heard, Jenny was not a man's name) who have made rigorous research into the fields concerned have an agenda? 'cause to my ears it sounds extremely like an accusation coming from nowhere. You say some of the researchers are linked to Catholic websites... or is it the other way around? The Catholic websites linked to the researchers as new studies went the way they'd want?

BTW, Jenny Gibbons posted her essay first on a website called "Covenant Of the Goddess", it's no longer there though. She's a neo-pagan who still put out that essay even if it meant telling her fellow neo-pagans that what they were saying was wrong. If she had had an agenda, it would have been in favor of the popular myths of the "Burning Times", not against. But it seems her integrity as a researcher was predominant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simonvallee:
You seek to make an equivalent that doesn't exist between the Church and God, it's quite surprising to see your weak argument that since God is supposed to be unchanging, the Church must also be unchanging. People can be wrong, texts can be badly interpreted, since the Catholic Church has a s a policy that the Bible is not the litteral truth and must be interpreted, there is of course the possibility of human failing in its interpretation (and I don't give a shit about the Old Testament too).

---

Doesn't that make you the teeniest bit nervous about relying on the “interpretation” of the Bible as a guide to moral conduct?

And who's to say the Church has got it right this time? Maybe in another 800 years there will be Catholic apologists who look back on today and say, “We can't really judge Catholics of the 21st century by our 29th century standards because back then the Church didn't really understand the Bible. Our modern interpretation of the Bible (which, by the way, results in a 180-degree about-face on certain aspects of morality) is now so much more correct.”

In any event, I have never heard of the Pope saying something along the lines of “I may be wrong about this, people, because after all I'm only human and it's all a pretty tricky matter of interpretation, but I think the Bible is telling us that God doesn't want us to torture people.” No, the pronouncements from the top always seem to be couched in the most confident and morally certain terms. Anyone who disagrees isn't excused on the basis that they have a different interpretation of the scriptures; only one interpretation is allowed. The only difference between now and 800 or 600 or 400 years ago is that the Church doesn't torture you if you disagree with them.

quote:

---

...we must remember that people in the Middle Ages had different perceptions of what surrounded them, of what was right and what was not, to expect them to take decisions like we did and have the same moral concepts is irrealistic. Therefore, the actions should be seen for what they truly are, terrible wrongs committed because they didn't know better, they were short-sighted on many moral matters because their reflexions on the subject weren't pushed as hard as ours now are.

---

I'm just wondering how difficult you think it was for a person living in southern France in the 13th century to figure out that torturing people to death because of their beliefs was morally wrong. You seem to have a very low opinion of the ability of people to know right from wrong; certainly you are prepared to believe that even the most highly educated and literate people in the world back then - the people running the Church - were incapable of the most basic, elementary moral standards because they “didn't know better”.

I, on the other hand, believe that the terrified villagers who were dragged before the inquisitor had not the slightest moral doubt that torturing people to death was wrong.

quote:

---

First, I didn't make the comments about the 20th century.

---

quote:

---

It's not that what is moral or not is relative, it is that none of us can pretend to know for sure and completely about morals.

---

I also know it was wrong 600 years ago and it will be wrong 600 years from now. But hey, that's just me. Your morals may differ.

quote:

---

It seems to me however that when the normal accepted norm is that torture is acceptable and almost nobody contests it, that limitating it to lessen suffering caused by it may not be right, but it's a step in the right direction, towards recognizing that it is not right because we limit it as we consider it inherently wrong.

---

quote:

---

If my little jab predicated on a pretty well known philosophical truism, is rightly percieved as in serious bad faith and a significant breach moral breach, then I apologize.

---