Wherein Bill Donohue defends the Inquisition

[GDon]

Some websites of interest:
Frequently Asked Questions on the Inquisition by James Hannam
Historical revision of the Inquisition on Wiki

 

[GDon]

duplicate post

 

[tsig]

It was the papal legate who did that. The local bishop tried to save some of the people. No luck. No luck. As the legate put it: The Inquisition was founded in consequence of that war, but if it was protecting heretics against anyone (which it wasn't) it could have started by protecting them not, as the OP claims, against feudal bosses and the mob, but against the Pope and his representatives like Arnaud Amalric.

hey had to kill the heretics to save them.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That's actually a very good question to ask here. For me: If what Madden writes was actually the case (that "the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics"), then the answer is a probable "yes". But I'd need to confirm Madden's views.

It can only be "yes" in as much as you could give a "yes" to the question of whether the KGB was a good thing. On account that, you know, it was slightly less oppressive internally than its predecessor, the NKVD, and killed less people.

But being the opressive arm of the same entity, I hope you can excuse me if I feel a need to barf when hearing a claim boiling down to (paraphrased) "they're the good guys because they started murdering less people than they used to."

Even IF those secular persecutions were sometimes not at the direct demand of a member of the clergy, though most seem to have been, the church doesn't get to do hate-talk and villify the heretics and incite at their persecution for 1000 years, then pretend it totally wasn't its fault when that hate-talk is taken by some audiences to the logical conclusion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Didn't Napoleon take a lot of the inquisitions records?

Of course anyone who thinks average historians who might make the church look bad have a chance to look at anything but highly selected documents is a fool.

 

[tsig]

That's actually a very good question to ask here. For me: If what Madden writes was actually the case (that "the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics"), then the answer is a probable "yes". But I'd need to confirm Madden's views.

So the church systematized what had been a haphazard method for burning heretics?

 

[Resume]

It can only be "yes" in as much as you could give a "yes" to the question of whether the KGB was a good thing. On account that, you know, it was slightly less oppressive internally than its predecessor, the NKVD, and killed less people.

But being the opressive arm of the same entity, I hope you can excuse me if I feel a need to barf when hearing a claim boiling down to (paraphrased) "they're the good guys because they started murdering less people than they used to."Even IF those secular persecutions were sometimes not at the direct demand of a member of the clergy, though most seem to have been, the church doesn't get to do hate-talk and villify the heretics and incite at their persecution for 1000 years, then pretend it totally wasn't its fault when that hate-talk is taken by some audiences to the logical conclusion.

They killed less people than they used to for a fake crime.

Apologist: "Well, they didn't know any better."

Stephen Fry: "Then what are you for?"

 

[tsig]

Some websites of interest:
Frequently Asked Questions on the Inquisition by James Hannam
Historical revision of the Inquisition on Wiki

From the first link:

The medieval inquisition started life in a series of papal bulls on heresy, in particular Lucius III’s Ad abolendum of 1184 and Innocent III’s Cum ex officii nostri of 1207. These defined the crime of heresy, imparted the duty of the church to root it out and equated it with treason against the state. It was always the case that the church was seeking to persuade rather than enforce but recognised that these efforts had failed and that stronger measures were required

Here's a complete misrepresentation:

Church courts of the Middle Ages had a deserved reputation for being far more lenient than their secular equivalents and this caused tension when the jurisdictions crossed. Henry II of England was particularly displeased about this in his dispute with the church that led to the murder of St Thomas á Beckett. For instance, the secular punishment for sodomy and bestiality was death right up to the nineteenth in most European countries but a church court was more likely to send the miscreant off on a pilgrimage.





Church courts were used to try clerics, not heretics.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'd also like to clarify one further thing, since the BS apologetics make it sound like it totally was the secular authorities who, on their own, wanted to burn those guys if the church relinquished it to them.

In reality how it worked is that the heretic was given to the secular authorities together with a recommendation of what to do with him. Now where those authorities were powerful nobles, they actually sometimes ignored the recommendation, and dished out a milder punishment instead. But for most other people it was only as much a recommendation as when Don Giovanni 'The Kneecapper' recommends you pay your protection money already.

Refusing the church's guidance would make those authorities suspect of heresy. And while you could imagine a stalemate where your successor refuses to execute you and so on, remember that only killing was outside their jurisdiction. Prison up to life they could do themselves. So was any amount of torture.

 

[hgc]

This Inquisition revisionism/apologetics has a similar feel to Joseph McCarthy aplogetics, doesn't it?

 

[tsig]

This Inquisition revisionism/apologetics has a similar feel to Joseph McCarthy aplogetics, doesn't it?

I's like claiming the Crusades were just a jousting tournament.

 

[Craig B]

I's like claiming the Crusades were just a jousting tournament.

If the Crusaders hadn't killed lots of Jews, then somebody else would have killed even more Jews, so the Crusaders were really saving Jewish lives. Or something.

 

[tsig]

If the Crusaders hadn't killed lots of Jews, then somebody else would have killed even more Jews, so the Crusaders were really saving Jewish lives. Or something.

The locals were doing the killings in a disorganized manner so they took over and killed them in a systematic manner somehow saving lives.

 

[GDon]

It can only be "yes" in as much as you could give a "yes" to the question of whether the KGB was a good thing. On account that, you know, it was slightly less oppressive internally than its predecessor, the NKVD, and killed less people.

But being the opressive arm of the same entity, I hope you can excuse me if I feel a need to barf when hearing a claim boiling down to (paraphrased) "they're the good guys because they started murdering less people than they used to."

Even IF those secular persecutions were sometimes not at the direct demand of a member of the clergy, though most seem to have been, the church doesn't get to do hate-talk and villify the heretics and incite at their persecution for 1000 years, then pretend it totally wasn't its fault when that hate-talk is taken by some audiences to the logical conclusion.

Yes, I agree totally with that.

 

[GDon]

From Madden:

Is it just me, or is it repulsive to combine "only" with "4,000" referring to people being killed by one of the most painful ways imaginable?

Part of the problem is that it is "4,000" on one side and "millions" on the other. Here are quotes I've found on some websites after a quick Google search (my bolding below):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090723070152AAUCxaY

How many people were killed by the Catholic/Christian church during the Inquisitions?

Best answer:

The persecution started EARLY, maybe 200AD or after, and it lasted until AFTER we came to America by way of ship.

Catholics will tell you like they told me.

3000 people died.

History will tell you 45-100 million.​

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=63986

The Inquisition only killed 40 million​

http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/articles.php?PageURL=Inquisition.htm

THE INQUISITION: A Medieval Holocaust!

... Roman Catholic writter, John Cornwell also writes how 1-10 million were murdered during the Inquisition period alone, with 10,000 females (many under the age of ten) perishing in Germany (Sunday Times, 23/8/98.)

Only the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin would come anyway near to matching this, for he would exterminate around 35 million of his own people.​

http://prospect.org/article/what-would-jefferson-do

What Would Jefferson Do?

... History judges religious zealots harshly, particularly those wielding state power. The Crusades slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the torture and murder of millions more...​

It's hard to keep emotion out of the argument I guess, but given the topic, that's not necessarily a bad thing. 4,000 burned at the stake is of course 4,000 too many.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

While indeed there is the matter that 4000 killed for thought crimes in Spain alone is 4000 too many, also consider this:

Spain had a population of about 9 million when that madness started. Let's say 10 million or so average over most of the period (they never implemented effective quarantine measuared, and got whacked by the Black Death often and hard.) Also because it makes back-of-the-napkin maths easier.

By way of comparison the USA nowadays has some 300 million inhabitants.

Imagine that an organization had killed 120,000 US citizens. Because that's what that simple proportion works out to.

The USA went ape #### over 10,000 or so (again, rounded) in one terrorist attack, ditched constitutional safeguards, and attacked two countries over it. 120,000? Man, that would be some hating right there. Add them dying screaming in agony on top of a pile of burning wood, for anwwhere between 1 and two hours to die? Now that would be some being out for blood right there.

Or yes, let's talk about Germany. The 10,000 witches killed sound about right. Germany oscillated somewhere between 10 and 15 million for most of the burning times period. Let's take about 12.5 million as a median. Now, unless my maths are wrong, for a country like the USA today the equivalent would be something like 300x10,000/12.5=240,000 killed.

Can you imagine the kind of hatred if 240,000 Americans, the vast majority females, most of them kids and teenagers, got brutally killed in the name of ANY religion?

You can even split it across 200 years, which is about as long as the madness lasted. That's like more than a 9/11 attack every single year. Though it peaked between about 1580 and 1630, in which time it's more like the equivalent of two 9/11 attacks per year, put in proportion to population size. We talk about a heinous act of terror that the 9/11 even happened ONCE. Can you even imagine what it would mean to live in that 50 year period where you'd get 2-3 times as many deaths per year, every year, in the name of ANY religion? You think Al Qaeda is terror? Now wrap your mind around THAT terror campaign in the name of Xianity.

So, yeah, 4000 or respectively 10,000 is already 4000 or respectively 10,000 too many. But put it into perspective of the populations at the time, and, yea, you can probably see why apologies of it make me see red.

 

[Brainache]

While indeed there is the matter that 4000 killed for thought crimes in Spain alone is 4000 too many, also consider this:

Spain had a population of about 9 million when that madness started. Let's say 10 million or so average over most of the period (they never implemented effective quarantine measuared, and got whacked by the Black Death often and hard.) Also because it makes back-of-the-napkin maths easier.

By way of comparison the USA nowadays has some 300 million inhabitants.

Imagine that an organization had killed 120,000 US citizens. Because that's what that simple proportion works out to.

The USA went ape #### over 10,000 or so (again, rounded) in one terrorist attack, ditched constitutional safeguards, and attacked two countries over it. 120,000? Man, that would be some hating right there. Add them dying screaming in agony on top of a pile of burning wood, for anwwhere between 1 and two hours to die? Now that would be some being out for blood right there.

Or yes, let's talk about Germany. The 10,000 witches killed sound about right. Germany oscillated somewhere between 10 and 15 million for most of the burning times period. Let's take about 12.5 million as a median. Now, unless my maths are wrong, for a country like the USA today the equivalent would be something like 300x10,000/12.5=240,000 killed.

Can you imagine the kind of hatred if 240,000 Americans, the vast majority females, most of them kids and teenagers, got brutally killed in the name of ANY religion?

You can even split it across 200 years, which is about as long as the madness lasted. That's like more than a 9/11 attack every single year. Though it peaked between about 1580 and 1630, in which time it's more like the equivalent of two 9/11 attacks per year, put in proportion to population size. We talk about a heinous act of terror that the 9/11 even happened ONCE. Can you even imagine what it would mean to live in that 50 year period where you'd get 2-3 times as many deaths per year, every year, in the name of ANY religion? You think Al Qaeda is terror? Now wrap your mind around THAT terror campaign in the name of Xianity.

So, yeah, 4000 or respectively 10,000 is already 4000 or respectively 10,000 too many. But put it into perspective of the populations at the time, and, yea, you can probably see why apologies of it make me see red.

How many Americans has the Government of Texas killed?

 

[GDon]

So, yeah, 4000 or respectively 10,000 is already 4000 or respectively 10,000 too many. But put it into perspective of the populations at the time, and, yea, you can probably see why apologies of it make me see red.

Perfectly natural. Apologies for the killing of anyone for their worldviews would make me see red as well.

 

[fuelair]

Perfectly natural. Apologies for the killing of anyone for their worldviews would make me see red as well.

Yes indeed, and great they speed the draw.

 

[Craig B]

Part of the problem is that it is "4,000" on one side and "millions" on the other. Here are quotes I've found ...

That's a very unsound argument. The apologists are saying not that the Inquisition simply killed far fewer than some maniacs contend, but that it was a good thing. My statement was that it killed far more than the relatively small number murdered judicially through its activities, and that it terrorised, plundered and otherwise burdened society. It was a bad thing.

Your argument is like this: the "satanic panic" hysteria about mass organised abuse of children was nonsense. Therefore the real much smaller number of children who were being abused is a good thing.