FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Torture in the Inquisition
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:23 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.

The point is that the Church is enlightened by the truths of the gospel and the aid of the Holy Ghost. If torturing people in order to make them confess is intrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. If burning people alive as form of social thought control is instrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. It's that simple.

But is either intrinsically wrong?
(07-13-2012, 01:32 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:23 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.

The point is that the Church is enlightened by the truths of the gospel and the aid of the Holy Ghost. If torturing people in order to make them confess is intrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. If burning people alive as form of social thought control is instrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. It's that simple.

But is either intrinsically wrong?

Yes.
(07-13-2012, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 02:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 01:50 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]The Inquisitions only applied to people under Church authority. You are misrepresenting it again.

Since the vast majority of people who lived in Catholic countries were Catholic to begin with, the whole country fell under the Church's authority. A man was born a Catholic

Nobody is born a Catholic unless he's baptized in utero.

Don't play games with me.
(07-13-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:32 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:23 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.

The point is that the Church is enlightened by the truths of the gospel and the aid of the Holy Ghost. If torturing people in order to make them confess is intrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. If burning people alive as form of social thought control is instrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. It's that simple.

But is either intrinsically wrong?

Yes.

I'm not sure if I agree. I can think of several circumstances in which torture would not only be acceptable, but perhaps even virtuous. I'd say the morality of torture--just like the morality of killing--has a lot to do with the circumstances in which it's being done. If the state may legitimately kill someone to facilitate the common good, why may it not also torture someone in pursuit of the same end?
(07-13-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:29 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 02:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 01:50 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]The Inquisitions only applied to people under Church authority. You are misrepresenting it again.

Since the vast majority of people who lived in Catholic countries were Catholic to begin with, the whole country fell under the Church's authority. A man was born a Catholic

Nobody is born a Catholic unless he's baptized in utero.

Don't play games with me.

I'm not playing games. Others' saying someone was born a Catholic is a pet peeve of mine, a theological faux pas of which upon occasion I correct my friends (or at least those with a Catholic background) and my family.
(07-13-2012, 01:54 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:32 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:23 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.

The point is that the Church is enlightened by the truths of the gospel and the aid of the Holy Ghost. If torturing people in order to make them confess is intrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. If burning people alive as form of social thought control is instrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. It's that simple.

But is either intrinsically wrong?

Yes.

I'm not sure if I agree. I can think of several circumstances in which torture would not only be acceptable, but perhaps even virtuous. I'd say the morality of torture--just like the morality of killing--has a lot to do with the circumstances in which it's being done. If the state may legitimately kill someone to facilitate the common good, why may it not also torture someone?

Sure.

Just remember those thoughts the next time you come across those Protestant friends of yours, or the N.O. Catholic neighbours who you love, who would both be tortured by the Inquisition in the name of faith in case we lived under such circumstances.

Simply put, 99% of you people don't have a clue of what you're defending. It's internet "tradism" at its best: phoney as Judas.
(07-13-2012, 01:57 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:54 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:50 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-13-2012, 01:32 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 12:23 PM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what people find so offensive -- I'm not condoning torture, I'm explaining people had a peculiar idea that the only way to know if a person was telling the truth without any doubt was under torture (just as they thought lobotomies help head aches and mental illness) -- it was the flawed understanding of the day.

We today know is complete nonsense -- but they didn't. It is unfair to judge them by our more informed positions.

FYI only 2% of people ever arrested by the Inquisition were ever tortured -- only like 2000 were executed over 50-60 years.

Now, that's sounds bad...but the conventional courts sentenced way more people to death and conditions in their prisons were so bad that people actually blasphemed so as to be moved to the Inquisitorial cells (that and they actually had a legal counsel in the Inquisitorial courts, which they didn't have in the civil courts)

By the standards of the day it really wasn't that bad.

The point is that the Church is enlightened by the truths of the gospel and the aid of the Holy Ghost. If torturing people in order to make them confess is intrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. If burning people alive as form of social thought control is instrinsically wrong, then the Church was wrong in condoning such practices. It's that simple.

But is either intrinsically wrong?

Yes.

I'm not sure if I agree. I can think of several circumstances in which torture would not only be acceptable, but perhaps even virtuous. I'd say the morality of torture--just like the morality of killing--has a lot to do with the circumstances in which it's being done. If the state may legitimately kill someone to facilitate the common good, why may it not also torture someone?

Sure.

Just remember those thoughts the next time you come across those Protestant friends of yours, or the N.O. Catholic neighbours who you love, who would both be tortured by the Inquisition in the name of faith in case we lived under such circumstances.

Simply put, 99% of you people don't have a clue of what you're defending. It's internet "tradism" at its best: phoney as Judas.

I'm of the opinion that we generally ought to put the common good over our own interests (especially our emotional ones) when determining matters of public policy.

Also, if society in general were Catholic (which would most likely be the case if our--or, should I say, my?--religion were being enforced by the state), I'd probably be able to compartmentalize blatant heresy in the same way I do adultery: as traitorous behavior that should be punished by society as a whole. If anyone of my friends or family members were guilty of longterm, obstinate adultery (though I suppose the conditional isn't necessary), I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him imprisoned for a bit.
And, again assuming a Catholic society, I doubt I'd have too many non-Catholic friends and family members to begin with.
Sure you would.

You'd be in the front row as your best friend, your sister or your cousin would be burned alive for "obstinate heresy."

Spare me the bullshit.
(07-13-2012, 02:08 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Sure you would.

You'd be in the front row as your best friend, your sister or your cousin would be burned alive for "obstinate heresy."

Spare me the bullshit.

Bullshit?

At least one of my friends--a lapsed Catholic who's now something of an atheist--and I have actually discussed the matter, both of us acknowledging that, in my "ideal" society (ideal used loosely, of course), his fate would be similar to Bardolf's in Henry V.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14