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
Although I understand torture used on terrorists had some apparent benefit in exposing future terrorist plans against the U.S., It just does not seem likely that Christ would have approved.  I came to that conclusion after much consideration.  My first thought was to torture if it can save American lives, but I think Christ did say to give food to your enemy if he is hungry and something to drink if he is thirsty. 
(06-25-2012, 11:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, I thought moral values were timeless.

If torture is wrong today, it was also wrong yesterday.

Not so. Old Testament values differ greatly than New T. values.William Thomas Walsh , in his book linked to above, discusses this very fact in terms of the moral outlook of bygone eras to things such as torture and civil justice.

And the way in which one reacts to an issue of morality (to torture or not to torture) has no bearing on the original point of morality.The value judgement however,interms of how one deals with moral issues is another aspect to civil society separate from the moral question. Of course,some actions can always be described as morally reprehensible yet this seems to be an issue of civil development historically.

Also Inquisitorial torture was very mild by the standards of the day.
(06-25-2012, 11:29 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, I thought moral values were timeless.

If torture is wrong today, it was also wrong yesterday.

Not so. Old Testament values differ greatly than New T. values.William Thomas Walsh , in the his book linked to above, discusses this very fact in terms of the moral outlook of bygone eras to things such as torture and civil justice.

Maybe you can explain it a little more, but if it was right back then, then it must be right today, as the very nature of it being right excludes the possibility of it being wrong, and vice a versa.
(06-25-2012, 11:29 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, I thought moral values were timeless.

If torture is wrong today, it was also wrong yesterday.

Not so. Old Testament values differ greatly than New T. values.William Thomas Walsh , in the his book linked to above, discusses this very fact in terms of the moral outlook of bygone eras to things such as torture and civil justice.

An appeal to the old testament here is groundless since we live under grace not under law. I certainly dispute that values differ greatly from the old to the new testament - that's a common misunderstanding of the purpose of the law - but even leaving that issue aside, how can values differ greatly under the gospel?
(06-25-2012, 11:33 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you can explain it a little more, but if it was right back then, then it must be right today, as the very nature of it being right excludes the possibility of it being wrong, and vice a versa.
The way in which one reacts to an issue of morality (to torture or not to torture) has no bearing on the original point of morality.The value judgement however,interms of how one deals with moral issues is another aspect to civil society separate from the moral question. Of course,some actions can always be described as morally reprehensible yet this seems to be an issue of civil development historically.

Also Inquisitorial torture was very mild by the standards of the day.
So, the cop-out is that it was "mild." I knew this one beforehand but it's always hilarious to read it anew.

:LOL:
I don't think that torture in priciple is always morally wrong because one man's torture is another man's motivation.
Today we use more subtle ways to motivate people, in the past it was more straightforward, but it all came down to one thing, getting the person to comply with a request.
In the old days people were smacked for any number of things, so it is not surprising that physical motivation was used in interogations.
Now we use mind games and uncomfortable chairs and bad coffee.
No real difference in principle.
(06-25-2012, 11:41 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]So, the cop-out is that it was "mild." I knew this one beforehand but it's always hilarious to read it anew.

:LOL:

Cop -out  ???

Nope,mere historical fact I think you'll find...if you care to research that is. Civil justice was rough in those days across the board. Don't like it? Tough .I wouldn't loose any sleep myself.
(06-25-2012, 11:52 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 11:41 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]So, the cop-out is that it was "mild." I knew this one beforehand but it's always hilarious to read it anew.

:LOL:

Cop -out  ???

Nope,mere historical fact I think you'll find...if you care to research that is. Civil justice was rough in those days across the board. Don't like it? Tough .I wouldn't loose any sleep myself.

That's not the point.

The point is that the Church and the Pope, enlightened by the gospel, sanctioned it. Hiding behind historical circumstances and civil justice is a cop-out.
(06-25-2012, 11:33 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe you can explain it a little more, but if it was right back then, then it must be right today, as the very nature of it being right excludes the possibility of it being wrong, and vice a versa.

Why do you say must? As has been stated on this forum before, the method of dealing with heretics for the Apostles and early Church Fathers was to excommunicate, to let them be anathema.. and to shake the dust from their sandals. I understand that the medieval church wanted to keep Europe Catholic and that heresy was regarded by the State as a kind of treason.  But the principles of the Gospel haven't changed, that I'm aware of.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14