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, 01:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]1. The purpose of the inquisitions was never stated as "mind control" but in reality it translated as such. If all people in a given society have to profess Roman Catholicism or die as vile criminals that's simply mind control. It makes a mockery of faith being an inner conviction of the mind and soul.
The Inquisitions only applied to people under Church authority. You are misrepresenting it again.

There are stages to spiritual development. Due to this, there is appropriateness to the use of force to counter errors.

Quote:2. While numbers have been exaggerated by some authors, to say that burnings were a very rare event is simply to ignore history. And having recourse to the subtle cavil that they occured under the jurisdiction of the state is also disingenuous, as if the Church, powerful as she was back then, couldn't have violently protested against such proceedings if she were against them. I live in a country that executed religious dissenters up until the 19th century. Burning people alive because they dissent from the teachings of Rome is not "defending the faith," it's a repugnant act of tyranny and ignorance.
Executions were not the domain of the Inquisition, but those of the state.

Quote:You can't force anyone to believe. To do so is the characteristic of tyrants and cult leaders. Liberty of conscience is a precious thing that shouldn't be taken for granted.
But you can force people to stop being a scandal to others, and that is the point.
(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 and if later in life he rejected that faith or disputed some teaching of the Church he was liable to be tortured and killed. Jews were exempt from these procedures, although socially harassed in other ways. Of course, if they were baptised (many times forcefully) and then lapsed back into Judaism, they fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and were liable to be burned just like any other heretic.

Quote:Executions were not the domain of the Inquisition, but those of the state.

Well, the laymen that comprise "the state" are also part of the Church, aren't they? Or are they just part of the Church when it is convenient? In any case, the hierarchical Church that was forbideen from shedding blood with their own hands approved of those barbaric executions. To keep repeating that it was the domain of the state ignores the larger point at hand: the morality of the situation.

Quote:But you can force people to stop being a scandal to others, and that is the point.

Of course.

Shut your mouth or be burned alive. Evangelical piety at its best!
Let me try this again....

(06-25-2012, 12:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]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[/b]. 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. Simply appealing to the morals of the times to excuse [b]the Church is a cop-out[/b].
That's quite a silly statement to make Vetus, you should know better than that.

You do realise that the Inqisition in Spain (that's what we're talking about here) hardly represents the whole Church, right? Ultimately it is still full of people you know.
(06-25-2012, 02:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Of course.

Shut your mouth or be burned alive. Evangelical piety at its best!

This is a gross oversimplification.
(06-25-2012, 02:04 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]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 and if later in life he rejected that faith or disputed some teaching of the Church he was liable to be tortured and killed. Jews were exempt from these procedures, although socially harassed in other ways. Of course, if they were baptised (many times forcefully) and then lapsed back into Judaism, they fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and were liable to be burned just like any other heretic.
They were liable to be tried like any other heretic. The actual sentence was not the domain of the Inquisition.

And yes, this is more or less true. Most people would fall under it. So what? Do you realise that the Church is not just some human organisation? If only we lived under a state which protected the teachings handed to us!

Quote:Well, the laymen that comprise "the state" are also part of the Church, aren't they? Or are they just part of the Church when it is convenient? In any case, the hierarchical Church that was forbideen from shedding blood with their own hands approved of those barbaric executions. To keep repeating that it was the domain of the state ignores the larger point at hand: the morality of the situation.
Should the Church ignore heresy merely because the civil authorities were not morally perfect?

And you are misrepresenting actual sentences. While those things could happen at times in some places, they did not most of the time.

Quote:
Quote:But you can force people to stop being a scandal to others, and that is the point.

Of course.

Shut your mouth or be burned alive. Evangelical piety at its best!
It is better than the alternative. Censoring or restricting heretics is not done primarily for the sake of the heretic, but others.

Do you think rapists are arrested and sent to prison because they want to reform the rapist? No, it is first to protect society and punish criminal acts. Reforming the criminal is a luxury and comes after the security of innocents.

It would be good if heretics could be reformed by proper instruction, but if all else fails, their personal security and freedom comes second to the spiritual health of others.

You seem to value the flesh of heretics more than the spirits of many. What kind of god do you worship, where the mortal flesh is more important the the immortal soul?
I just saw on another thread that Vetus Ordo will not be able to respond to us for at least two weeks.

Just in case people want to say something, keep that in mind. I would have perhaps written it a little differently had I known of that development.
Rosarium, I agree with the points you made in your last post. Heresy is not the rejection of popular opinion or some other trivial matter, but as a medieval bishop said, "an opinion, contrary to Holy Scripture, openly taught, and pertinaciously defended."
(06-25-2012, 05:08 AM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 04:55 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]Oh yes I've seen that before; I know much about the Inquisiton. What I was wanting to know however is the Church's traditional (unaffected by the Vatican II "Apologise for everything of the past" erroneous mentality) teaching on torture and if it can be reconciled with the torture used by the Inquisiton.
Well, I know people back then had this peculiar idea that  a confession was worthless if it wasn't under torture.  ???

It is only in our modern age when sciences like Psychology starting doing research, realised that someone being tortured would say quite literally anything.

I'm not sure if that's true. My understanding is that a confession was always necessary at the time. So, if they had a lot of evidence that pointed to a particular person who would not confess, they would resort to torture in order to obtain a confession.

By the way, I'm not taking a position either way, really, but I'm not sure why we simply assume that torture is inherently wrong. Generally, we just hear something about human dignity, but I'm not sure that it is quite as self-evident as people make it out to be.
(06-25-2012, 02:56 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 05:08 AM)Sondaar Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-25-2012, 04:55 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]Oh yes I've seen that before; I know much about the Inquisiton. What I was wanting to know however is the Church's traditional (unaffected by the Vatican II "Apologise for everything of the past" erroneous mentality) teaching on torture and if it can be reconciled with the torture used by the Inquisiton.
Well, I know people back then had this peculiar idea that  a confession was worthless if it wasn't under torture.  ???

It is only in our modern age when sciences like Psychology starting doing research, realised that someone being tortured would say quite literally anything.

I'm not sure if that's true. My understanding is that a confession was always necessary at the time. So, if they had a lot of evidence that pointed to a particular person who would not confess, they would resort to torture in order to obtain a confession.

By the way, I'm not taking a position either way, really, but I'm not sure why we simply assume that torture is inherently wrong. Generally, we just hear something about human dignity, but I'm not sure that it is quite as self-evident as people make it out to be.
I might be thinking of the Salem Witch trial stories as well..granted..I get this type of thing mixed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_confession

It seem to definitely been the norm though.
(06-25-2012, 01:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]You can't force anyone to believe. To do so is the characteristic of tyrants and cult leaders. Liberty of conscience is a precious thing that shouldn't be taken for granted.

This one sentence is amazing.It  underscores your complete ignorance on the purpose and reality of the inquisitorial era.
Let me ask you...did the inquisition burn professed Jews and Muslims?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14