Poll: Would you support a new Inquisition?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
31
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

A New Inquisition?
#51
Is this an inquisition against Baskerville now?
Reply
#52
(10-26-2010, 10:39 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 07:48 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As for burnings at the stake, I personally dislike them. I think it's too violent a procedure, although I wouldn't rule out capital punishment for notorious heretics.

Well there were two ways of doing it one the way I would roast Mahony which was just having dry wood which would make the heretic actually burn the other was more "humane" the officials would take wet would which would smolder and smoke and the person would die of smoke inhilation and die before actually burning.

I find neither way good if capital punishment were to be maintained for notorious heretics. I'd prefer a simple hanging (like it was done in the last years of the Inquisition) or even a lethal injection.

The other option, of course, would be to let them go, although they would be ostracized and prevented from publicking anything. All this matter is debatable.
Reply
#53
(10-27-2010, 09:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 10:39 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 07:48 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As for burnings at the stake, I personally dislike them. I think it's too violent a procedure, although I wouldn't rule out capital punishment for notorious heretics.

Well there were two ways of doing it one the way I would roast Mahony which was just having dry wood which would make the heretic actually burn the other was more "humane" the officials would take wet would which would smolder and smoke and the person would die of smoke inhilation and die before actually burning.

I find neither way good if capital punishment were to be maintained for notorious heretics. I'd prefer a simple hanging (like it was done in the last years of the Inquisition) or even a lethal injection.

The other option, of course, would be to let them go, although they would be ostracized and prevented from publicking anything. All this matter is debatable.

I think imprisoning them or lethal objection if they insist on publicly spreading heresy would be the best option. Burning someone is so unnecessarily cruel.
Reply
#54
(10-27-2010, 09:48 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(10-27-2010, 09:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 10:39 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 07:48 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As for burnings at the stake, I personally dislike them. I think it's too violent a procedure, although I wouldn't rule out capital punishment for notorious heretics.

Well there were two ways of doing it one the way I would roast Mahony which was just having dry wood which would make the heretic actually burn the other was more "humane" the officials would take wet would which would smolder and smoke and the person would die of smoke inhilation and die before actually burning.

I find neither way good if capital punishment were to be maintained for notorious heretics. I'd prefer a simple hanging (like it was done in the last years of the Inquisition) or even a lethal injection.

The other option, of course, would be to let them go, although they would be ostracized and prevented from publicking anything. All this matter is debatable.

I think imprisoning them or lethal objection if they insist on publicly spreading heresy would be the best option. Burning someone is so unnecessarily cruel.

I'm with you on that.

I believe that no christian takes pleasure in seeing a criminal die, especially burned alive, but this particular punishment was maintained for symbolic reasons (purification by fire), as well as for the notion of the social evil that heresy represents. I don't pass judgement on our ancestors in the faith, although I personally find the burnings unnecessarily cruel.

Nonetheless, such as capital punishment only became commonplace in the Middle Ages for the delicts of heresy, the same way it could be discontinued without harm to the faith or the Church. It's a matter open to discussion, as far as I can tell.
Reply
#55
(10-27-2010, 10:01 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-27-2010, 09:48 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(10-27-2010, 09:38 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 10:39 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(10-26-2010, 07:48 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As for burnings at the stake, I personally dislike them. I think it's too violent a procedure, although I wouldn't rule out capital punishment for notorious heretics.

Well there were two ways of doing it one the way I would roast Mahony which was just having dry wood which would make the heretic actually burn the other was more "humane" the officials would take wet would which would smolder and smoke and the person would die of smoke inhilation and die before actually burning.

I find neither way good if capital punishment were to be maintained for notorious heretics. I'd prefer a simple hanging (like it was done in the last years of the Inquisition) or even a lethal injection.

The other option, of course, would be to let them go, although they would be ostracized and prevented from publicking anything. All this matter is debatable.

I think imprisoning them or lethal objection if they insist on publicly spreading heresy would be the best option. Burning someone is so unnecessarily cruel.

I'm with you on that.

I believe that no christian takes pleasure in seeing a criminal die, especially burned alive, but this particular punishment was maintained for symbolic reasons (purification by fire), as well as for the notion of the social evil that heresy represents. I don't pass judgement on our ancestors in the faith, although I personally find the burnings unnecessarily cruel.

Nonetheless, such as capital punishment only became commonplace in the Middle Ages for the delicts of heresy, the same way it could be discontinued without harm to the faith or the Church. It's a matter open to discussion, as far as I can tell.

I think the bull that condemned Luther (Exsurge Domine?) also condemns the idea that it's wrong to burn heretics. So I guess it'd be hard to argue that there's anything intrinsically immoral with using burning as a form of capital punishment. Kind of like how it'd be hard to argue there's anything intrinsically immoral about stoning someone to death because it's approved of in the Old Testament. I'm not sure, I struggle with reconciling these old justice systems of the Church/the Jewish people pre-Christ with my sense of horror at such draconian methods of execution. It's tempting to carry contemporary cultural hangovers when evaluating the past.
Reply
#56
Here's the problem: any power you give to the State to burn heretics could be in the hands of the heretics tomorrow. As soon as your king/president/leader figures out that other religions will grant him more power and the freedom to act as he chooses, he'll abandon Catholicism. Then he'll use the existing Inquisition to burn Catholics. This already happened in England and several principalities of Germany.
Reply
#57
Temporal punishments for heretics was more complex than simply punishing one for maintaining or even spreading a false belief. The individuals who received civil penalties for heresy were essentially rebels committing treason and undermining the entire prevailing social order which rested on the unity of the Catholic faith which itself rested on the authority of the Church. It also took a great deal to work one's way up to the death penalty. After fraternal correction, rebukes, and argument, came fines, imprisonment and exile with death being used for some particularly malicious and incorrigible individuals for whom those corrective measures had no effect.

Take Arnold of Brescia, for example. After being exiled, he returned and begged forgiveness from Pope Bl. Eugene III who absolved him and sent him to visit the tombs of the Apostles in Rome as a penance. However, while in Rome, he reverted back to his own ways riling up the people in rebellion against the Roman clergy and the temporal power of the Pope. When he was finally caught, he was tried and executed.

Or take the Albigensians who were terrorizing the countryside not to mention promoting perverse rites like ritual suicide and abortions. First the Dominicans were sent to them and when they were attacked and even murdered, only then was the calvalry  sent in.

There's a reason, however, that the Church has not advocated for capital punishments for heretics for centuries. This chapter of Bishop Von Ketteler's work on Religious Freedom explains this well (this prominent 19th century work was re-published many times and never received any censure AFAIK):

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/rel...t-iii.html

Given those reasons, if it hasn't been justiifed for the past few centuries, it most certainly is not justified now.
Reply
#58
(10-27-2010, 10:48 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: There's a reason, however, that the Church has not advocated for capital punishments for heretics for centuries. This chapter of Bishop Von Ketteler's work on Religious Freedom explains this well (this prominent 19th century work was re-published many times and never received any censure AFAIK):

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/rel...t-iii.html

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.
Reply
#59
This site has become a joke. It has been sad to see a forum which used to intelligently discuss so many little-known, interesting tidbits about Christianity (and life in general) degenerate into its present incarnation of backbiting, stupidity, violence, and stultification. There is nothing funny or satisfying or good about burning men.

Baskerville Wrote:Sweet we havent had a genuine troll to play with since that Sufi Chick was on a year back or so(unless you count Credo)

So I am a “troll?” Such folk do not post 5,000 times. In the past year FishEaters has increasingly made me embarrassed to be a Christian. This reached a high point about six weeks ago where I was on the verge of tears and disgusted at Catholicism after reading what my coreligionists on this site were saying about me and others they disagreed with. This is to say nothing about the irrational (i.e.: credulous; I’m going to find a publishing house or website I agree with and take their utterances as Gospel) and violent opinions held by posters (e.g.: burning synagogues, committing genocide against the Islamic people’s al la unfunny “glass parking lots”). After having now read a thread on the advisability of burning human beings, I am happy in my decision to largely avoid this website. As Christohper Hitchens has said, religion makes morally normal people think unspeakable things. Though I do still monitor FishEaters, this soon will be ending. Judging by the above comment, people are not content to merely mock and belittle current posters, but also those who have left. “See how they love one another,” indeed.

To those who have PMed me this past month, thank-you for your support and encouragement.
Reply
#60
Credo, I kind of missed your victimization rants. Welcome back.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)