Inquisition

[hierochloe]

Indeed, there were negative aspects of the onset and outcome of that war. Nevertheless, I don't find that there was any great loss of liberty in the long run - rather more of a net gain. Whether Lincoln conciously acted on behalf of the freedom of all slaves or not doesn't change the fact that one MAJOR result was the eradicaiton of legal slavery in this country (which was an abomination imo).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 03:09 PM']Joe, slavery had nothing to do with it. It was merely a propaganda ploy.  Let me quote Lincoln:

[i]"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." [/i]

Let me quote the 10th ammendment as well.

[i]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/i]
As secession was not specifically prohibited to the States by the Constitution, they therefore reserve that right. If a state decided of its own accord by legislative vote to join the Union, then surely they should be allowed to leave it the same way.
It doesn't matter how poor a reason a state had for secession; justice is blind. The fact remains that they had that right, and Lincoln gravely violated that right in invading Virginia. Not to mention, he disregarded habeus corpus at the end of the war.
[right][snapback]698682[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. The war was an unconstitutional national travesty.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 03:57 PM']Yes, the inquisition was put in a bad light by Protestant nations. However, make sure you don't sugar-coat it. The inquisition was a horrible institution that tortured and killed innocent people. They documented it themselves. They were not that much worse than the Protestant governments that also did those things. It was a horrible time when many innocent people died. We shouldn't sugar-coat history. The History Channel so frequently does this that is rarely is worthwhile as a source. Once I caught them giving the wrong inventor the credit of inventing the radio. I wrote them a letter and they apologized and used my letter in a show. Don't put that much faith in them. To sugar-coat the inquisition is about as good a thing to do as use Jack Chick as a source for Catholic faith.
[right][snapback]698656[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would hardly call heretics who committed crimes as a result of their heresy "innocent"

it was the fairest courst system of the day... people in regular secular courts would utter blasphemies just so they could get sent to the inquisition.

[Oik]

While Lincoln does seem to have violated the 10th amendment, the question of whether or not is was the correct action can not be solely based on that fact.

Lincoln's main focus was the Union, as you well know from his quotes you posted.

The main question here is the battle that has been forgotten in recent times, The authority of the State over that of the Govenment and vice-versa. This has seemingly been ultimately decided in our times.

True, that the 10th Amendment speaks directly to this problem. It however, does not solve the problem our Founding Fathers so beautifully (and deliberatly) worked into the Laws or our land: Namely, the genrality of it's text.

Who decides how that amendment applys to the people governed?

In Lincoln's time, it was no doubt not the Tyrannical courts of our times.
Indeed, it was the lawmakers themselves and the President who held more power.

Besides, the Nation was in a time of great turmoil, when brother turned against brother, Statesmen against Statesmen, and people where considered less than human only on account of class or skin color.

This hardly translates to today's socio-economic jargon and situations.

[avemaria40]

but if someone gets executed simply for being a Protestant, Jew or Muslim, then that's just as bad as what the Romans did to Catholics when Christianity started becoming coming (only the Inquisition didn't have lions and bears going after the accused, they just burned them, which probably is just as bad)

[Oik]

Total pacifism was NOT the law of the day during the Inquisition, so placing today's values in the times of the various Crusades and Inquisitions does not do any good. It was a different time with different laws and different ways of understanding the world.

[Oik]

[quote]but if someone gets executed simply for being a Protestant, Jew or Muslim, then that's just as bad as what the Romans did to Catholics when Christianity started becoming coming (only the Inquisition didn't have lions and bears going after the accused, they just burned them, which probably is just as bad) [/quote]

So many things must be considered when considering these happenings in History.

For instance, was the person guilty of a legitimate crime under religious and/or secular law?

What was the law of the land?

What was the legal system of the time?

What the person given a just trial?

Did the individual, through ignorance, unlearnedness, or other factors, intentionally aggraivate (sp) the law (ex. If they were Muslims, expelled by the King or Queen from there land, did they "convert" to shirk deportation)?


I am certainly not down-playing the atrocities commited in God's name. I think that it is important however, to second the fact that there was god and bad and that the history shows that these events are more complicated (as some have mentioned) than just a black and white scernario.

[Mikhail]

Whoa, debating two extremely controversial issues in one thread.

No loss of liberty? One of the main things the founding fathers wanted to be absolutely clear was this: they were sovereign states, coming together for their mutual protection. If the founding fathers had known that the rights of the states were going to be so ruthlessly trampled on by the federal government, they would have put restrictions on the federal government. Since it was common knowledge that the states were to remain sovereign states, the thought that the federal government would become stronger than the states never crossed their minds. The federal government is too strong today. Lincoln set us down the path towards losing our freedoms, and we have been losing them one by one ever since.

As for slavery, slavery was being outlawed in every civilized nation in the world one by one. It was only a matter of time until it had happened in the US as well. The importation of slaves had already been outlawed. It is plausible that Lincoln's actions caused the slaves even more suffering, with a century of hardship from the bitter southerners who were forced to reliquish their slaves at gunpoint, until the 1960s.

As for the inquisition, it seem that instead of defending what the inquisition did, you are trying to justify it by stating that the times were horrible and showing similar or worse atrocities commited by other governments. This seems rather pointless. We know that times were horrible. We know worse or similar atrocities were commited by others. That doesn't justify it.

[Oik]

This country has progressed ever since it's formation. We are the United States now.

There were many controveries and things debated that have now been settled (and probably in a way and direction that some founding fathers would agree with and some that they would disagree with).

Let's not forget the long agruments bitter resentments, and closed-window, not allowed to leave the room meetings that forged our Nation.


as for the Inquisitions, I am indeed defending parts. I don't beleive in a general blanket condemantion of it, especially when in most cases, legitimate "temporal" authority was used in exercising it. It was indeed a different time with different laws and a different understanding of thw world.

How many were guilty? How many were innocent?

It's it also important to ask how we are judging it and by what criteria? There are many angles at which to view the Inquisitions and just as many position to take, considering the scenarios involved.

In Short: there was good and there was bad, right and wrong.

[Oik]

I would also like to add that I am not trying to justify, nor in pointing out the legitimate actions do I justify, the atrocities and morally corrupt actions that occurred.

I will, however, stand by those actions that were morally acceptable in were not in offense to God, but to safeguard His Church on Earth.

[LittleLes]

"when people get into sources from the time period itself, it becomes clearer that the inquisition was not all that bad."

RESPONSE:

Yes, the Institution can be viewed as "Catholic Action" take against anyone suspected of deviating from the established Catholic party line.

Pope Innocent IV, Ad Extirpanda, 1252:

"The ruler is hereby ordered to force all captured heretics to confess and accuse their accompolices by torture........."

And if they confessed that they were heretics and implicated others, then all could be burned at the stake hopefully with much pain and screaming. That would stiffle any dissent and root out those who were not true believers.

And they "would know we are Christians by our love."

Yeah. The Inquisiton was not all that bad.

[Oik]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm"]Ahhh...New Advent on Inquisition[/url]


Easy enough to read.

[LittleLes]

And from Malleus Maleficarum, 1486, written by Father James Sprenge and Father Henry Kramer, both Dominicans, empowered by the pope to conduct an inquistion.

Part 3 Question 15

"If he ( the Judge) wishes to find out whether she is endowed with a witch's power of preserving silence, let him take note whether she is able to shed tears when standing in his presence, or when being tortured."

Someone said those interested in history should read the documents written by participants. Of course, this will be a bit different than you will find at Catholic Answers which will pretend that the inquisitions were not
really that bad after all.

And it was for a good cause!

[url="http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/"]http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/[/url]

LittleLes

[Mikhail]

Joh 18:36* Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Mt 13:27-30 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

There were many people who watched the burnings of the Anabaptists (not Protestants) who wondered about these people who would go so cheerfully to the stake and would end up leaving the church because of it. So even if the Church is the "one true church", then they have disobeyed the direct command of Jesus not to "pluck the tares" lest they damage the wheat. And when they did, what happened? They damaged the wheat.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 24 2005, 02:10 PM']I am an amateur historian who has studied history for years. One thing that holds true of any history: History is written by the victors. i.e. whoever was in power wrote history and leaned in favor of whoever was writing it. Therego, when trying to get an objective view of history, one must find the right sources. Three different kinds of sources are the required norm before you can get an objective opinion.  Get a source from one view, then they opposing view, and finally, an unbiased source. This last one is the most difficult to find and the most important one of all. One must compare the first two sources with each other. In aspects where they come close to same conclusion, one may reasonably be sure they are factual. However, in the case of military history (my main field of study) the commanders of armies always tend to overestimate the number of troops and advantages their enemy had and underestimate their own, whether the outcome was victory or defeat. In that case, it's best to choose an average. Also, the eyewitness accounts are invaluable in these cases. The eyewitness accounts would be the common soldier in the ranks; the civilian who's home the army passed, the person that has nothing to gain from either side winning.

In the case of the Inquisition, I suggest you follow the same course. Read the Catholic viewpoint by all means and then the Protestant ones. The Catholic sources are going to underestimate the cruelty and deaths and the Protestants overestimate. Then go find the account by the Spanish citizen; find the account by a person who barely escaped with his life. Look at all the information objectively and try to come to an objective conclusion. Don't try to gloss over the bad parts, but also try to see the good that always exists in every situation.

I personally don't see what the big focus on the Inquisition is. In those days pursecution for religious beliefs was common and one had about the same chance of being charged with religious crime as a civil crime. Protestants killed Catholics and Anabaptists, and Catholics killed Anabaptists and Protestants. The number of deaths on both sides was comparable. It is useless for either side try to downplay their own part since it doesn't matter anymore. All those involved are dead and it's not happening anymore. The Inquisition got more than it's share of bad history, while some of the other horrid things that went on, espeically in Protestant England, are forgotten or glossed over.

And one final thing. People too often try to make the issues of the past black and white, as plain as day. They were right and they were wrong, cut and dry. However, history repeats itself in a vicious cycle. In case anyone took the time to notice, things aren't black and white today. One merely needs to look at this forum to see all the controversy that exists. If it exists today, you can be sure it did back then. Historians change history to fit their agenda. That's why the American Revolution is called a Revolution and the Civil War is called a rebellion. The victors record history. Try and get past that and find the truth, if you really care to know it.
[right][snapback]697293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ok, so if I follow your train of thought then I am at an impass.
There is no Protestant point of view in reference to the Inquisition.
Protestant p.o.v. happened centuries later and of course would be an opposition to that of the Church anyway.

So your theory on finding all sources is hampered extensively.

There are those who were there.
And then there are those who studied it centuries later. Time makes all the difference.




I am curious what will be said about 9-11, twenty, thirty, even a century later.

Pax