I thought the loss of the right to marry and hold lands happened later than 3AD...it's been a while though on that...

Vatican City is a city, the proper title is the Holy Roman See whose legal base is (orriginally) derived the Italian constitution which grants the state soverignty. The UN Recoginizes the Holy Roman See, not Vatican City. But prior to the use of the Euro, Vatican City used the Lira, not an independent currency. It would have been cost prohibitive to produce their own money. Perhaps a ways back they had independent currency, but it was the lira before the Euro.

Which inquisition - Roman, Medieval, Spanish, Portuguese?

Which of these was the Catholic Church not involved at all?

I would love to know what the numbers for "Very few" are.

Does it include the numbers of people tortured?
Does it include the numbers of people turned over to the "secular" rulers to be massacred with a wink from the Church?
Does it include the people who died in the prisons throughout the areas?

-Rudey

And up until the early 20th Century (1910's, 1920's) Vatican City was NOT independent. The Holy See is located in Vatican City which IS an independent county/City-State. It is NOT a part of the country of Italy. To say the UN recognizes the Holy See but not Vatican City is like saying the UN recognizes the Congress of the United States but not the United States - one is the government and the other is the geographic location. Though, the stamp that I have from Vatican City has Vatican City printed on it as well as the cancellation also says Vatican City - and NOT the Holy See (other than the seal of the Pope Benedict XVI).


Tom, I'm not a Canon Lawyer but Canon Law is Canon Law is Canon Law. There have also been some changes to Canon Law over the past two millennia - but 10 Commandments have been around a LOT longer than Canon Law (and are the basis for it). Yes, people have done things they are not supposed to do - and have paid/are paying/will pay for those actions - and are not to be held as the norm at all.

With regards to Pope Joan - from www.catholic.com:
Gee, the renewed hype about Pope Joan sounds like the plotline of The DaVinci Code. . . . Maybe they'll make that one into an anti-Catholic movie as well. . . . .

Also from www.catholic.com


The Inquisition

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."


The Main Sources

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.


Don’t Fear the Facts

But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.


Phony Statistics

Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.


What’s the Point?

Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.


Not "Bible Christians"

They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.


The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

By copying-and-pasting this info, you have avoided answering each and every one of my questions.

If even one person died, it was a tragedy. More than one person died, directly and indirectly, through the Church or through its "secular" friends, or in jails waiting to be put on trial. The minimum number floated is several thousand not including secular executions, torture, or death awaiting trial.

If this was not a tragedy, neither was Pearl Harbor, 9/11, nor Hiroshima for those that define "Very few" in such a slight manner.

Bernard Gui was one of the more famous "Inquisitors" and he executed 42 people in Toulousse France. Here is a better answer:

"Numbers are difficult to establish with accuracy for the Spanish Inquistion, and there is an ongoing debate between recent historical research supported by the Catholic Church, which holds that the previously accepted death toll of the Inquisition is greatly exaggerated, and other historians, who claim that up to hundreds of thousands, or even more, might have been killed. Some historians and Spanish scholars point to research that suggests that death tolls are exaggerated as evidence of the Black legend, which over-emphasizes the destruction caused by Spain relative to other nations.
Some statistics of large death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in, The Reformation (1957) cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada. Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada. R. J. Rummel gives similar figures as "most realistic," though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 who are claimed to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 as sentenced to death.
The Spanish Inquisition maintained extensive records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians, although like any historical document their accuracy can be disputed. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,250 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. However, he points out that the Inquisitors' activities were heavily slanted towards Jewish and Moslem communities who would have suffered far more than most from their activities. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals."

-Rudey
--Oh and Morranos, is another name for "Pig", and Catholic.com should consider using that historical term in reference to Jews and Muslims who bore the brunt of the inquisition.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation put out there about the Inquisition, mostly relating to anti-Catholic propaganda that was quite prevalent in the later 1800s – of course some might also be due to shoddy scholarship…but I'm more of the opinion that numbers have been inflated by our Protestant fundamentalist friends (including our "friends" at BJU)

The Church and the Inquisitors themselves kept meticulous records of the various Inquisitional Courts or campaigns – luckily this has allowed a valuable insight into both the practices and mindset of the inquisitors.

For example you can look into the career of various Inquisitors such as Bernard Gui’s Inquisition in the Languedoc region of France – rooting out Cathar-ism. During his campaign of 1308-1323 he “condemned” some 633 people… now by condemned in the eyes of the Church, and really just means sentenced under Cannon Law. When you start to look into the actual sentences, you find 268 sentenced to permanent imprisonment (in Monasteries or Convents), 3 denied burial rights (ie. dug up, and re-buried elsewhere), 1 given a one year prison terms, 1 ordered on Crusade, 17 order on Pilgrimage, 136 order to wear heavy Crosses as penance. If you look at those who died in custody or were actually burned at the stake then the numbers are also interesting: 107 Burned alive (of which 66 were posthumously burned), and another 17 would have been sentenced to imprisonment if the hadn’t died in custody. So the Inquisition was responsible for 124 deaths in the province of Languedoc over a period of 15 years, or a rate of less than 9 deaths a year – this during the last throes of the Cathar movement, and the height of the Church’s prosecution of the campaign against them.

ETA: Sorry forgot to include a source - J. Given in Portraits of Medieval and Reniassance Living (1996) and of course copies of Bernard Gui's writings... had a paper on him back in August...

If someone went into the Vatican and killed just 124 priests, cardinals, and possibly a Pope that would be just a few deaths right?

Again that number is for only one guy and the total numbers are distorted to not included those that died when the Church turned them over to secular bodies for execution or those who dies awaiting "Trial".

That minimal number floated is several thousand (direct executions). And again if you find that number low, then 9/11 isn't a tragedy either to you.

I don't know what catholic.com is but I find it annoying that anyone that disagrees is called a "Fundamentalist" on there.

-Rudey

Rudey the numbers cited are the numbers of those turned over to the secular authorities for execution - only the secular authorities had the legal right to actually put a person to death, Cannon Law and Civil Law were quite clear on this during the Medieval period.

The reason the I used Bernard Gui is one that he was one of the more brutal by all accounts, and he was the supreme/head Inquisitor in the region - all cases of capital sentances had to go through him... so those are the total numbers for the region over the 15 year period encapsulated by the records. The reason I chose Languedoc is that it was a hotbed of Cathar-ism and as such recieved particularly intense scrutiny from the Church, and experienced the longest period of continual Inquestional investigation in France. Basically looking at the one of the worst guys and one of the more intense prosecutions... to try and understand the impact of the Inquisition at it's height.

Scale and time Rudey - if all of those executions and deaths happened in an instance, then yes it'd be a horrifying atrocity... but this happened over the course of 600 years.

you've ignored my first post.

Here is an exerpt citing the minimal numbers from just the Spanish Inquisition:
Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals."

That is 2,000 from the Spanish Inquisition that were performed by Church tribunals. It doesn't include those the Church handed people over too and it doesn't include the torture or the thousands of deaths in the prisons.

Bernard Gui killed those many people over 15 years. If this is nothing, the Vatican can surely submit the names of that many Cardinals for execution over the next 15 years.

The fact is Rob that it's easy to say it's nothing or those numbers are exaggerated and blow it off when your people weren't labeled as Pigs, weren't massacred, and you didn't have your religious leaders lay down on flat wood tables while hot metal cones peeled their flesh off.

-Rudey

And Catholics have not been persecuted for the last 2000 years?! Were there not martyrs fed to the lions for sport? burned at the stake, etc (take a look at England during the late 1500s)? Are there not blatently anti-Catholic books, movies, etc roaming around in today's society? And its okay because its only the Catholic Church. If it were any other group there would be lawsuits so fast it would make your head spin! There were even a LARGE number of Catholics that were murdered during the 1930s and 40s in Europe (and seminaries closed, churches destroyed, etc - Hitler had a thing against Catholics just as bad as Jews!)

My post was to give you more factual background about the Inquisitions. You sit and spout numbers and I am arguing that the numbers have been exaggerated in the past 500 or so years - mainly by Protestants and Anti-Catholics! Once again, I am not a Canon Lawyer, but as Rob said, the Catholic Church has no authority to put ANYONE to death (its that whole Ten Commandment thing!). The Church CAN deny someone the Sacrements, Christian burial, etc (this is when excommunication is) but not pass a death sentence - and heresy, apostacy, schism, sacrilege, etc are sometimes not even the grounds for excommunication - well, schism is but sometimes not the others!

Also, how can the Pope submit 2,000 names of Cardinals for execution when there are not even close to being that number of Cardinals?

Rudey, I know you are one for arguing, but what the heck do you have against the Catholic Church?!

And I have NEVER implied that any death is not a tragedy. I have not been trying to JUSTIFY any of the inquisitions that took place in Europe (England, Spain, France, etc) but rather to show you that there is more than just the numbers that usually are exagerrated. Obviously you are going to stick by your one source of information and do not want to hear/read anything else - that you might not be completely correct. At least I have an open enough mind to want to learn more and hear other information - and at least site my sources so others can also do their own further research (and I used only Catholic Answers because it was something quick to find as oppsed to sorting through all my Church history books).

I'm sorry Beryana but that is not what I said - what I said is the Church wouldn't carry out death sentances - they'd judge, sentance, and hand over the condemned; just not actually do the killing themselves... kinda an interesting way to keep their theological hands clean of violating a Commandment huh?:rolleyes:

It was all tied into the edicts from the Early Middle Ages prohibiting clergy from taking up arms or taking a life - basically in an effort to A) adhere to/reinforce the spiritual role of and theological teachings of the clergy; B) to firmly establish secular and clerical authorities and realms of power; C) PR issues, it's hard to preach peace and obedience to God when you have cases like Irish monastaries going to war against each other with monks killing/maiming monks just was bad press...

Um, technically the Catholic Church did NOT put anyone to death - though, actually, the death penalty IS allowed under the 10 Commandments according to the Catechism. I will take back my reference to your post, however.

Basically the Inquisition was set up like a judge and jury. The Catholic Church was the jury and the secular tribunal was the judge. Neither actually carries out the sentence (all e's by the way). The judge and jury hear the case, the jury pronounces the verdict and makes a recommendation for sentence but it is actually the judge that determines if that sentence is strict enough.

I have to disagree with your assessment of how all this was about PR and keeping the clergy out of the military - however I need to get to sleep so I can TEACH the Catechism tomorrow.

Sarah

No the fact is that you are spouting lies and because I corrected you, I have something against the Catholic Church.

The fact is that the number was not very few. That is the history. Deal with it. Don't post lines from Catholic.com that you were spoonfed showing you know little on the subject yet making broad claims without support.

And your ignorance is purely immeasurable it seems. 6 millions catholics did not die in the Holocaust. The pope at the time though did seem to be just a tad bit tainted huh? Again, spread some more lies and I will correct you. Next time keep your mouth shut.

-Rudey

Again, you don't know anything about the subject (you use Catholic.com and say you know nothing about Canon law) but you continue to post a pure fictional source.

Ask Catholic.com to provide you with better numbers next time.

Stop spreading lies and then being upset when someone challenges you - that is not being anti-Catholic.

-Rudey