Wherein Bill Donohue defends the Inquisition

Alareth

Philosopher
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,682
Location
Jacksonville, FL
The new Cosmos that premired on Sunday has Bill Donohue upset. He claims the section on Giordano Bruno stating that the church used to Inquisition to try and punish him is anti-catholic propaganda.

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/

The ignorance is appalling. “The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with [the Inquisition],” writes Dayton historian Thomas Madden. “One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition,” he says, “is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong.” Because the Inquisition brought order and justice where there was none, it actually “saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.” (His emphasis.)

The Inquisition was all friendly eh?
 
The new Cosmos that premired on Sunday has Bill Donohue upset. He claims the section on Giordano Bruno stating that the church used to Inquisition to try and punish him is anti-catholic propaganda.

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/



The Inquisition was all friendly eh?

Sounds like the combined argument is that the Inquisition was a good thing and the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Is this one of those shotgun counterarguments where everything gets thrown at the wall in the hope something sticks?
 
I'll buy the concept that the Inquisition was a phenomenon of social reorganization. I have a little trouble with the idea that it saved lives.
 
Well, there's the "inquisition," and then there's the Inquisition. The real thing was somewhat more expansive in scope than the popular idea of the inquisition (witch burning). But then its purpose was always the suppression of heresy, which, you know, isn't something that's considered polite today. But it still has its fans, apparently.

Bill Donahue is, as always, a skillful and remorseless liar. He's one of the most political religious agitators going.
 
I think he's saying something like: the mob and secular rulers demanded that heretics be persecuted, so if the Church had tried to stop the persecution it would have failed. So the only choice they had was to take over the persecution and systematize it so as to reduce the total amount of persecution. Or, maybe that wasn't the intent of the Inquisition, but that was practical effect of it.
 
I'll buy the concept that the Inquisition was a phenomenon of social reorganization. I have a little trouble with the idea that it saved lives.
Wait, what?

Am I missing sarcasm? I am sarcasm challenged without those rolling eyes smilies.
 
As for Bruno, he was a renegade monk who dabbled in astronomy; he was not a scientist. There is much dispute about what really happened to him. As sociologist Rodney Strong puts it, he got into trouble not for his “scientific” views, but because of his “heretical theology involving the existence of an infinite number of worlds—a work based entirely on imagination and speculation.”
Donohue sounds like he's admitting that Bruno he got into trouble for his ideas and not his actions. And he sounds like he's okay with people being persecuted just because their ideas aren't conventional.

I would like to know why Pope John Paul II apologized for the Inquisition if the Church had so little to do with it. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, I'm a little surprised that he'd have the balls to argue that the Inquisition wasn't associated with the Church.
 
I'll buy the concept that the Inquisition was a phenomenon of social reorganization. I have a little trouble with the idea that it saved lives.
It was a revenue racket in origin, mainly.
One aspect of being the victim of the Inquisition that is often overlooked is that those who were found to be heretics would have their property confiscated. Records detailing just how much property was confiscated from convicted heretics and handed over to the Vatican are rather difficult to come by. Equally difficult is the task of finding out just how much money all the property was worth.

One aspect of the Inquisition that is known is that how the money made off the sale of the property was split. A third of the money would go directly to the Vatican while the other two thirds were split equally between the Inquisitor at the local level and the surrounding authorities. Of course, with all that money just lying around, sometimes the local inquisitors and the local authorities got it into their head that they could see a healthy payday by perhaps not handing over everything to the Catholic Church. The Vatican has always played hardball when it comes to getting money it thinks it deserves and it was certainly not unknown for the Pope to launch his army outward against the local inquisitors and authorities to ensure the Church got its fair share.
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-revenue-may-been-motivating-factor-behind-8768735.html?cat=37
So the Church had plenty to do with this vile scam.
 
Yeah, I'm a little surprised that he'd have the balls to argue that the Inquisition wasn't associated with the Church.

Oh that's nothing. You should see his defense of the church in Ireland against the revelations of decades of systematic child abuse. Balls doesn't even begin to cover it.
 
Oh that's nothing. You should see his defense of the church in Ireland against the revelations of decades of systematic child abuse. Balls doesn't even begin to cover it.
Well ...
 
Sounds like the combined argument is that the Inquisition was a good thing and the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Is this one of those shotgun counterarguments where everything gets thrown at the wall in the hope something sticks?

So all the high level, award winning historians I have read who covered that period were lying or in in the pay of foul atheists and antipapists. Riiiiiiiight.

I call BS all the way.
 
Oh that's nothing. You should see his defense of the church in Ireland against the revelations of decades of systematic child abuse. Balls doesn't even begin to cover it.

I have several good ideas about what to cover the perpetrators of those evils in.
 
The new Cosmos that premired on Sunday has Bill Donohue upset. He claims the section on Giordano Bruno stating that the church used to Inquisition to try and punish him is anti-catholic propaganda.

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/



The Inquisition was all friendly eh?
If I remember correctly the Inquisition directly caused his death (they may have turned him over to civil authorities to do the actual killing but Hitler is still the cause and the bad guy in what happened to oh so many civilians in Germany (etc.) through his "cleansing programs". You do not get a pass because someone else carried out your instructions..........
 
If I remember correctly the Inquisition directly caused his death (they may have turned him over to civil authorities to do the actual killing but Hitler is still the cause and the bad guy in what happened to oh so many civilians in Germany (etc.) through his "cleansing programs". You do not get a pass because someone else carried out your instructions..........
Bruno was executed in Rome in 1600. At that time, and indeed until 1870, the "civil authorities" were the Church. The Pope was secular monarch as well as spiritual ruler. See wiki on the "Papal States".
The Papal States were territories in the Italian peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 500s until 1870. They were among the major states of Italy from roughly the sixth century until the Italian Peninsula was unified in 1861 by the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. After 1861 the Papal States, reduced to Lazio, continued to exist until 1870. At their zenith, they covered most of the modern Italian regions of Lazio (that includes most of Rome), Marche, Umbria and Romagna, as well as portions of Emilia.

By the way, contrary to Donohue as quoted in #11 above, the Catholic Encyclopaedia has stated that
Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
So he was condemned for heretical theological opinions. But even if the doctrine of a plurality of worlds is false, how is that belief a crime? And even if it's a crime, what does that have to do with the Church?
 
Last edited:
Although we can speculate that heliocentrism or multiple worlds wasn't what ticked off the inquisitors the worst, it should still be said that in the end he was asked to recant ALL of the points on that accusation list. Which did include the multiple worlds, for example. So them now saying "yeah, but it wasn't for that" is kinda unsupportable, when it was on the list of charges, and he was told to recant ALL of them.
 
Although we can speculate that heliocentrism or multiple worlds wasn't what ticked off the inquisitors the worst, it should still be said that in the end he was asked to recant ALL of the points on that accusation list. Which did include the multiple worlds, for example. So them now saying "yeah, but it wasn't for that" is kinda unsupportable, when it was on the list of charges, and he was told to recant ALL of them.
Agreed. But some apologists--we've seen them in this forum--argue that the attack on Bruno was not a Church attack on science, and that the doctrine of plurality of worlds was not punishable as heresy. I disagree. But I am amused to see Donohue stating one thing and the old Catholic Encyclopaedia stating the opposite. They simply say the first thing that comes into their heads, depending who they're arguing with at any particular moment.
 
The new Cosmos that premired on Sunday has Bill Donohue upset. He claims the section on Giordano Bruno stating that the church used to Inquisition to try and punish him is anti-catholic propaganda.

http://www.catholicleague.org/cosmos-smears-catholicism/

The Inquisition was all friendly eh?
Donohue quotes from an article by Dr Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. The article is fairly long, so I've only given short extracts from it, but Maddern discusses how the Inquisition, especially the Spanish Inquisition, was not nearly as bad as purported in more modern times, attributing the latter's bad reputation to Protestant propaganda from several hundred years ago:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html

One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics...

Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ... Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule...

By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them "inquests" today, but it's the same word)...

No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition. This was a time, after all, when damaging shrubs in a public garden in London carried the death penalty. Across Europe, executions were everyday events. But not so with the Spanish Inquisition. In its 350-year lifespan only about 4,000 people were put to the stake. Compare that with the witch-hunts that raged across the rest of Catholic and Protestant Europe, in which 60,000 people, mostly women, were roasted. Spain was spared this hysteria precisely because the Spanish Inquisition stopped it at the border. When the first accusations of witchcraft surfaced in northern Spain, the Inquisition sent its people to investigate. These trained legal scholars found no believable evidence for witches' Sabbaths, black magic, or baby roasting. It was also noted that those confessing to witchcraft had a curious inability to fly through keyholes. While Europeans were throwing women onto bonfires with abandon, the Spanish Inquisition slammed the door shut on this insanity...​

Madden goes on to write that the "Black Legend" of the horrific Spanish Inquisition developed as part of a "propaganda war" by the Protestants after the 16th Century CE:

Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous "Black Legend" of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil. Although modern scholars have long ago discarded the Black Legend, it still remains very much alive today.​
 
Last edited:
Agreed. But some apologists--we've seen them in this forum--argue that the attack on Bruno was not a Church attack on science, and that the doctrine of plurality of worlds was not punishable as heresy. I disagree. But I am amused to see Donohue stating one thing and the old Catholic Encyclopaedia stating the opposite. They simply say the first thing that comes into their heads, depending who they're arguing with at any particular moment.

Mind you, I AM one of those who think it wasn't about attacking science per se. Compared to doubting the divinity of Jesus, the virginity of Mary, proposing reincarnation instead of heaven and hell, etc, yeah, I think science was probably a lesser issue.

Not that I find the Inquisition defensible, mind you.

But yeah, Donohue is... not very good at it.
 
I have to say I'd like more evidence for this.
Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ... Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule...
In fact the inquisition went out of its way to find evidence against people whom it could then persecute. And it was funded through sequestration of the property of accused persons, even if they had not been found guilty of anything. And it encouraged denunciation of "accomplices" and so on, which spread its net even wider. And when it confiscated property it shared the loot with the King and the Vatican, which encouraged yet more investigations.
 
The new Cosmos that premired on Sunday has Bill Donohue upset. He claims the section on Giordano Bruno stating that the church used to Inquisition to try and punish him is anti-catholic propaganda.
Actually, Donohue's point on Bruno was that he was not a scientist, since IIUC Tyson's point was that Bruno was persecuted for his scientific ideas, like the "infinite universe and multiplicity of worlds". But, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg's part 3, chapter 5, titled “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno”).​

The article also states:

Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.​

Anyway, Bruno looks suspiciously like Seth Lord Emperor Palpatine! So the Inquisition did good:
181px-Rome.Giordano_Bruno.JPG
 
Last edited:
Actually, Donohue's point on Bruno was that he was not a scientist, since IIUC Tyson's point was that Bruno was persecuted for his scientific ideas, like the "infinite universe and multiplicity of worlds". But, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg's part 3, chapter 5, titled “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno”).​

The article also states:

Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.​
Yes, Bruno was executed for his other heresies. So Donohue has a point. It's atop his head. He is a penis.
 
Donohue quotes from an article by Dr Thomas F. Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. The article is fairly long, so I've only given short extracts from it, but Maddern discusses how the Inquisition, especially the Spanish Inquisition, was not nearly as bad as purported in more modern times, attributing the latter's bad reputation to Protestant propaganda from several hundred years ago:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html

One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics...

Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ... Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule...

By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them "inquests" today, but it's the same word)...

No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition. This was a time, after all, when damaging shrubs in a public garden in London carried the death penalty. Across Europe, executions were everyday events. But not so with the Spanish Inquisition. In its 350-year lifespan only about 4,000 people were put to the stake. Compare that with the witch-hunts that raged across the rest of Catholic and Protestant Europe, in which 60,000 people, mostly women, were roasted. Spain was spared this hysteria precisely because the Spanish Inquisition stopped it at the border. When the first accusations of witchcraft surfaced in northern Spain, the Inquisition sent its people to investigate. These trained legal scholars found no believable evidence for witches' Sabbaths, black magic, or baby roasting. It was also noted that those confessing to witchcraft had a curious inability to fly through keyholes. While Europeans were throwing women onto bonfires with abandon, the Spanish Inquisition slammed the door shut on this insanity...​

Madden goes on to write that the "Black Legend" of the horrific Spanish Inquisition developed as part of a "propaganda war" by the Protestants after the 16th Century CE:

Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous "Black Legend" of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil. Although modern scholars have long ago discarded the Black Legend, it still remains very much alive today.​

Since Bruno was convicted by the Roman Inquisition I fail to see how the record of the Spanish Inquisition is relevant.
 
Since Bruno was convicted by the Roman Inquisition I fail to see how the record of the Spanish Inquisition is relevant.
Yes and we can hardly say that
The ignorance is appalling. “The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with [the Inquisition],” writes Dayton historian Thomas Madden.
because
The Roman Inquisition, formally the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs.
And the Pope was secular ruler of Rome as well as its spiritual leader.
 
Nothing new. Donohue's been defending the Inquisition for years. Of course, he defends ANYTHING related to Catholicism, even if the Church stopped defending it decades ago (like, say, the Inquisition).
 
Does Bill Donohoe really want to live in a world that is free from any whiff of criticism of the Catholic church? How could he continue to make a living?
 
This isn't surprising coming from Bill Donohue. He might as well become a Holocaust denier if he keeps pushing this nonsense. After all, Hitler was a Catholic and so were millions of Germans in the 3rd Reich, along with collaborators in occupied countries. Indeed, this fact is far more of an inconvenience for Catholics who claim their Church has an unblemished reputation than the Inquisition which committed its horrific crimes many centuries ago and had far fewer victims.

Yes, I am fully aware of the many heroic Catholics(and protestants) who did all they could to help save Jews from the Nazis. Many more, unfortunately, were Hitler's willing executioners or simply did nothing to oppose Nazism. There's no escaping the fact that Roman Catholicism was hardly a united front in opposing Nazism or fascism in general. In fact, it often supported fascism.
 
Last edited:
This isn't surprising coming from Bill Donohue. He might as well become a Holocaust denier if he keeps pushing this nonsense.
He might indeed. One of the early tasks of the Inquisition was to ferret out secret Jews. Open Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, but many stayed on as phony Christians. There was a racist element to this too, as people with Jewish ancestors were barred from certain public offices, regardless of their religious affiliation.
 
I love the "it didn't happen and if it did they deserved it and it wasn't all that bad anyway" defense.

It's called kettle logic, and the name comes from one of Freud's story about a guy who borrowed a kettle, and was accused of returning it damaged. So he essentially claims:


* That he had returned the kettle undamaged;
* That it was already damaged when he borrowed it;
* That he had never borrowed it in the first place.
 

Back
Top Bottom