I know this is rather old news, but I was just re-reading the thread and came upon this:

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy,



This isn't true. Whilst you're correct regarding the corruption of the Church through the inquistions, their main problem wasn't false doctrine. It was their uses of torture and silencing enemies of the Papist (a certain one who's name escapes me) that made it shady and amoral. Other than that, however, most inquisitions (and I stress the word "most") were used legitimately for teaching for people. There's no evidence or reason to believe that the inquisitors taught false Biblical knowledge. The corrupt nature of the Vatican, at the time, involved Greed, not manipulation.

You see, the real problem with the Vatican back then wasn't actually religous-based in nature. Before the inquisitions became Vatican jurisdicted, The Spanish Inquisition, plus a few others I can't remember, were mainly the only true cases of religious fanaticism. The other officially Catholic founded inquisitions were used more to actually convert heretics rather than torture them—And I do mean that in the honest sense of the word. Torquemada wanted to hurt people, this wasn’t the case with every inquisition. Most were used for counseling and teaching, the closest thing that came to torture in the other inquisitions was actually pretty standard discipline for the modern times according to secularists and Christians alike. I’m not justifying their use of coerciveness mind you, but whatever form of torture used by the inquisitions not run by Torquemada in any inquisition at the time was a far cry from the SI’s methods. Lashings, water, stuff of that nature. Although there did remain acts of torture that were indeed heinous for select inquisitions--Only one I know of was endorsed by the Church. Moreover, those acts weren't monopolized by the Catholic Church, the methods were used by government secularists and Catholic Inquisitors alike. The difference here is that the Church founded Inquisitions were actually more merciful. Again though, the point is not to say the Church should be given amnesty, but to show that it was the sway of the times rather than a mere fanatical movement. Stones in a glass house.

Simply stating the intent of some inquisitions and using the ad hominem argument of 'They made people suffer! They're the scourge of the 10-15th century' is a propagandist knee-jerk that fails to dispel the existence of the Vatican's peers in terms of corporate power. All other governments had resorted to torture, and, in fact, are the ones who gave the inquisitors lessons. The only difference between the policy of each of those corporations was the Church's more merciful codes of conduct. And as far as executions go, burning heretics was a way of expelling corporate enemies; in reality, true religion didn't really have anything to do with these atrocities except that they were used as a smoke-screen. Furthermore, I’d like to reitterate that the majority of inquisitors were not only more tame in their practices of coerciveness, but also in their intent. While I’m sure inquisitors existed that had a passion for hurting people, the more consuming use of the inquisitions carried honest intent to convert heretics for the well-being of those held civilians and restraint in their painful process of interrogation/rehabilitation. Does that make it right? No. But by large margins, that makes the situation better for their case rather than the malicious intent of the parallel governments seeking to execute violators under false pretenses of law.

So in the end, the problem wasn't merely religion, but the sway of the times and its penchant for brutal interrogation. With the Vatican being more of a governing body than strictly a religious leader, it fell victim to secularism.


Okay. I got really off-track. Sorry. I wanted my reference to the inquisitions to be brief, but then I realized it lacked a bit of necessary detail and then it snow-balled. In any event, my main point is that it's flawed reasoning to label the teachings of the Church, in the middle ages, as faulty simply because the Church only allowed admittance after being given dowaries and because of the injustice of a numerous amount of the inquisitions.

Quote:

which led to the Reformation, begun my Martin Luther in 1517, and other reformers.



The reformation of the Catholic Church? That was spear-headed by Ignatius I believe. Not Luther......Luther wasn't even Catholic.