Guest Post by Morbo
Under Republican rule, the quality of “experts” testifying at Congressional hearings has definitely taken a dive.
Case in point: On Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights heard testimony on the Federal Marriage Amendment. One of the witnesses, who was called by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), was Gerard Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
So far so good. It’s not unexpected that a conservative law prof at a prominent Catholic university would favor this amendment. Ho hum.
What makes Bradley interesting is that he once wrote an article defending the Inquisition — kind of. It’s called “One Cheer for Inquisitions” and it ran on a website called Catholic.net.
Bradley’s argument is somewhat obtuse, but he seems to be asserting that there was not one Inquisition and that the idea of a single, powerful Inquisition that ravaged Europe has been deliberately conjured up by people to — get ready — provide ammunition for the idea that church and state should be separate.
Bradley attacks a straw man. Anyone who’s read a little history knows there were several inquisitions. To me, the fact that they were geographically widespread over a long period of time only makes the church look worse. It certainly does not help Bradley. And by the way, the fact that the church was allowed to run amok for so long and, in partnership with the state, torture and kill people does indeed underscore the need for division between religion and government.
Bradley has his own view of what the inquisitions were about. “The main purposes of these [inquisitions] were to save the souls of heretics and those close to them,” Bradley writes, “and to protect the unity of the Church.”
He almost makes it sound benign. Don’t you see? The church was trying to help these misguided folks! Without the help of the church, these people would have gone to Hell — so the church was kind enough to bring them a little Hell on earth. Man, that’s thoughtful.
Bradley goes on to assert that the “Myth of the Inquisition was the work of Protestants and others united at about the time of the Enlightenment’s deification of scientific reason. Their design was to turn people against revealed religion and, especially, the Roman Catholic Church.”
Imagine that! Some people had the nerve to turn to reason instead of religion for the answers to life’s mysteries. Naturally the church had no choice but to set them on fire.
A reality check: Most of those labeled as “heretics” back then weren’t worshipping the goddess of reason. They just had the gall to believe that they had a fundamental human right to belong to other religious groups. Most were Protestants, some Jews. Of course some of them fired broadsides at the Catholic Church. They were protesting against it. That’s why they were called “Protestants,” get it? The Catholic Church could have used reasoned debate and argument to defend itself or simply accepted the fact that some people did not want to belong anymore and let them go. Instead it broke out the rack.
The way the church chose to “help” the unfortunate souls duped by reason or other religions was a tad unconventional — torturing them, killing them, seizing their property. Not surprisingly, it didn’t work. Generally speaking, it’s hard, when someone is using red-hot pinchers to pull the flesh off your back, to see through your own selfishness and understand that that guy in the black hood who has chained you to the wall really does care about you. In fact, he pulls your skin off because he cares. The thought of you spending eternity in Hell is tearing him up. It’s all above love. (And how did those poor, straying souls react when he removed them from the wall, threw them on the floor and gave them a thimble full of water? Did they even say thank you?)
It probably never occurred to church officials that some people did not want their souls saved or that church lackeys had no right to kill people in defense of religious “unity.” And if it did, well, that was easy to lose sight of when the church was confronted with all of those poor souls who needed help to stay out of Hell.
Bradley is correct that many people, when they think of the inquisitions, make the mistake of latching onto one event — the infamous Spanish Inquisition. (I think Monty Python is mainly to blame for this.) So how bad was that one and is it defensible? There’s no need to make this harder than necessary. I consulted several online encyclopedias, and they converge on this point: The Spanish Inquisition was very bad for the victims.
“The Inquisition, as a religious court, was operated by Church authorities; however, if a person was found to be heretical, they were turned over to the secular authorities to be punished,” write the good folks at Wikipedia.org. “Torture was often used to gain repentance. Punishments ranged from public shame to burning at the stake — dead after garroting (strangulation) for those who repented, alive for the unrepentant, or in effigy for those condemned in abstenia. These punishments were conducted in public ceremonies (called auto da fe) that could last a whole day.”
During the 15 years that Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor (1483-1498), an estimated 4,000 to 8,000 Jews were burned alive.
Look at that again: The church turned those found guilty over to secular authorities for punishment. And on those rare occasions when the state tried to go easy on someone, church officials threw a fit. Yes, this is a very good argument for separation of church and state.
In the end, I suspect that Bradley is just another disgruntled orthodox religious believer angry that the days of absolute rule by the Catholic Church are long gone. These days, his church — the one truth faith after all! — has to share the stage with all manner of theological error, like Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, Wiccans and even atheists.
Sorry, but I can’t manage even one cheer for the inquisitions. I can, however, muster thousands for the separation of church and state.