What the Christian Church did when it had political power over people
I originally wrote this post in October 2008, and due to a conversation I had yesterday with Alan Craig – Head of Christian Peoples Alliance Party about apostacy, I decided to put it on my front page again. He has promised to write a reply and post it on his blog.
Muslims today are often accused of advocating an intolerant faith; a faith that compels belief and punishes converts to other religions. Whatever truth there may be in such allegations it is salutary to remind ourselves that contemporary Christianity, as seen in the Roman Catholic Church for example, is a far cry from how the Church behaved towards ‘disbelievers’ when it had total power over the people.
I was perusing works of Catholic theology in my library recently when I came across a work entitled ‘Summa Theologiae’ by St Thomas Aquinas, (A Concise Translation by T. McDermott).
According to Wikipedia, ‘Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood (Code of Canon Law, Can. 252, §3). The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered by many Catholics to be the Catholic Church’s greatest theologian and philosopher. Consequently, many institutions of learning have been named after him.’
St Thomas Aquinas, basing his teaching on the New Testament, has some interesting things to say about how the church treats ‘disbelievers, heretics and apostates’:
Disbelief
In Luke we are told: ‘Go out into the country roads and lanes and compel people to come in, that my house may be full’. So some people are to be compelled to believe and enter the church. But only people who had once accepted the faith: pagans and Jews can’t be forced to believe since believing is a matter of will. The faithful if they have the power, may use it to stop such disbelievers hindering the faith by blasphemy or propaganda or openly persecuting it. This is the reason Christians frequently wage war on disbelievers: not to force them to believe but to stop them hindering the faith.
However, disbelievers who once accepted and professed the faith – heretics and apostates – can be compelled, even physically, to fulfill their promises and hold to do what they once professed. For even though making a vow is a voluntary matter, keeping it is an obligation. So adopting the faith is voluntary, but sticking to it once adopted is obligatory.
Heresy
About heretics there are two things to say. Their sin deserves banishment not only from the church by excommunication but also from the world by death. But the church seeks with mercy to turn back those who go astray, and condemns them not immediately but only after a first or second warning. If, however, a heretic remains stubborn, the church, despairing of his conversion, takes care of the salvation of others, separates the heretic from the church with a sentence of excommunication and delivers him to the secular courts to be removed from the world by death.
from Summa Theologiae by St Thomas Aquinas (A Concise Translation by T. McDermott) pp339-340
Hello Paul:
Your argument is that when the Christian Church had power over people it persecuted them.Sometimes yes,sometimes no.I know the history and it was not till circa 1230 that death for heresy was instituted as a policy by the Catholic Church.Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD.That is….it took 850 years.
ALSO
Only in CATHOLIC countries.Not in the EASTERN ORTHODOX counties.They never had death for heresy:Russia,Greece,Serbia,etc.
ISLAMIC LAW
Daeth for apostasy is from the BEGINNING of Islam….it did not take 850 years.In some Muslim countries it still exists.
ALL COUNTRIES COUNTRIES?
Readers might think the INQUISITION of 1230 was installed in ALL WESTERN CATHOLIC Europe immediately.No.In Portugal it did not exist till circa 1540….it took some 1,150 years aftere 380 AD.In CASTILLE it was established in 1478.It was never established in Scandinavia and only briefly in England.The Spanish Inquisition was practically dead by 1740,and most historians today believe it killed 4,000.
HENRY KAMEN,the greatest authority on it believes it is really 2,000.The initial belief of 30,000 has been rejected,then that of 20,000,though some think it could have been 10,000.
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE RELIGIOUS-POLITICAL AND THEY MANY THEY HAVE KILLED
1.AL-QAIDA:like the Inquisition it is made up of people who are openly RELIGIOUS,who say they are good Muslims,are obeying Islam.They have killed some 100,000 Shias in Iraq(Al-Qaida is Sunni) plus 3,000 non-Muslims in New York.
You would say they are not real Muslim.The point is they claim to be,just like those who killed in the Inquisition said they were Christian,correct?
2.KHOMEINI’s REGIME:He installed a RELIGIOUS-POLITICAL ISLAMIC system in Iran that in 10 years killed 100,000 in the name of Islam and the Islamic revolution.
Again,you would say he was not a good Muslim,a true Muslim,but the point is he claimed to be one,just like Torquemada claimed to be a true Christian.
3.FIS(Front Islamic de Salut(salvation):a religious-polticial group that in a few years killed 100,000 innocent Muslims in Algeria.They claimed to be good Muslims and for Islamic law.
That alone gives us more than 300,000 dead by self-proclaimed good,religious Muslims acting in organizations that say they are political and religious(religious Muslims in power).Not a few individuals but the ENTIRE oganization has a RELIGIOUS essence.
So the history of Islam has been worse.And since death for BLASPHEMY(for Muslims and non-Muslims) has been in existence in Islam since Mohammed then that in itself is a form of terror.
MAIMONIDES AND ISLAM
He was the greatest JEWISH philosopher of the Midde Ages,served as physician to Saladin.His family had been PERSECUTED by the Almohad Muslims in Spain(that is a form of terror).Now he had a critical and negative opinion of the Islamic religion (Islamophobia).
In his EPISTLE TO THE JEWS OF YEMEN(1172) written to them because they were being FORCED to CONVERT to Islam he calls Mohammed a MESHUGA (Hebrew for CRAZY man).
He wrote:”Since the Muslims could not find a single proof in the entire Bible nor a reference or possible allusion to their prophet which they could use,they were compelled to accuse us saying:”You have altered the text and eliminated every trace of the name of Mohammed from it.”
He also wrote in the same letter:”Never did a nation molest,degrade,debase and hate us as much as they….although we were dishonored by them beyon human endurance and had to put up with their fabrications….similarly our sages instructed us to bear the prevarications and preposterousness of ISHMAEL in silence.”
I also add he had a very low opinion of JESUS.
MAIMONIDES WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BY SHARIA LAW
If he had said what he reallly thought about Islam publicly he would have been killed,my friend.
thanks for your long rant.
Dont forget: the death penalty for apostasy is clearly mandated in the Bible.
And you are mistaken about the church on so many counts I just don’t know where to begin! When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire it was a capital crime to publicly deny the Trinity! And then we see how Christians persecuted and killed each other in the 3rd and 4th centuries over who Jesus was (God or just a man), and read how the great father St Athanasuis (an Orthodox Saint) had opponents beaten up and killed for theological reasons. St Augustine in the 4/5 centuries justified from the NT forcing people to stay in the church – he advocate physical force.
And fast forward to 17th century New England, where the Puritans (evangelicals) justified genocide against Native American villages by referring to passages in the Book of Joshua. I could go on and on…
But the real issue here is your hatred of and ignorance about Islam. You have bought into the nasty right-wing bigotry that is becoming increasingly common in North America.
Christians used to hate and trash the Jewish faith – now its the Muslims turn…
Hello Paul:
I do know about the Edict of Emperor Theodosius with bad measures against non-Christians but the thing you do not know is that from 313 to 380 AD most of the time it was CHRISTIANS who held the upper hand and there was tolerance.
You also do not know that many European nations adopted Christianity,like England,France,Germany and became Christian and they had their OWN set of laws.They did adopt many aspects of Roman law but it was not the same thing and in them you do not see death for apostasy for example.In fact,as I argued,death for apostasy NEVER was part of the law in Russia,Serbia,Romania and other Eastern Orthodox countries.There never was an Inquisition.Inquisition in latin means “to investigate”,regarding a person’s religious beliefs and execute the person who is guilty.
DEATH FOR APOSTASY
You know very well that in the NT death for apostasy is nullified because it says Mosaic Law has been replaced by the New Alliance,or Golden Rule(do to others as you would have them do to you).
You also know,because I have told you,that in JUDAISM Mosaic law is to be applied to JEWS ONLY.So it would not be for the Romans,Greeks,German tribes.How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?
So EVEN if Christians considered Mosaic law to be operative it would only be for the Jewish people,but that is not the case.
Also as for the fights between the various groups in the 4th century you do know it was sporadic and most of the time was VERBAL,intellectual arguments.Also about Augustine he was certainly wrong in his idea about using force….and his influence was limited,in Eastern Europe they did not accept his view,and those were countries where people were religious.You do not take into consideration the many details that go contrary to your general statement.
Many times governments ruled by believers have exercised tolerance and moderation.
About Athanasius I think you have read wrong.I know he was persecuted alot for his views by the Arians and at least one time he was physically attacked and his followers defended themselves,but from all I have read of him that was it.And about the Puritans the ones who used the Book of Joshua were ignorant.They certainly should have known it was NOT a general rule but only a description of a historical event.
ABOUT HATING ISLAM
What I did was give you a historical fact regarding the MOST FAMOUS and GREATEST Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages MOSES MAIMONIDES.He wrote a letter where he said what he really thought.He had been PERSECUTED by the ALMOHADS who were trying to force him to become a Muslim.
But not only that,even if he had not been persecuted he would still have rejected Islam on theological grounds.His letter makes that clear,He says Mohammed is nowhere in the OT.
THE LAW
I also stated that if he had made his views public he would have been killed according to Islamic law.It can not be denied.The thing is that Muslims are always pointing to Maimonides as an EXAMPLE of Muslim tolerance of the Jews,his letter states otherwise.You may not like Maimonides’ opinions (criticism of a set of ideas,of Islam,or Islamophobia as Muslims call it)but from what you have said you would agree to his NOT having the right to say them.How can I be in favor of that?Also,the fact that Maimonides had to HIDE his true thoughts shows there was NOT a culture of TRUE TOLERANCE regarding the Jews.