June 3, 2012 AD
America's legal system
(My hat off to CNS commenter Don Hennen whom I seriously plagiarized in this post)
A few years ago, it was fashionable among historians to go back and actually study history.
Rather than just repeat malicious rumors made up by Protestant nations when they were at war with Catholic Spain and other Catholic countries, historians even did so for the Inquisition
The result? Forget everything you thought you knew about the Inquisition.
Inquisitions did not kill people, nor sentence them to the rack, nor condemn them to the dungeon.
Their only purpose and intent was trying to obtain a "not guilty" verdict.
During the Middle Ages, all authority was seen as an extension of God's authority (a fairly biblical idea). So, it stood to reason, in the popular wisdom of the time, that if you got God wrong, you also got wrong the authority of societies to govern themselves. In short, civil governments called heresy a crime.
If you did not believe in a Christian God, then you did not believe that the Christian King ruled by the grace of God. And, if you did not believe in the right of the King to rule - then that was not heresy in his eyes, that was treason!
Kings had subjects killed for much, much less.
Inquisition means to inquire - An Inquisition was simply a board of inquiry.
And its purpose was to establish innocence - not guilt.
These were NOT days of "innocent until proved guilty". These were days of the King declaring you guilty, and that was that. You were locked up in a dungeon with you praying that anyone of your family or friends even knew you were there. There was no habeas corpus, no trial by jury, no right to legal representation, no right to meet your accuser, no right to a speedy trial.
Yet, if a person really was guilty as charged by the King, there would be no need for any of these safeguards -- including an inquisition. Only if the person was falsely accused, would these legal rights, as was an Inquisition, be a Godsend from the harsh punishment of an abusive King.
The Kings and Queens like any politician today, waves "God and Country" flags as justification to do just about anything they wish -- including anything evil.
Want to burn at the stake a woman about to accuse you of adultery or not delivering you a baby boy? -- then accuse her of being a Satanic, unchristian witch.
Want to put on the rack a man who yearns for a little freedom? -- then accuse him of engaging in treason against the King.
Want to invade a Christian community in Waco shooting up the place with women and children inside? -- then accuse their leader of not being a real Christian, but instead a child-molester or collector of "too many" guns.
Want to lock up American citizens without a trial? -- then accuse them of not being real Americans, but instead terrorists
The Catholic Church has never in its history exacted capital punishments. The Inquisition stood on the modern legal grounds of "Innocent until proved guilty", "checks and balances" and "truth and justice", as well as along with the old-fashioned religious grounds of "forgiveness of sins".
I can see the Founders establishing our government upon these principles of fairness laid down by the Catholic Church.
But now it all comes together in my mind.
To get rid of a thorn in his side, the easiest thing in the world for a King to do is to condemn his enemy (or wife) to death because "God willed it".
The Church, which found itself being the unwilling accomplice to this evil, insisted upon a "Checks and Balances" Inquisition to determine -- for themselves -- if the accused was really heretical as accused.
Protestant hypocrites, being seduced by Jewish propaganda, will defend Henry VIII's killing of his wives for theological reasons of witchcraft, incest and adultery, without having anyone outside his authority giving an independent verdict as to their guilt or innocence.
As "Supreme Head of the Church", Henry VIII solved all his problems by making himself:
- The Legislature (King's rules)
- The Executive (Off with his head)
- The Judicial (Inquisitor-guilty as charged)
Who was there to question the King?
Even if the King meant well, most civil magistrates were not competent theologians, and had a habit of handing down false guilty verdicts in matters of religion.
The Church established the Inquisition to ensure that people who were not heretical were not convicted.
The accused would be turned over to the Inquisition, which would ask questions about the theological point in question. If the accused gave the orthodox answer, he was cleared. If not, the Inquisition would give him the right answer and ask the accused again. Again, a right answer was an acquittal. A wrong answer, this time, meant the accused was tenacious in error (the definition of heresy). At that point, the accused was returned to the civil courts for trial and sentencing according to civil laws.
In short, the closest thing to a "guilty" verdict from an inquisition was basically, "there's nothing more we can do for you."
Meanwhile, in countries without the benefit of an Inquisition, innocent people were being convicted in droves of heresy, witchcraft, etc. For example, during the entire history of the Spanish Inquisition, four people were convicted of witchcraft in Spain. During the same time, the Protestant countries of Europe convicted about forty thousand.
Makes you wonder how many were innocent, doesn't it?
Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNEWS
‘I Don’t See Any Difference Between’ Obama and ‘Henry VIII,’ Says 'For Greater Glory' Star
Article located at: