Constance,

1. “The Pope at the time of the instigation of the Spanish Inquisition did not support Isabel and Ferdinand’s practices.” – Constance.

Thank you. Can you please provide a valid citation?

My understanding is that Pope Alexander VI favoured Spanish modernity and further was happy to have the realms Catholic monarchs expand into the New World. Moreover, the forced conversion or exile of the Jews (especially) and Muslims ensured the cleansing of those not of the Catholic faith.

“When Granada fell the event was hailed by an eyewitness as 'the most distinguished and blessed day there has ever been in Spain'; though a Muslim commentator in Egypt saw it as 'one of the most terrible catastrophes to befall Islam'. Ferdinand's triumphant message to Rome, that 'after so much travail, expense, death and bloodshed this kingdom of Granada, which for 780 years was occupied by infidels, has been won to the glory of God, the exaltation of our Holy Catholic Faith, and the honour of the Apostolic See', was echoed by acclamation throughout Europe. A grateful Alexander VI in 1494 (a year when he needed Spain's help against the French) bestowed on the sovereigns the title of Los Reyes Catálicos.” (Catholic Kings)

Reference: Spain, 1469-1714: A Society of Conflict. Contributors: Henry Kamen (1991)

The conquest of Granada allowed the “Catholic Kings” [Of Spain and Portugal] to divert their attention to exploration, although Christopher Columbus's first voyage in 1492 was financed by foreign bankers. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia, a Catalan) formally approved the division of the unexplored world between Spain and Portugal. The Treaty of Tordesillas, which Spain and Portugal signed one year later, moved the line of division westward and allowed Portugal to claim Brazil.

Referenence: Spain - A Country Study. Eric Solsten and Sandra W. Meditz (1988)

There was a counter-modernisation movement in the mid-sixteenth century which led to the Catholic Catechism and the codification of dogma. Amplifying dogma countered monarchical centres of power outside of Rome.

2. One would hardly call the history of the Jesuits trivial.

3. Ethnic cleansing is more than a misdemeanour.

Constance,

Please see above. It would interesting to learn of your citation(s. My history books take the opposite view.

Thanks.

O.

I’ve been busy too, so sorry for my tardy response. I also had trouble finding this article. I’m only a recent subscriber.

Ethnic cleansing? What are you saying?

As I said before, I only wished to make a point as an example of Catholicism/Jesuits non-anti science etc. stance. No, I did not mean the Jesuits legacy was trivial at all. You just seem to have a tendency to getting into details of the more obscure historical traits and particularly go out of your way in looking for disparaging evidence in the case of Christians. I’m just reacting to your anti Catholic stance which is rather irrelevant in today’s world. Apart from the reformation, which should set an example for Muslims to ponder, as they need one desperately. It is matters Islamic which are more relevant in today’s world. You have heard of Christian charity haven’t you. Many Christians, especially the selfless nuns doing just that throughout the world who by the way also work with and for Muslims. And it seems many charities in Muslim countries with a small Christian minority are actually dominated and run by these very Christian nuns. But yet even they also get disparaged and chucked into the same wagon as Muslim women wearing hijabs, naqabs etc. - superficially placed in comparison. How dare they! Those anti-Christian secularists just can’t seem to ever see the forest from the trees. No, the history of Christianity hasn’t always been pretty but at least they are able to present today solid brotherhood to mankind in many ways, more than I can say for Islam. And by the way, it was the crusaders who invented chivalry.

...Cont'd “The population of Aragón was obstinately opposed to the Inquisition. In addition, differences between Ferdinand and Pope Sixtus IV prompted the latter to promulgate a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragon. In this bull, the Pope unambiguously criticized the procedures of the Inquisitorial court, affirming that,
"many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.”[6] (Wikepaedia)
“Sixtus consented (1478) to the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and then found the Spanish ignoring his rebukes for illegal procedure and jurisdiction and his demands for moderation. (Columbus Encylopedia.). A patron of arts and letters, he built the Sistine Chapel, which takes its name from him.”

"When Granada fell the event was hailed by an eyewitness as 'the most distinguished and blessed day there has ever been in Spain'; though a Muslim commentator in Egypt saw it as 'one of the most terrible catastrophes to befall Islam" by Oliver. Hello, wasn’t it the Muslims who invaded a Christian country? How about the terrible onslught that befell Christianity. Your biased selectivesness is a worry.

“The Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

Muslims (and secularists) who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges. By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.

Hi Constance,

We are citing from different time lines. The persecution of the Muslims and Jews occurred between 1492 into the 1550s. Pope Sixtus IV was dead.

I am aware that during the Crusades Christians killed Christians, not only Muslims. France and the Pope also bumped-off the Knights Templar, for the money.

Moreover, Islam is just a bloodied as Christianity. Yet, for either to call their atrocities "misdeamenours", just doesn't sit with what happened.

I guess my stance in this thread is, "people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" and Christianity in power has been very different to Jesus on the ground. Also, identify Jesus with the first century and Christianity from 325 CE (Nicaea).

The Jesuits were excellent scholars and their missions were not only to China, being pioneers to the English colonies, now Canada and the US.

The thing with China missions was, the Jesuits put aside worthy Chinese knowledge, seemingly, because it contradicted the Vatican. Facts would not be entertained if these conflicted with Holy Writ.
Likewise, there have been upteen documentaries on the same theme, on Galilleo. Regarding the latter, The Vatican only acknowledged Galileo as correct in in 1990s.

Both Christianity and Islam are tribal, given their clan roots. Monotheism in the broader brush of history was seen as atheism. That is, atheism can be defined in context on the prevailing religious practice (Armstrong). It is hard for the monotheist religions to mix, except, perhaps, in a secular state recognizing freedom to choose on matters of faith. Each is sees themselves as correct and the "one and only," essentially by definition.

Muslims are meant to recognize, "The People of the Book" - most don't. Christians are meant love their (Muslim) enemies - most don't. Both religions have become assembleys of identification, rather than an ideology in good practise.

I check back in about a week.

Hello Oliver,

Your excuse of both religions (well I do not consider Islam a religion, anyway) of having tribal roots is slack. Yes we all have clan roots, even secularists. Are you now dismissing even your own ethnic clanish background?

I only cited Sixtus as I said before, he was the Pope around at the time of the beginning of the Spanish inquisition. Why have you distorted the only point I intended to make and have taken it somewhere unrelated. You have done this before. And you are still ignoring my statements on Christian clergy helping their fellow man.

Anyway, I understand why Ayaan Hirsi Ali called Karen Armstrong “ridiculous”. It is said she ignores all relevant details such as historical facts and inanely prances about in her Pollyanna ways. I can only admire people like Ayaan, Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji, all women and defenders of infidels and the female species, and also require bodyguards. Brave realists, not flakey Pollyanners, are my heroes.
“Muslims are meant to recognize, "The People of the Book" - most don't. Christians are meant love their (Muslim) enemies - most don't. Both religions have become assembleys of identification, rather than an ideology in good practise.”

The Koran lacks one of the golden rules “Love Thy Neighbour”. Christians do not punish those who wish to convert to other religions. Christians do not consider a woman to be half a man. Christian prayers are not tainted when a woman walks by. Christian family dishonour do not have violent consequences for their women. Unlike Islam. Yes, followers of either religion may not always love each other. I repeat, the Christian clergy have bucket loads of evidence of doing God’s work (particularly Catholic nuns) all over the world, even in Muslim dominated countries. Cont...