Monday, December 10, 2018

Betrayal or Bad Choice? Kavanaugh Opposes Conservative Judges to Protect Abortion Industry


Betrayal or Bad Choice? Kavanaugh Opposes Conservative Judges to Protect Abortion Industry

By Julio Severo
Republican states tried to defund Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion industry in the United States, by taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though conservative judges, especially Clarence Thomas, fought against tax-payer funding of abortion, left-wing justices prevailed. Among the left-wingers was Brett Kavanaugh, selected by President Donald Trump recently.
Kavanaugh refused to side with other conservative judges.
Joseph Farah, of WND (WorldNetDaily) said that “This is a cosmic tragedy,” which happened December 10, 2018.
This is a tragedy because Trump did not choose Kavanaugh to protect the abortion industry. He chose him to protect the innocent life against abortion.
Kavanaugh’s decision to side with left-wingers was a big defeat to conservatives who are fighting to protect the unborn life.
When Trump was making his choices for the post of new Supreme Court Justice, U.S. conservative evangelicals had suggestions of real conservatives. But Trump avoided all of them and picked Kavanaugh.
Many thought that Kavanaugh was the right choice, because the Big Liberal Media furiously and relentless attacked him.
But they did not consider that the media is on attack mode. Everything Trump chooses, the media will attack. If Trump says “black,” the media will say “white,” just to contradict him.
So because the Big Liberal Media made so much fuss against Kavanaugh, the conservative universe suddenly forgot that he had not a so conservative history and treated him as a conservative superhero — who changed to liberal superhero in a major decision that should have protected babies, but that Kavanaugh and other liberals used to protect the abortion industry.
Now those who had acclaimed Kavanaugh as a conservative hero will call him a “betrayer.” Perhaps he is just being faithful to his own history.
Conservatives should understand that this problem could have been avoided if Trump had followed the conservatives’ suggestions. But he avoided them. And while conservatives were busy and inattentive because of the liberal fuss against Kavanaugh, Trump quietly chose another judge for a federal court: a homosexual activist.
So the problem is not in Kavanaugh. It is in Trump.
What can be done?
Evangelicals cannot forget their president. They should pressure Trump day after day. He is under massive pressure from left-wingers. Conservatives have no choice: They should exert massive pressure on him.
In the last election, Trump lost the House of Representatives, but conservatives were relieved that at least he kept the Senate, which is important to appoint Supreme Court justices to defeat legal abortion in America. But what is the point to have the Senate if Kavanaughs are chosen?
Without proper conservative pressure, Trump will keep choosing fake conservatives like Kavanaugh. Abortion cannot be defeated this way.
If conservatives are really serious about the monstrosity of abortion, much more pressure is necessary on Trump and Republicans.
If I were given the incredible opportunity to make a humble recommendation to Trump, I would advise him to appoint Justice Tom Parker to the Supreme Court or appoint a judge selected by him.
Recommended Reading:

Monday, December 03, 2018

Steve Bannon’s Occult Movement, Brazil and Conservative Evangelicals


Steve Bannon’s Occult Movement, Brazil and Conservative Evangelicals

By Julio Severo
Steve Bannon does not talk much about Brazil and the forces that led to a conservative victory for Jair Bolsonaro, who is now the president of Brazil.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of the Brazilian president, with Steve Bannon
It is normal for an individual with an occult background not to talk much about his occult motives and intents. Such is the case of Bannon, who has an occult background, especially with his fascination for the Islamic occultist René Guénon, the founder of the Traditionalist School.
Bannon met Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of the Brazilian president, last August, who recorded their meeting in his Twitter saying: “It was a pleasure to meet STEVE BANNON, strategist in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. We had a great conversation and we share the same worldview. He said be an enthusiast of Bolsonaro’s campaign and we are certainly in touch to join forces, especially against cultural marxism.”
Both denied involvement in any project. Late November, both met again: Bolsonaro attended Bannon’s birthday party. When you meet someone sometimes, there may be a degree of friendship. But when you attend his birthday party, the degree of friendship is surely very high.
Both can keep denying any involvement and association, but if evangelicals were central for Bolsonaro’s victory, their prayers will be effective and it will happen what Jesus said, “There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. There is nothing kept secret that will not come to light.” (Mark 4:22 GWV)
A small revelation has come through Benjamin Harnwell, who was interviewed by The Intercept. Harnwell heads the Dignitatis Humanae Institute (known also as the Institute for Human Dignity), which in 2014 invited Bannon as one of its key note speakers at a conference at the Vatican, where Bannon knit together René Guénon and Julius Evola and “conservatism.”
In the Interview, titled in Portuguese as “Conversamos com o sócio de Steve Bannon em escola na Itália que busca guinar o mundo à direita” (We have talked with Steve Bannon’s partner at a school in Italy that seeks to guide the world to the right), The Intercept said, “Eduardo Bolsonaro… stated in an interview with the Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo in early November that he intends to build a connection with The Movement.” The Movement is an organization founded by Bannon to promote traditionalism.
The Intercept said that the link between The Movement and Institute for Human Dignity “is in the hands and brain of Bannon,” who is “the backbone of the institute.”
Probably, Bolsonaro’s intent to build his connection with The Movement is already happening, and The Intercept itself said, “It has long been suspected that there is some connection between Bannon and Bolsonaro.” The Brazilian president has appointed as his Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo, who openly says that his traditionalism is based on Guénon and Evola, who “had struck an alliance with Benito Mussolini, and his ideas became the basis of Fascist racial theory; later… Evola’s ideas gained currency in Nazi Germany,” according to Joshua Green, author of “Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency” (Penguin Publishing Group, 2017).
The appointment of Araújo may be a sign that the Guenonian influence of Bannon is discreetly entering Brazil, as suggested by The Intercept.
Traditionalism is good, when it has a good foundation. Traditionalism and conservatism according to the Bible are excellent, even though Jesus Christ often condemned traditionalists and their traditionalism. Yes, traditionalists in the days of Jesus were pro-life, pro-family and against ideas that today would be considered Marxist. But when traditionalism takes the place in our lives that belongs to God, it becomes an enemy of God. This is why Jesus criticized traditionalists and their traditionalism.
So even when traditionalism is based on the Bible, as the Pharisees’ traditionalism was, is not warranty that it is good.
But the traditionalism, conservatism and Catholicism promoted by Bannon are according to Guénon.
Let us address the important interview of Benjamin Harnwell in The Intercept.
Harnwell said, “[Steve Bannon] is our patron and the main point of reference. It is he who chooses the teachers and it was he who decided that the school should be called Judeo-Christian Academy.”
You could say that it is opportunism for an individual with a background in the occultism of René Guénon to use a “Judeo-Christian” image in his movement and efforts. You are right, and Trump fired Bannon just for opportunism.
Opportunism is a hallmark of Guénon’s traditionalism. In fact, Olavo de Carvalho, who is an old promoter of Guénon in Brazil and Bolsonaro’s Rasputin, said, “It’s not a problem but I’ve rarely met people as sophisticatedly false and lying as in the so-called ‘perennialist’ environment.” Adherents of Guénon are known as traditionalists or perennialists.
However, when mentioning that the Protestant writer C. S. Lewis called Guénon a charlatan, Carvalho readily defended the founder of the Traditionalist School, declaring, with his sophisticatedly false and lying tongue, that “Guénon was never a charlatan.”
I only knew Carvalho in 2002 because I was active in the pro-life movement since the 1980s, having contacts with conservative pro-life Catholic and evangelical leaders in Brazil and the U.S., including Fr. Paul Marx, the founder of Human Life International, the largest Catholic pro-life organization in the world.
Because I had thought that Carvalho was just a Catholic fighting against abortion and the gay agenda, I worked, free of charge, for his “traditionalist” website for over ten years. Before my involvement with Carvalho, I used already to write for Providafamilia, the largest Catholic pro-life website in Brazil. I used to work also for JesusSite, the largest evangelical website in Brazil in the early 2000s.
For over 10 years I saw Carvalho promoting Guénon and advising his followers to read Guénon’s books. I never followed his books’ recommendations, because I suspected occultism. But what do? Syncretism is very common in the Brazilian Catholicism and I thought that Carvalho was just one more syncretic Catholic. Adherents of Guénon, traditionalists and perennialists exploit such Catholic bond with syncretism in Brazil to hide themselves and their intents under a Catholic cover.
Adherents of Guénon, traditionalists and perennialists are actually “sophisticatedly false and lying” individuals.
So it is no wonder that Harnwell, Bannon and Carvalho identify themselves as “Catholic” and, with this cover, they easily draw Catholics. The president of the Institute for Human Dignity is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, “known as the number one enemy of Pope Francis” (The Intercept). What does a Catholic leader gain by fighting Marxism while entrapped by occult forces?
Catholics like Francis are in the Marxist trap, but Catholics like Burke are unable to see that they have fallen in the anti-Marxist trap of occultist Guénon.
The Intercept asked Harnwell: “But in Latin America, especially in Brazil, it is the evangelical, not Catholic, caucus that is the most important in Congress. How is your relationship with evangelicals?”
Harnwell answered: “The alliance with evangelicals may be the answer we seek… I would be very happy to be able to work closely with evangelicals… See, for example, it’s the evangelicals that are supporting the Trump administration, it’s evangelicals who are against abortion in Brazil… Catholicism has left the battlefield.”
So Bannon’s movement, or adherents of Guénon or traditionalists or perennialists are seeking an alliance with Brazilian evangelicals. Let us return to Carvalho. When he began his “Catholic” website, there was no evangelical columnists there. When his website invited me to be the first evangelical columnist, for the sake of the pro-life cause I accepted, thinking that I was having just an alliance with pro-life Catholics. I did not perceive that I was being used to draw evangelical leaders. Trump was much smarter than I was, because he noticed in time that he was being used by Bannon.
Harnwell also said, “Evangelicals helped elect Bolsonaro president of Brazil. After announcing the result of the first round, the first statement given by the then PSL presidential candidate was to thank evangelical leaders.”
Interestingly, Harnwell, who said that Bannon is the patron of his institute, recognizes that evangelicals were vital for Bolsonaro and that in his first statement after the first round, when he was in extreme need of their votes, Bolsonaro thanked them. But Harnwell did not mention that immediately after the second round, when Bolsonaro’s victory was confirmed and he no longer needed to depend on evangelicals, in his first statement he did not thank any evangelical leader. He thanked specifically an adherent of Guénon — Olavo de Carvalho.
After the first round, Bolsonaro remembered evangelicals. After the second round, he forgot them and remembered a Guenonian. But left-wingers know very well who gave the victory to Bolsonaro. Fernando Haddad, the left-wing presidential candidate who was defeated by Bolsonaro, acknowledged that the biggest factor responsible for his defeat at the polls was the “evangelical phenomenon.”
Bolsonaro has already appointed his most important ministers, and no one of them is evangelical. The two more important are Guenonians.
Bolsonaro has been praised as a president who will put Brazil in a closer friendship and partnership with the U.S. and move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem. These two measures can be seen as totally new steps for non-evangelical Brazilians, but in no way they are new for evangelicals.
As an evangelical, I have always supported Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Not surprisingly, the only two nations that moved their embassies to Jerusalem are nations with an evangelical president: The U.S. and Guatemala.
About friendship with the U.S., as a Brazilian evangelical I have always seen Americans — in evangelical churches. In all my lifetime as an evangelical, I have seen and heard American evangelicals visiting Brazil and preaching in evangelical churches. Brazilian evangelical churches have an unbreakable friendship with American evangelicals.
The influence of American evangelicals — from Rex Humbard and Billy Graham to Pat Robertson — is powerful in my life and the lives of other evangelicals. American evangelicals are a vital part of my life.
While Bolsonaro wants the non-evangelical Brazil to have friendship with the U.S., the Brazilian evangelical community has always had — non-stop — friendship and partnership with American evangelicals. My case is not exception: I have had contact with conservative Americans, including ministers and even generals, since the 1980s.
The evangelical Brazil is a natural friend of America. The Catholic Brazil — Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world — has not the experience of seeing regularly American conservatives in their churches.
The Intercept asked Harnwell, “Speaking of Brazilian evangelicals, they are Bolsonaro’s support base. Do you know him?” He answered, “I have heard very nice things about him. Bannon, from whom I always ask for advice, told me very nice things about Bolsonaro.”
Occultists never reveal their plans, because the business of occultists is to keep their business in occult.
Even so, Benjamin Harnwell’s interview with The Intercept gives us some “revelations”:
* It confirms that evangelicals, not Guenonians (Bannon or Carvalho), were vital for Bolsonaro’s victory.
* It confirms that Eduardo Bolsonaro is building a connection between the Bolsonaro administration and The Movement of Bannon.
* It confirms adherents of Guénon or traditionalists or perennialists are seeking an alliance with Brazilian evangelicals.
Such dangerous alliance is possible, because of Carvalho, who has promoted Guenonian traditionalism under the cover of Catholicism and conservative philosophy. Especially because over 15 years ago a Brazilian evangelical named Julio Severo accepted an invitation from Carvalho’s “conservative” website, Mídia Sem Máscara, to be used to draw evangelicals. Now the name of Carvalho is known as a “conservative Catholic” among evangelicals.
More than anyone else in the evangelical world, I understand the deceptive, abusive and destructive force of the Guenonian traditionalism.
Yet, Jair Bolsonaro, who has appointed Guenonians in his administration to the detriment of evangelicals who elected him, has not understanding of such force.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, taking advantage of the influence of his father, is using the Brazilian foreign policy as his personal playground, thinking that Guenonians are his new toys. Sooner or later he will find that he is their toy.
Trump came to see that he was being used by Bannon. I came to see that I was being used by Carvalho. My prayer is that President Jair Bolsonaro and his sons may see that they are also being used by Guenonians.
Recommended Reading:

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Brazilian Presidential Election: Fernando Haddad Acknowledges that the Biggest Responsible for His Defeat at the Polls Was “Evangelical Phenomenon”


Brazilian Presidential Election: Fernando Haddad Acknowledges that the Biggest Responsible for His Defeat at the Polls Was “Evangelical Phenomenon”

By Julio Severo
In an interview with the prominent Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo this week, former presidential candidate Fernando Haddad, from the socialist Workers’ Party, which ruled Brazil from 2003 to 2016, has acknowledged that the biggest responsible for his defeat at the polls was the “evangelical phenomenon.”
Fernando Haddad and evangelicals
He said, “There are studies showing that if I had in the evangelical world the same percentage of votes I had in the non-evangelical world, I would have won the election,” adding, “There is an evangelical phenomenon we have to deal with.”
He blamed especially neo-Pentecostalism, or charismatics, for his defeat.
“Brazil, structurally, is a hybrid between castes and meritocracy. It is admitted that the individual may go up, but alone, as long as the distance between classes remains. Neo-Pentecostalism and the Prosperity Gospel are compatible with that,” Haddad said.
While historic Protestant churches overwhelmingly affected by the Theology of Integral Mission (the Protestant version of Liberation Theology, very similar to the Social Gospel) blame the Prosperity Gospel for all the problems in the Evangelical Church in Brazil, Haddad has directly blamed neo-Pentecostalism and the Prosperity Gospel for his defeat!
He hit the spot. When the initiative of the ruling Workers’ Party for imposing homosexual indoctrination on schoolchildren began to move forward in 2011 during Haddad’s term as minister of education, the largest opposition came not from Catholic bishops nor from historic Protestant churches like the Brazilian Presbyterian Church. It came from neo-Pentecostal leaders, who eventually pressured the Evangelical Parliamentary Caucus in the Brazilian Congress, which in turn pressured leftist President Dilma Rousseff to veto it.
Haddad is not the first leftist leader to identify neo-Pentecostalism as an obstacle to leftism. In 2016 Brazilian Marxist philosopher Marilena Chaui said that the main threat to Brazilian leftism is the Prosperity Gospel from neo-Pentecostal churches.
This theological modality, which was born in the United States and is spreading as a wildfire in Brazil, has great affinity with American capitalism and aversion to the socialist system. The growth of neo-Pentecostalism creates natural friction with socialism. The more neo-Pentecostalism, the less socialism. Venezuela, which is being ravaged by socialism, is an example. There are very few neo-Pentecostal churches in Venezuela, whose population is 96 percent Catholic.
Although Haddad attributed his defeat to neo-Pentecostalism and although the U.S. and Israeli media reported that Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro’s greatest conservative force were evangelicals, Bolsonaro has so far given priority to cabinet appointments to suggestions coming from Olavo de Carvalho, whose adherents believe that without he Bolsonaro would not be president.
Although the name of Rev. Silas Malafaia appeared several times in the big U.S. media as a prominent influence that led evangelicals to vote for Bolsonaro, the new president, when receiving the name of Guilherme Schelb coming from Malafaia for minister of Education, preferred to welcome the indication of anti-Trump Ricardo Vélez, coming from Carvalho, although the name of Carvalho was not mentioned once in the big U.S. media as having had any influence in the election of Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro also appointed as Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo, the name indicated by Carvalho. Araújo has an article in a diplomatic magazine by Itamaraty, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, extolling the Islamic occultist René Guénon, who for many years has been propagandized by Carvalho in Brazil.
While Haddad has expressed explicit acknowledgment that his defeat was due to evangelicals, specifically to neo-Pentecostals, from Bolsonaro has not yet come any acknowledgement that his victory was due to them. On the day of his victory, Bolsonaro thanked Brazilians in general and Olavo de Carvalho in particular.
However, from Carvalho, who has been abundantly recommended by Bolsonaro and his sons in highly flattering Twitter and Facebook messages, came a bizarre acknowledgement suggesting that evangelical churches should be fought more than socialism has been fought. Carvalho said: “Evangelical churches have done more harm to Brazil than the entire left did.”
Therefore, both Haddad and Carvalho see evangelical churches as major obstacles, threats and evils.
But who has been an influence, with his advices, in Bolsonaro’s politics is not Haddad. It is Carvalho himself, who became a Rasputin in his life.
With information from GospelPrime.
Recommended Reading:

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Abortion, the Inquisition and Revisionism in the Encyclopedia Britannica


Abortion, the Inquisition and Revisionism in the Encyclopedia Britannica

One Century of Contrasts. While Cultural Marxism Is Predominant in the Modern Encyclopedia Britannica, Conservatism Was Predominant in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

By Julio Severo
The Encyclopedia Britannica has been a favorite source of information for homeschoolers in the United States. In fact, for more than a century, the long, stately rows of Encyclopedia Britannica have been an important presence on the shelves of many educated men and women.
Yet, homeschoolers and conservative Christians in America do not use any Encyclopedia Britannica. They use its best edition: the 11th edition, published in 1911. It is highly appreciated by its conservative value.
Modern editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica are not conservative. For example, the 2015 Encyclopedia Britannica says, in its entry “Abortion”:
Induced abortions may be performed for reasons that fall into four general categories: to preserve the life or physical or mental well-being of the mother; to prevent the completion of a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or incest; to prevent the birth of a child with serious deformity, mental deficiency, or genetic abnormality; or to prevent a birth for social or economic reasons (such as the extreme youth of the pregnant female or the sorely strained resources of the family unit). By some definitions, abortions that are performed to preserve the well-being of the female or in cases of rape or incest are therapeutic, or justifiable, abortions.
Numerous medical techniques exist for performing abortions. During the first trimester (up to about 12 weeks after conception), endometrial aspiration, suction, or curettage may be used to remove the contents of the uterus. In endometrial aspiration, a thin, flexible tube is inserted up the cervical canal (the neck of the womb) and then sucks out the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) by means of an electric pump.
In the related but slightly more onerous procedure known as dilatation and evacuation (also called suction curettage, or vacuum curettage), the cervical canal is enlarged by the insertion of a series of metal dilators while the patient is under anesthesia, after which a rigid suction tube is inserted into the uterus to evacuate its contents. When, in place of suction, a thin metal tool called a curette is used to scrape (rather than vacuum out) the contents of the uterus, the procedure is called dilatation and curettage. When combined with dilatation, both evacuation and curettage can be used up to about the 16th week of pregnancy.
From 12 to 19 weeks the injection of a saline solution may be used to trigger uterine contractions; alternatively, the administration of prostaglandins by injection, suppository, or other method may be used to induce contractions, but these substances may cause severe side effects. Hysterotomy, the surgical removal of the uterine contents, may be used during the second trimester or later. In general, the more advanced the pregnancy, the greater the risk to the female of mortality or serious complications following an abortion.
In the late 20th century a new method of induced abortion was discovered that uses the drug RU 486 (mifepristone), an artificial steroid that is closely related to the contraceptive hormone norethnidrone. RU 486 works by blocking the action of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to support the development of a fertilized egg. When ingested within weeks of conception, RU 486 effectively triggers the menstrual cycle and flushes the fertilized egg out of the uterus.
In essence, the 2015 Encyclopedia Britannica is pro-abortion. This is the reason why, in ethical and moral subjects, homeschoolers avoid it.
In contrast, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, loved by homeschoolers, says in its entry “Abortion”:
Among primitive savage races abortion is practised to a far less extent than infanticide, which offers a simpler way of getting rid of inconvenient progeny. But it is common among the American Indians, as well as in China, Cambodia and India.
In all the countries of Europe the causing of abortion is now punishable with more or less lengthy terms of imprisonment.
It is now a statutory offence in all states of the Union.
In essence, the 1911 the Encyclopedia Britannica is not pro-abortion. This is the reason why, in ethical and moral subjects, homeschoolers love it.
Objectivity, reason and ethics in the 1911 the Encyclopedia Britannica were defeated by the modern, politically-correct editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Pro-abortion revisionism has prevailed.
In an article titled “Wikipedia Or Encyclopedia Britannica: Which Has More Bias?” published by Forbes magazine, author Michael Blanding recognizes that topics in the modern Encyclopedia Britannica “can be quite subjective or even controversial.”
“If you read 100 words of a Wikipedia article, and 100 words of a Britannica [article], you will find no significant difference in bias,” says the article. That is, in left-wing ideology Britannica and Wikipedia are essentially equal.
In the article titled “Corruption of a Venerable Brand,” published by the National Review, author Matthew J. Franck says that “Encyclopedia Britannica Debases Itself” and that “At this rate, the editors of Britannica seem determined to make Wikipedia look good.  It’s a sad declension.” Declension, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, is an archaic term for “a condition of decline or moral deterioration.”
To treat abortion as a serious legal problem worthy to be banned and criminalized (as presented by 1911 Britannica) to a medical issue legally allowed by virtually any reason (as presented by 2015 Britannica) is sheer declension.
But the moral deterioration in Britannica is not evident only in abortion. The Inquisition is another example.
The 2015 Encyclopedia Britannica says, in its entry “Inquisition”:
All of the institutional inquisitions worked in secrecy, except for closely regulated public appearances. Their secrecy permitted those who opposed them to speculate about and often fictionalize dramatically their secret activities, producing many of the myths about inquisitions that are found in European literature from the 16th century to the present.
While past editions of Britannica addressed “The Inquisition,” the 2015 Britannica talks about “inquisitions,” as usual in the revisionist perspective. In fact, one of the main authors in the article about “inquisitions” in the 2015 Britannica is the notorious revisionist author Edward Peters. If modern Britannica can be revisionist on abortion, why not on the Inquisition too?
Revisionism is an essentially socialist concept. The Oxford Dictionary of English, in its entry “Revisionism,” says:
“n. [mass noun] often DEROGATORY a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles. The theory or practice of revising one’s.”
Before the politically-correct, revisionist trend, what did the 1911 Britannica say on the Inquisition? Historian Toby Green defined the Inquisition in the title itself of his book, “Inquisition: The Reign of Fear” (Macmillan Publishers UK, 2007). And the 1911 Britannica defined it as “reign of terror,” saying about the crusade against Albigensian, created by inquisitors: “These executions en masse certainly created a definitive precedent for violent repression.”
Britannica defined it,
THE INQUISITION (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), the name given to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction dealing both in the middle ages and in modern times with the detection and punishment of heretics and all persons guilty of any offence against Catholic orthodoxy.
Random excerpts from the 1911 Britannica show:
The punishment of death by burning was much more often employed by the Spanish than by the medieval Inquisition; about 2000 persons were burnt in Torquemada’s day.
[In the 1700s,] a great number of [Jews] were denounced, sent to the galleys, or burnt, for having returned to their ancestral religion, on the flimsiest of evidence, such as… abstaining from swine’s flesh.
During the 16th and 17th centuries the Inquisition in Spain was directed against Protestantism. The inquisitor-general, Fernando de Valdés, archbishop of Seville, asked the pope to condemn the Lutherans to be burnt even if they were not backsliders, or wished to be reconciled, while in 1560 three foreign Protestants, two Englishmen and a Frenchman, were burnt in defiance of all international law. But the Reformation never had enough supporters in Spain to occupy the attention of the Inquisition for long.
Countless numbers of… men and women, clerks and laymen… perished in the fires or the dungeons of the Inquisition.
Mateo Pascual, professor of theology at Alcala, who had in a public lecture expressed a doubt as to purgatory, suffered imprisonment and the confiscation of his goods.
In 1521 the Inquisition took upon itself the examination of books suspected of Lutheran heresy.
In 1558 the penalty of death and confiscation of property was decreed against any bookseller or individual who should keep in his possession condemned books. The censure of books was eventually abolished in 1812.
the inquisitors… played the part of absolute dictators, burning at the stake, attacking both the living and the dead, confiscating their property and land, and enclosing the inhabitants both of the towns and the country in a network of suspicion and denunciation.
Already in 1210 massacres of Jews had taken place under the inspiration of Arnold of Narbonne, the papal legate.
In 1278 [Pope] Nicholas IV commanded the general of the Dominicans to send friars into all parts of the kingdom [of Spain] to work for the conversion of the Jews, and draw up lists of those who should refuse to be baptized.
In the 14th century the massacres increased, and during the year 1391 whole towns were destroyed by fire and sword, while at Valencia eleven thousand forced baptisms took place.
In the 15th century the persecution continued in the same way; it can only be said that the years 1449, 1462, 1470, 1473 were marked by the greatest bloodshed.
The emperor Frederick II defined his jurisprudence more clearly: from 1220 to 1239, supported by Pope Honorius III, and above all by [Pope] Gregory IX, he established against the heretics of the Empire in general a legislation in which the penalties of death, banishment and confiscation of property were formulated so clearly as to be henceforth incontestable.
The pope no longer hesitated as to the principle or the degree of repression.
Women, children or slaves could be witnesses for the prosecution, but not for the defence, and cases are even to be found in which the witnesses were only ten years of age.
No witness might refuse to give evidence [against the accused individuals], under pain of being considered guilty of heresy.
The next step was the torture of witnesses, a practice which was left to the discretion of the inquisitors.
Moreover, all confessions or depositions extorted in the torture-chamber had subsequently to be “freely” confirmed. The confession was always considered as voluntary. The procedure was of course not litigious; any lawyer defending the accused would have been held guilty of heresy.
In effect, handing [the accused individual] over to the secular arm was equivalent to a sentence of death, and of death by fire. The Dominican Jacob Sprenger, provincial of his order in Germany (1494) and inquisitor, does not hesitate to speak of the victims ‘quas incinerari fecimus’ (“whom we [the inquisitors] caused to be burnt to ashes”).
The Inquisition preferred to draw its revenues from heresy.
Soon the papacy managed to gain a share of the spoils, even outside the states of the [Catholic] Church, as is shown by the bulls ‘ad extirpanda’ of [Pope] Innocent IV and [Pope] Alexander IV, and henceforward the inquisitors had, in varying proportions, a direct interest in these spoliations.
In Spain this division only applied to the property of the clergy and vassals of the [Catholic] Church, but in France, Italy and Germany, the property of all those convicted of heresy was shared between the lay and ecclesiastical authorities.
At first they tried a compromise; the unfortunate victims had to pay twice, to the pope and to the Inquisition. But the payment to the pope was held by the Inquisition to reduce too much its own share of the confiscated property, and the struggle continued throughout the first half of the 16th century, the Curia finally triumphing, thanks to the energy of [Pope] Paul III.
Besides, this system of wholesale confiscations might reduce a family to beggary in a single day, so that all transactions were liable to extraordinary risks.
But it is undeniable that [the Inquisition] frequently tended to constitute a state within the state. At the time of their greatest power, the inquisitors paid no taxes, and gave no account of the confiscations which they effected; they claimed for themselves and their agents the right of bearing arms, and it is well known that their declared adversaries, or even those who blamed them in some respects, were without fail prosecuted for heresy.
The [Inquisition] allowed the accused an advocate chosen from among the members or familiars of the Holy Office; this privilege was obviously illusory, for the advocate was chosen and paid by the tribunal, and could only interview the accused in presence of an inquisitor and a secretary.
Napoleon, on his entry into Madrid (December 1808), at once suppressed the Inquisition.
In 1816 the pope abolished torture in all the tribunals of the Inquisition.
The [Catholic] Church was originally opposed to torture, and the canon law did not admit confessions extorted by that means; but by the bull ‘Ad extirpanda’ (1252) [Pope] Innocent IV approved its use for the discovery of heresy, and [Pope] Urban IV confirmed this usage, which had its origin in secular legislation (cf. the Veronese Code of 1228, and Sicilian Constitution of Frederick II. in 1231).
St John Chrysostom considered that a heretic should be deprived of the liberty of speech and that assemblies organized by heretics should be dissolved, but declared that “to put a heretic to death would be to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime.”
An effort to sanitize the Inquisition would be akin to an effort to sanitize legal abortion. This is just what the modern Britannica has done!
Why is a pro-life website advocating the revisionism of the Inquisition? Christians defending the Inquisition are like Christians defending abortion and Christians defending abortion are like Christians defending the Inquisition.
Yet, this is just what LifeSiteNews, the largest Catholic pro-life website in the world, has been doing.
LifeSiteNews published an article titled “Debunking the anti-Christian myths about the Spanish Inquisition,” by Joseph Pearce. This title is malicious because the cruelties, tortures and executions of the Inquisition were never “myths,” and it is completely anti-Christian to treat the Inquisition as a “myth,” just as it is anti-Christian to treat the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews as “myth.” By the way, both the Inquisition and the Holocaust preferentially tortured and killed Jews.
So if LifeSiteNews treats the Inquisition as a “myth” this is not different at all from what Muslims do to their own genocide against Christians. The Islamic website Islamicity has an article titled “Untangling the truth from the myth of the ‘Armenian Genocide’” that says,
“The controversy surrounding the so-called Armenian genocide has again been stirred up by no less an important individual than the Catholic Pope Francis himself when he called it ‘the first genocide of the 20th century.’ The Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has vehemently criticized the pope's remark. ‘The pope’s statement, which is far from the legal and historical reality, cannot be accepted,’ he tweeted.”
Just as Muslims do not accept what they did to Christians, LifeSiteNews does not accept what the Catholic Inquisition did to Jews and Protestants.
It is significant that in Spain the Jews, who frequently were persecuted by the Inquisition, were called “Marrano” — Spanish for pig.
The LifeSiteNews article mentioned President Obama’s reference to the Inquisition at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC in 2016 by exploiting it on behalf of historical revisionism, which is usually loved and used by the Left.
In answer, I quote Franklin Graham, a conservative adviser to Trump who said,
“Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1,000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President, many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Muhammad, on the contrary, was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Muhammed emulate Muhammed.”
Advocacy of the historical revisionism of the Inquisition is compatible with the left-wing mindset, but incompatible with pro-life principles. I agree with Graham: the Inquisition emulated Muhammed and his violent spirit.
In another article, titled “Refuting anti-Catholic falsehoods,” LifeSiteNews said,
“The Spanish Inquisition, for example, suffered literally from very bad press. Among the first works churned out by the early printing presses of Protestant Holland and England were hundreds of false accounts of the Inquisition murdering tens of thousands of Jews, Moors and Protestants. Bad historians since then have inflated the death count…”
If the Inquisition “suffered” — the lunatic view is always that the oppressor, not its victims, “suffered” — “very bad press,” what about abortion in the 1911 Britannica? What about socialism and Nazism? Did they also suffer “very bad press”? In the perspective of pro-abortion activists, socialists and Nazis, abortion, socialism and Nazism suffered “very bad press.”
LifeSiteNews makes appear like the Protestant Holland and England were exclusively responsible for “false accounts of the Inquisition murdering tens of thousands of Jews, Moors and Protestants.” LifeSiteNews rules out the fact that even if there were no Protestant in the world, for centuries there have been independent Jewish writers and historians recording the torture and death of thousands of Jews under the Inquisition.
The father of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a massive work of 1,500 pages titled “The Origins of the Inquisition,” published in 1995. Does LifeSiteNews think that Netanyahu’s book is “bad press” to make the Inquisition suffer? If I burn this book, will it reduce the “suffering” of the Inquisition and its advocates and revisionists? Does LifeSiteNews think that Netanyahu’s book was influenced by the “false accounts” of the Inquisition from the Protestant Holland and England, instead of independent Jewish historic accounts?
If LifeSiteNews alleges that “bad historians inflate the death count,” is Netanyahu a “bad historian” who has inflated the death count of Jewish victims? Are also historians who denounce abortion, socialism and Nazism “bad historians” who have inflated the death count of their victims?
To help the Inquisition not “suffer,” should we give it only good press? Also, to help pro-abortion activists, socialists and Nazis not to “suffer,” should we give abortion, socialism and Nazism only good press?
The gathering of data 100 years ago was not so good as it is today. Muslim Turks use it to say that the Armenian Genocide, committed by them against about 1,500,000 Christians 100 years ago, was not genocide and that the numbers were very small. Radical Catholics use the same expediency and time of 500 years ago is actually a very favorable expediency for them. They say the same thing about the Inquisition, even though Independent Jewish historic records show that what LifeSiteNews and other Catholics call “myth” and “bad press” was actually a historic fact.
From the Muslim Turkish perspective, talk of Armenian Genocide is just “bad press” against Islam or Turkey. For them, such “bad press” makes Turkey and Islam “suffer.” So radical Catholics are not alone in their complaints of “bad press.”
A pro-Inquisition Catholic Church has no moral to denounce abortion. But the current Catholic Church has not defended the Inquisition. Only some of its more recalcitrant members have done it.
How can such recalcitrant Catholics denounce legal abortion and its torture and death of innocent unborn babies if they excuse, minimize and even defend the same reality in the Inquisition?
As a conservative pro-life evangelical, I will do what U.S. homeschoolers and other conservatives are doing. I will use the 1911 Britannica to defend a conservative stance on abortion and on the Inquisition. I totally reject the modern Britannica and its revisionism of both abortion and the Inquisition.
But since LifeSiteNews is pro-life, it should be consistent. If it wants the conservative 1911 Britannica and its pro-life stance on abortion, it should accept its conservative stance on the Inquisition. If it prefers the modern liberal Britannica and its revisionism of the Inquisition, it should also accept its equal revisionist stance on abortion. Basically, the modern Britannica sees the torture and death of abortion and the Inquisition as equally “myths.”
The 1911 Britannica is consistent in its conservative stances against abortion and the Inquisition.
The modern Britannica is consistent in its revisionist stances equally defending abortion and the Inquisition.
LifeSiteNews has not been consistent; it has accepted the revisionism of the modern Britannica on the Inquisition, but not on abortion.
LifeSiteNews and the minority of recalcitrant Catholics should choose which consistency they prefer: Conservative or revisionist and liberal.
Pro-abortion activists use millions of poor explanations, studies and research to excuse, minimize and defend abortion. Recalcitrant Catholics should stop using less than one dozen of poor revisionist explanations, studies and research to excuse, minimize and defend the Inquisition.
Conservapedia, a conservative “Wikipedia” owned by a Catholic writer, treats the Inquisition much more realistically, and less revisionalistically, than LifeSiteNews does by not labeling it as a “myth” or another term to hide its historical monstrosity.
In so serious ethical topics as abortion and the Inquisition, which involve the human rights of an untold number of innocent victims who suffered torture and death, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is steeped in conservatism, is a much better guide than the modern Encyclopedia Britannica, infected by cultural Marxism and its revisionism.
Recommended Reading about the Inquisition: