A Good Video on Inquisition, with Some Quibbles of Mine

I did not know, previous to seeing this video, that Kamen is a Jew, not a Catholic:

Catholic Inquisition Myths Busted
vaticancatholic.com | 9.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ_xohxaLEo

I

Whether Luther called for the death of cardinals and popes or not doesn't change that Lutheran Orthodoxy - a position growing up around Luther and Melanchthon - did not.

Also, among the originally condemned 42 theses, one says "it is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics".

So, in Lutheran countries, Catholics were killed as rebels against the king (who was granted a "ius reformandi" as one of the "iura circa ecclesiam"), but not as heretics.

Calvinism and Anglicanism (examplied by burning of Anabaptists in 1612) were not as peaceful.

II

Note also, since 1401 England had a very peculiar Inquisition procedure. De comburendo heretico (or in plural) was a law by the parliament, against the Lollards.

In it, the judges applying (indirectly?) death penalty were territorial bishops who could try the guilt any way they wanted. Bishop Cochon of Beauvais asked the Paris parliament if he could proceed against St Joan of Arc on that system (he was in English territory and so "under English law" including "de comburendo"). The answer was given one 14th of July in the affirmative, which led to the burning of a saint. Another July 14th was when Karamustafa laid siege on Vienna in 1683 ...

Lollards were partly considered heretical by reasons of being "antisocial" in a purely secular sense, and part of that was their rejection of English wars - including that against the restored Valois, as well as those against Celtic Fringe Independentists. While their rejection of arts in liturgy was doctrinally unsound, rejecting finery in other aspects is a licit stance, as examplified by Savonarola, Jansenism and your own attitude to Louis XIV, right?

That said, they were also really heretical about the sacraments. But in the end some were burnt whose connection to them was limited to owning a Pater or Creed in English - because some bishops went hysterics.

III

It would be interesting to compare heresy condemnations to death and sex predator condemnations to prison.

In the tribunal of Toulouse about 1 in 20 landed on the stake of all sentences (the propertion could be higher if some significant percentage of the sentences more than one concern same person, like first a prison sentence and then a sentence freeing him on abjuration), and about as many had dolls of straw burned while themselves escaping (Inquisitors were not gaolors of Alcatraz security levels), and in Spain, I had read a conservative 19th C. Protestant (probably close to Henry Charles Lea in opinions) in Sweden consider 40 000 tried and 4000 burned. If my memory serves well.

How many of those who are tried for "pedophile crimes" are condemned? Perhaps more ...?

(I say "pedophile crimes" in quotation marks because the term pedophile is morally meaningless, having at least 3 different and more or less incompatible applications, the correct term for many crimes would be rape, sexual harrassment, molestation with aggravating circumstance of youth of victim, while in some cases the "statutory rape" sentences victimise the "victim" more than the acts, since enforcing a too high age of marital and sexual consent).

"40 000 tried and 4000 burned" - the number is for all periods between 1490 (1480?) and 1830.

It is probably also partly refuted by Kamen, since then ...

IV

9:30 Spanish vs English Inquisitions.

Protestants love to refer to Coventry martyrs (who were close to the "historian" of Inquisition, Foxe), and it seems the English bishop of Coventry took hours to days finding some uneducated commoners guilty of heresy.

They also love to refer to Tyndale. He was taken by the Spanish Inquisition in what is now Belgium in the vicinity of Vilvorde in 1529, it was probably common knowledge and accepted by Inquisitors he had made an English translation of the Bible, and he was not found guilty and executed until 1536. Seven years, certainly uncomfortable, but as certainly not a case of hasty and hysteric "condemnations to left and right".

V

10:12 "But their conversion was not sincere."

In some, fairly many, cases, it obviously was.

The uncle of Torquemada had converso relations and stopped a lynch mob from lynching what they thought were insincere conversos. St Theresa of Avila was certainly not practising Judaism in secret. She also was of converso heritage.

Addendum:

In fact, when checking which years Tyndale was being tried, I came across an article on his Inquisitor, his judge. Part of the seven years procedure was a polemic between them, Tyndale was allowed to write a book to the Inquisitor, he answered with a book, in total three books defending the Catholic faith and it was verified that Tyndale had understood and rejected his arguments before he was sentenced to death. The first of the three books begins:

In order to satisfy your request, Tyndale, as far as the Lord shall grant, in which you ask me to reply in writing to the declaration and proof of your first assertion, in which you affirm that only faith justifies before God, it seems advantageous both for the clarity and the brevity of the discussion, that I should first set out those points on which we agree, so that only those on which we are at issue may be left for discussion. Therefore, as I estimate, we agree on this, that all Holy Writ is divinely inspired, and that every part thereof is true, as being divinely revealed. Secondly we agree on this, that predestination, election, vocation, and justification, by which men from being unjust [B] become just, and from being impious become pious, from being sinners become innocent, and by which in general terms remission of any sin takes place both as concerns the guilt and stain of it and as concerns the liability to eternal punishment - that these things, I say, occur freely and are not subject to human deserving. Thirdly we are at one on this, that the grace which is given to those who worthily receive the sacraments of baptism or penance is not subject to human merit, but is simply given freely by God through Christ from the merit of his Passion - a thing which manifestly appears in little children who are now baptized or formerly were circumcised; for since they lack the use of reason, it is plain that theM in no wise cooperate with God, who sanctifies them by the washing of regeneration. Fourthly, as regards adults, we agree in this, that faith does not justify them unless they acknowledge their sin and confess that the law is just and that its Author is just, unless condemning themselves and their sins they flee to the refuge of Christ's blood so that they may freely receive from God not only mercy and the remission of sins, but also the spirit of grace and the strength to fulfil the law, &c. Fifthly, that the dogma [C] of those is false, who assert that an evil life can consist with the best faith, whether faith be understood as confidence or hope or sure expectation of good promised by God. Sixthly we do not differ on this point, that you say that justifying faith is not simply any faith, but that faith which works through love, and that does not exist alone in the mind of the man justified or believing, but has companions both antecedent and following - antecedent being the fear of God and contrition and sorrow for one's sins, to which may be added the hope of forgiveness, while following are tolerance and meekness and compassion and the other fruits of Christ's Spirit. I have decided not to make it an issue that you seem to put faith before charity, when charity is the form and as it were the life of faith, as the Apostle says that the way of charity is more excellent than that of faith, and that there now abide these three, faith, hope, and charity, and that the greatest of these is charity. Setting that aside, or reserving it for another time, we agree in this, that a solitary faith, without the accompaniment of other virtues, does not justify. [D] Seventhly we agree in this, that the Apostle in saying that man is justified by faith without the works of the Law (in Romans and Galatians, and wherever he says this) does not mean this only of the written law proper to the people of the Jews, i.e. ceremonial and judicial laws, but of moral laws which had their binding force not only from the law of Moses but from natural or written law, and that by the benefit of such laws men knew what was right action and what was sin, but that such knowledge did not suffice to fulfil the Law without the grace and spirit of Christ, and that this grace and spirit are given by Christ to whomsoever they are given. These are the points in which we do not disagree. Now having set out briefly in what matters we agree, we must next see what those are on which we disagree.

I had been used to, in answering Protestants, to disagree in this last point with Tyndale, saying St Paul did mean the works of the ceremonial law did not even contribute. Interesting ...

Here is the book and the two sequels:

Jacob Latomus His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517104730/http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/latomus1.html

Point one is obvious to me, but may be of interest to those who consider "Biblical literalism" has nothing to do with "Conservative catholicism".