How should Catholics view the Inquisition?

[josephback]

Was it holy, or a travesty? I know the Church under John Paul 2 issued an apology for the historic methods of the Inquisition. On the other hand the popular conception of the number killed and tortured is hopelessly skewed. In truth only 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed, not millions. But then again morality is not determined by numbers. Is it ok as a Catholic to repudiate the “Holy” Inquisition?

 

[Rence]

IMOHO, it’s better to own the mistakes of our past instead of making up excuses or lying about them. I’m quite sure that the initiation of the Inquisitions began with sound reasoning and the best of intentions with the goal of insuring the integrity of the teachings of the Church and saving souls. It was also a different world, which made it a lot about controlling the masses.

I also am quite sure that as with anything else, the further away you move from the source (the Pope, in the case) and the more people are involved, the more personal interpretation, personal biases, personal weaknesses, etc. start to evolve in a movement. Which means, I believe that there were good priests and Bishops and authorities who were in alignment with the original initiation of the Inquisitions. But I also believe there were those with tunnel vision and no sense of compromise. And then I believe there were evil ones who thrived on hurting others. And unfortunately, those who thrived on doing wrong did a lot of wrong and gave ammunition to those against the Church, earning it a terrible reputation.

The numbers involved doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter if there were a million, a few thousand, a few hundred or seven. It matters that it happened, and that it happened in the name of God. To try and lessen the magnitude with numbers just misses the point, and makes the Church look bad.

I think Catholics should view the Inquisition as a mistake of the past, to learn from, and not repeat.

 

[Mudgely]

IMOHO, it’s better to own the mistakes of our past instead of making up excuses or lying about them. I’m quite sure that the initiation of the Inquisitions began with sound reasoning and the best of intentions with the goal of insuring the integrity of the teachings of the Church and saving souls. It was also a different world, which made it a lot about controlling the masses.

I also am quite sure that as with anything else, the further away you move from the source (the Pope, in the case) and the more people are involved, the more personal interpretation, personal biases, personal weaknesses, etc. start to evolve in a movement. Which means, I believe that there were good priests and Bishops and authorities who were in alignment with the original initiation of the Inquisitions. But I also believe there were those with tunnel vision and no sense of compromise. And then I believe there were evil ones who thrived on hurting others. And unfortunately, those who thrived on doing wrong did a lot of wrong and gave ammunition to those against the Church, earning it a terrible reputation.

The numbers involved doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter if there were a million, a few thousand, a few hundred or seven. It matters that it happened, and that it happened in the name of God. To try and lessen the magnitude with numbers just misses the point, and makes the Church look bad.

I think Catholics should view the Inquisition as a mistake of the past, to learn from, and not repeat.

Really? Do numbers not matter? Seems like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Sadaam, Amin, and others hold a special place in history.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Was it holy, or a travesty? I know the Church under John Paul 2 issued an apology for the historic methods of the Inquisition. On the other hand the popular conception of the number killed and tortured is hopelessly skewed. In truth only 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed, not millions. But then again morality is not determined by numbers. Is it ok as a Catholic to repudiate the “Holy” Inquisition?

Yes, every Christian from the lowest rank to the Pope, is a sinner. Why not the inquisition?

 

[po18guy]

As a principle, should any of us be judged by our past behavior?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

It is my understanding that the Catholic view of the Death Penalty today is contingent upon the fact that better alternatives exist. IE: The prison system is much better because it allows a criminal to confess their sins and seek atonement/ penitence while incarcerated.

Of the four major inquisitions, the Holy Roman Inquisition (or the one which was not under any auspices of political entities other than the Pope and the Papal States) has never been apologized for. I know there’s an interview of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict addressing this, but I don’t want to paraphrase from memory.

The Inquisition and the Crusades are not a question of moral teaching. These were actions that applied to specific situations and a specific time. Even though there was no better alternative than the Inquisition at the time, the Church never said the Inquisition would last forever. That’s why the Church ended it, not because it was immoral but because it was not necessary.

Quite frankly, there are historical evidences of prisoners who were executed under the auspices of Kingdoms, Principalities, militaries, etc. who would have preferred the Inquisition because it was more humane. Likewise, there were heretics who were killed by the Inquisition who said they were thankful it was at the hands of the Inquisition and not under governments at the time.

The legal system was very different back then, the society was very different. Who is to say that God did not want the Inquisition to happen, and that the Inquisitors were not led by the Holy Spirit?

In a society where people died left and right, the life expectancy was 30s-40s like Sub Saharan Africa today. People would have LOVED to live in Prison, get three meals a day, and not have to do back breaking labor for 12-16 hours a day. That would have been a reward, not a punishment.

So, the nutshell; look at the Church’s view of the death penalty. Moving from thee, I would conclude that the Church is apologizing for the Inquisition in practice and not in principle. IE: there were abuses. Just like the Church approves of indulgences, but in practice there were often abuses.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The Inquisition was just the state controlling the church, which is why seperation of church and state developed. Nothing much to say besides that.

 

[po18guy]

It is my understanding that the Catholic view of the Death Penalty today is contingent upon the fact that better alternatives exist. IE: The prison system is much better because it allows a criminal to confess their sins and seek atonement/ penitence while incarcerated.

Of the four major inquisitions, the Holy Roman Inquisition (or the one which was not under any auspices of political entities other than the Pope and the Papal States) has never been apologized for. I know there’s an interview of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict addressing this, but I don’t want to paraphrase from memory.

The Inquisition and the Crusades are not a question of moral teaching. These were actions that applied to specific situations and a specific time. Even though there was no better alternative than the Inquisition at the time, the Church never said the Inquisition would last forever. That’s why the Church ended it, not because it was immoral but because it was not necessary.

Quite frankly, there are historical evidences of prisoners who were executed under the auspices of Kingdoms, Principalities, militaries, etc. who would have preferred the Inquisition because it was more humane. Likewise, there were heretics who were killed by the Inquisition who said they were thankful it was at the hands of the Inquisition and not under governments at the time.

The legal system was very different back then, the society was very different. Who is to say that God did not want the Inquisition to happen, and that the Inquisitors were not led by the Holy Spirit?

In a society where people died left and right, the life expectancy was 30s-40s like Sub Saharan Africa today. People would have LOVED to live in Prison, get three meals a day, and not have to do back breaking labor for 12-16 hours a day. That would have been a reward, not a punishment.

So, the nutshell; look at the Church’s view of the death penalty. Moving from thee, I would conclude that the Church is apologizing for the Inquisition in practice and not in principle. IE: there were abuses. Just like the Church approves of indulgences, but in practice there were often abuses.

Very well said. In all things, we err when we judge while wearing the glasses of our current time. Those were times of certain danger - dangers which we do not know in our age. Yet, we have our own dangers, and must fight on a different battlefield, employing different strategies.

 

[tonyrey]

With horror that Christ’s commandment of love should be distorted by members of His Church into an excuse for inflicting torture and an agonising death on those who were regarded as heretics:

“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’” Matthew 25:40

 

[Ron_in_minden]

The same way the protestants should view the witch trials in* their history. Which, I might add, is part of the USA’s history. Be careful of that stone you throw, it could be a boomerang. How should I view my *families history of being run out and starved out of our home countries? How should I view that?

 

[tonyrey]

The same way the protestants should view the witch trials in* their history. Which, I might add, is part of the USA’s history. Be careful of that stone you throw, it could be a boomerang. How should I view my *families history of being run out and starved out of our home countries? How should I view that?

Nor is the evil confined to the USA by any means…

 

[Rence]

Really? Do numbers not matter? Seems like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Sadaam, Amin, and others hold a special place in history.

They don’t matter to me. I don’t care if they killed 1 million or 7, they still killed people in the name of God. Some would say, “oh, it’s not as many as the rumor”. Does it matter? No, not to me. I don’t care if it was the rumored 1 million, or just a few. They’re still responsible for the deaths of people who didn’t need to die. And for what? Because they didn’t agree, that’s why.

 

[JDaniel]

Was it holy, or a travesty? I know the Church under John Paul 2 issued an apology for the historic methods of the Inquisition. On the other hand the popular conception of the number killed and tortured is hopelessly skewed. In truth only 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed, not millions. But then again morality is not determined by numbers. Is it ok as a Catholic to repudiate the “Holy” Inquisition?

Joseph:

“Repudiation” is, perhaps, not the most efficacious word. For example, in Spain, there were many who thought that the inquisition was justifiable - and these were not just the Priests and Bishops. They were the commoners, who believed the the Church was under siege. It is surprising that such people as Tomas de Torquemada used so much restraint. So, I don’t think “repudiate” is the proper concept. Rather, I think that we should look back at those times and be glad they are behind us. But, war is war.

As much as the Church is opposed to war, all realists know some are/were inevitable. No one possessed the catastrophic power that nuclear, chemical, and incendiary ordinance have now-a-days. Plus, it must be remembered that there were no telephones, no telegraphs, no ISP’s to carry messages quickly as we have today. And, when a message was finally transmitted, it’s brevity was almost sinful. Then was a different world.

We can’t repudiate each and every instance of inquisitional use, but we can each and every abuse. That the Spanish citizens wanted their lands, families and Churches protected - with all of the force necessary to accomplish it - is an exigency of self-preservation. Shall we deny them that?

Europe was being assailed on all sides by the Moslems, the Albigensians, and many other outside forces of the times. We can be sure that some horrendous things happened by pure mistake. Again, that’s part of war. And self-preservation is the noblest of wars. Even the remote Churches, that consisted of mere humans, was not without that requirement. It was a time when current reality seemed to conspire against the occasional innocent.

All that I have said can be researched, so please, spare me the “document or retract” sentiments. I’ve been on this forum for several years and have supplied the background many times before. Take the time to do your own research. One good starting place is the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day. But don’t limit yourself. And, don’t buy someone who has an agenda’s line. Not even mine.

God bless,
jd

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Was it holy, or a travesty? I know the Church under John Paul 2 issued an apology for the historic methods of the Inquisition. On the other hand the popular conception of the number killed and tortured is hopelessly skewed. In truth only 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed, not millions. But then again morality is not determined by numbers. Is it ok as a Catholic to repudiate the “Holy” Inquisition?

Which Inquisition are you asking about? Medieval, Roman, Portuguese or Spanish?

At any rate, facts > myths. Good reads:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/holinquisit.htm#MYTH 3

ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0026.html

catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

You’ll find book references in the links as well.

After those reads and others on google and in historical books, you’ll find your answer whether one should repudiate the Inquisitions or not. Personally, education points to no.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

They don’t matter to me. I don’t care if they killed 1 million or 7, they still killed people in the name of God. Some would say, “oh, it’s not as many as the rumor”. Does it matter? No, not to me. I don’t care if it was the rumored 1 million, or just a few. They’re still responsible for the deaths of people who didn’t need to die. And for what? Because they didn’t agree, that’s why.

Agreed. Life is life. It’s encouraging to see at least one person not making up excuses for what is a historical tragedy. To say that God wanted the Inquisition to happen is no different from Islamists who believe Allah wants their Jihad to happen. It’s quite sick to be honest and the people trying to justify it need to reflect on themselves and their moral principles.

““If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Surah 5:32).

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Very well said. In all things, we err when we judge while wearing the glasses of our current time. Those were times of certain danger - dangers which we do not know in our age. Yet, we have our own dangers, and must fight on a different battlefield, employing different strategies.

Great point. Nothing grinds my gears like revisionist history. If anyone has read “The Pillars of the Earth” by Ken Follet, it’s a popular work of fiction, but it really got on my nerves reading it because he very aggressively criticized society back then to ours today.

Specifically, he made one of the nuns a lesbian, and there was a monk who was gay. Both of those incidents were only a couple pages in a 700 page book. But, I’m sure that the vast majority of his audience bought the old argument: The Past was oppressive, the Church was oppressive.

So yeah, if you want to understand the Inquisition first understand the time and place it even occurred in first. The second thing you want to do, is pay not attention to Protestant accounts of things about the Church, because they’re likely to be revisionist history.

And Bohm, don’t you use a Surah here in the Catholic forum. That obviously has zero, or perhaps negative bearing on anything a Christian or especially a Catholic does. Besides, you do know that if you quote the Quran in a language other than Arabic, it suddenly ceases to be the word of allah

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

And Bohm, don’t you use a Surah here in the Catholic forum. That obviously has zero, or perhaps negative bearing on anything a Christian or especially a Catholic does. Besides, you do know that if you quote the Quran in a language other than Arabic, it suddenly ceases to be the word of allah

You can always learn from different religions. Even the Church says that other religions contain some element of truth; the only issue is that they don’t contain the fullness of truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was influenced significantly by Islamic philosophers, and he said something to the effect that “truth is truth wherever you find it”.

The fact that you advocate only to read the Catholic account of the Inquisition indicates to me some kind of denial of truth. Why not advocate that the OP reads various accounts and comes to his/her own conclusion(s)? If the truth is self-evident, then that’s what the OP will ultimately reach. Simply because a historical account does not put the Church in a positive light does not make it “revisionist”. Do you know what revisionism even is? And do you honestly believe a Catholic account of the Inquisition will say something along the lines of “the Inquisition is wrong. Humans make mistakes. Let’s look to the future”, or more like “God ordered us to do it. We are right. We will always be right” and some red herring to other historical tragedies?

 

[Semper_Zelare]

You can always learn from different religions. Even the Church says that other religions contain some element of truth; the only issue is that they don’t contain the fullness of truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was influenced significantly by Islamic philosophers, and he said something to the effect that “truth is truth wherever you find it”.

The fact that you advocate only to read the Catholic account of the Inquisition indicates to me some kind of denial of truth. Why not advocate that the OP reads various accounts and comes to his/her own conclusion(s)? If the truth is self-evident, then that’s what the OP will ultimately reach. Simply because a historical account does not put the Church in a positive light does not make it “revisionist”. Do you know what revisionism even is? And do you honestly believe a Catholic account of the Inquisition will say something along the lines of “the Inquisition is wrong. Humans make mistakes. Let’s look to the future”, or more like “God ordered us to do it. We are right. We will always be right” and some red herring to other historical tragedies?

1. Yes, I do know what revisionist history is. And, the OP wouldn’t be interested in reading Protestant accounts if the OP has already came to the conclusion that 3,000- 5,000 people were killed by the Inquisition. Now, that’s certainly a more specific conclusion than I ever came to. But, he certainly wouldn’t want to listen to Protestants who claim the Inquisition is responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people, half a million people, or a million+ people. I have heard those numbers from mainstream Protestants talking about the Inquisition today. That’s revisionist history, or don’t YOU know what revisionist history is?
   Would you say a Protestant historian who says that the Inquisition killed between 500,000 and 1 million people is a revisionist historian? Yes or no?
2. When you say: “the Inquisition is wrong. Humans make mistakes. Let’s look to the future” I really DO HOPE that those are lines for a position, and not a position itself. Because if that was your take on how society should view the Inquisition, then I would objectively call it laughable. And, I think it falls completely flat to the concerns that I raised in my first post on this thread.
3. When you present the Catholic position as “God ordered us to do it, we are right, we will always be right. And some other red herring to historical tragedies.” …

That is actually a strawman’s argument on your part. You’re saying that the Church’s position is that the Inquisition would still be right to this day.

Ok, well if you believe that, why did the Church stop the Inquisition? I already told you in my first post, because a superior alternative arose: incarceration. That’s right!!! I know it may be hard for someone who has already applied 21st century values on the 14th-17th centuries to realize that prison systems weren’t just impractical at the time, they were utterly impossible. Utterly Impossible.

If someone says heretics shouldn’t have been burned they should’ve been put in prison. That person fundamentally fails to understand the state of society in the 14th-17th centuries. But then again… you’re probably in favor of heretics being allowed to roam the land freely, spreading their heresy across the land, and misleading as many people to Hell as they could. No?

EDIT:
I just ran in to a source saying the Inquisition killed 50 million people. I’m not calling that mainstream, that is a fringe source. But, it proves that the 1 million claim is made by Protestants who are considered mainstream.

 

[joe370]

Was it holy, or a travesty? I know the Church under John Paul 2 issued an apology for the historic methods of the Inquisition. On the other hand the popular conception of the number killed and tortured is hopelessly skewed. In truth only 3,000 to 5,000 people were killed, not millions. But then again morality is not determined by numbers. Is it ok as a Catholic to repudiate the “Holy” Inquisition?

The official investigations themselves - Nah. Heresy had to be uprooted for the sake of the soul that might have been otherwise influenced by it.

Unholy murder that accompanied the inquisitions at times - absolutely okay! Murder is a sin.

 

[DJ_Pius_X]

“only” 3-5k people killed

One is too many brah. One of my biggest doubts about the Catholic church stems from the idea that, were the CC really guided by the Holy Spirit, it wouldn’t have taken a single life.