Inquisition myths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I am extremely skeptical of this article as the second sentence of the article is a flat-out falsehood. That being said, from my research, there are actually no accounts of these torture items being used by the actual inquisition. These methods were not used in the initial torture sessions which were implemented by the Spanish government to extract confessions. The Pope, upon hearing of these sessions, tried to intervene and protect the prisoners as much as he could. While he couldn’t outright forbid torture as it would be going against the rights of a king to enforce his own laws in his own lands. The pope did, however, restrict the torture to a single half-hour session and only bloodless tortures may be used. After this decree, while there is evidence that the decree was stretched to the extreme, there is no concrete evidence or testimony that these items were used. Mainly these rumors of tortures come from a specific writer who was dismissed from the Propaganda Fide office of the Vatican (formerly the Office of the Inquisition). Bitter, he began writing about the ‘horrors of the Inquisition’. He admitted later that he had only seen about ten concrete instances where torture was used during the Inquisition and they in no way stated what torture was used. He also admitted to destroying Propaganda Fide documents which contradicted his arguments. I forget the man’s name, but I will look it up when I get back to the Seminary Tuesday.
 
CRM_Brother said:
Well, I am extremely skeptical of this article as the second sentence of the article is a flat-out falsehood. That being said, from my research, there are actually no accounts of these torture items being used by the actual inquisition. These methods were not used in the initial torture sessions which were implemented by the Spanish government to extract confessions. The Pope, upon hearing of these sessions, tried to intervene and protect the prisoners as much as he could. While he couldn’t outright forbid torture as it would be going against the rights of a king to enforce his own laws in his own lands. The pope did, however, restrict the torture to a single half-hour session and only bloodless tortures may be used. After this decree, while there is evidence that the decree was stretched to the extreme, there is no concrete evidence or testimony that these items were used. Mainly these rumors of tortures come from a specific writer who was dismissed from the Propaganda Fide office of the Vatican (formerly the Office of the Inquisition). Bitter, he began writing about the ‘horrors of the Inquisition’. He admitted later that he had only seen about ten concrete instances where torture was used during the Inquisition and they in no way stated what torture was used. He also admitted to destroying Propaganda Fide documents which contradicted his arguments. I forget the man’s name, but I will look it up when I get back to the Seminary Tuesday.
Click to expand...
I need you to help me understand how the Pope could restrict the torture to a single half hour bloodless session if he did not have the right to forbid it altogether?

To restrict torture of these kinds to one half hour does not seem humane even on the part of the Pope. Any use of these devices on a fellow human being can only be originated by the Devil.

The very idea of using torture of any kind to add people to the Church does not seem too Christlike.
 
Last edited:
Meticulous records were kept regarding what happened during the various Inquisitions. Many of those records are still in existence today. Yes, torture was used to extract information and confessions. The methods used by the Inquisitors were in line with the customs of that time period.
 
It was a different time and one where the political and spiritual were not really separated. The same would apply to the Crusades. It is hard to imagine St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Catherine of Siena promoting the Crusades but that is what they did.
 
I always recommend books. In this case, Peters/INQUISITION, on the general topic, and Kamen/THE SPANISH INQUISITION, on everyone’s favorite.

These are neither the Black Legend, nor a whitewash, but good history.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Meticulous records were kept regarding what happened during the various Inquisitions. Many of those records are still in existence today. Yes, torture was used to extract information and confessions. The methods used by the Inquisitors were in line with the customs of that time period.
Click to expand...
Done by civil authorities.
 
Wannano said:
I need you to help me understand how the Pope could restrict the torture to a single half hour bloodless session if he did not have the right to forbid it altogether?

To restrict torture of these kinds to one half hour does not seem humane even on the part of the Pope. Any use of these devices on a fellow human being can only be originated by the Devil.

The very idea of using torture of any kind to add people to the Church does not seem too Christlike.
Click to expand...
The first thing to realize is that many laws seem very strange and oddly arbitrary. I am unsure about what was legal for the pope to ensure in Spain and what limits were added to his power in this case, but even if we disregard legality, we have to consider the great political balancing that had to be done with ruling around any person in political power, especially a KING, and not a president, which can concern not only the entirety of the nation but all of Europe.

You may have a modern sensibility against torture, but it is fairly modern. The U.S. still uses torture against terrorists, and though you may not understand this, those who were being interrogated may have been seen as the “terrorists” of their day. The times called for societal unity, and not rampant individualism like we have today. Spain, which had historically had problems with Muslim invasion, would of course have insecurities about other religions, what they could be plotting, what they did for cultural unity, etc. I am not saying such attitude is fair, but from what I gather it was fairly common in older societies. Nowadays this unity is not as necessary to survival and continuation of nations, but it really was a huge deal.

A similar thing happens in the Old Testament, the one picking up sticks on Saturday likely had some sort of pact with a pagan god, and of course was committing outright treason in doing what he was doing.
 
buffalo said:
Done by civil authorities.
Click to expand...
And they were what, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, baptists or quite loyal, practicing Roman Catholics? (or Calvinists/Switzerland, Puritans/Massachusetts ?)
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Done by civil authorities.
Click to expand...
That would be incorrect. Many of those tried were clergy, and civil authorities had no jurisdiction over clergy, or any authority to apply or assist in any torture.
 
If you do a search on youtube. BBC. Inquisition there is an excellent presentation disproving the tales usually told, and even explains the sources of the bad history
 
Remember, there were multiple Inquisitions. There was the infamous Spanish Inquisition run by the Spanish government, there was the Roman Inquisition and one more that I can’t think of the name.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
buffalo:
Done by civil authorities.
Click to expand...
And they were what, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, baptists or quite loyal, practicing Roman Catholics? (or Calvinists/Switzerland, Puritans/Massachusetts ?)
Click to expand...
My guess would be the “quite loyal, practicing Roman Catholics”. I would go futher to guess they were in search of the perfect Buddhist, Muslim, Baptist church/entity that would keep them from any sin.

Peace!!!
 
And also by the officials of the church in some limited situations during the Spanish Inquisitions (for instance). I have read some of the transcripts myself.

I remember one in particular related to a pregnant woman who was accused of of being Jewish who had her arms tied behind her back at the elbows and the rope cinched tight until her shoulders popped out of their sockets. If I could remember the exact historical record I’d point you to it, but it has been a number of years since that particular grad class.

Edit: At that time in history, torture was approved in order to extract confessions even by the church. What was not condoned by the church was extrajudicial executions. Nevertheless, plenty of that occurred during the various Inquisitions. Some of it was done in the name of the church and, in some instances, resulted from church sanctioned Inquisitions. Torture was common place at the time. I’m not saying that the Church was acting in any way that was out of the norm.
 
Last edited:
There were a number of Inquisitions, whether so titled or not, established in the Iberian peninsula, predating the more famous Spanish Inquisition by around 300 years. As likewise in much of Europe, generally. The late 15th century saw the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition, as commonly called, and also other similar ones in Portugal, Rome, Italy generally, Sicily, and Venice. Each had its particular style and flavor.

Again, I recommend books. Peters/INQUISITION is good, as I’ve said. In this case, chapters 2 (“Dissent, Heterodoxy and the Medieval Inquisitorial Office”), 3 (“The Inquisitions in Iberia and the New World”), and 4 (“The Roman and Italian Inquisitions”).

History is complicated.
 
Last edited:
As noted above, I think Kamen is excellent, and that is the general opinion of it, on its subject.

I recommend Peters first. More background.

But the two together, yes.

And, to do it up right, Netanyahu’s THE ORIGINS OF THE INQUISITION IN FIFTEENTH CENTURY SPAIN is almost 1400 pages of almost impenetrable paper.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t matter how much one judges, history cannot change. Better to learn from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top