Inquisition myths

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Likely under the monarchy of Spain’s authority, but not without the Papacy’s blessing.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean that it was good to convert people by force and torture in the past, but it is not good today? Or was it always bad to use force and torture to convert people?
You also have to remember that the conversion of people to the Catholic faith by force was done for POLITICAL reasons, not really religious reasons. The average person may have believed it was for religious reasons & the ruling class may have claimed religious reasons to justify such actions, but the real reasons were always political for the ruling classes.

In those times, Christendom was starting to fall apart. Christian nations were at war with one another, and Kings, Princes, Dukes, Counts, Lords, etc were often only willing to help each other if they got something in return. Even when helping the Pope, they would expect something from the Pope in exchange.

I recommend the following CD set for starters:


God bless
 
Last edited:
You also have to remember that the conversion of people to the Catholic faith by force was done for POLITICAL reasons, not really religious reasons.
Was it the clergy who converted and baptized people or was it the politicians who baptized them?
 
40.png
phil19034:
You also have to remember that the conversion of people to the Catholic faith by force was done for POLITICAL reasons, not really religious reasons.
Was it the clergy who converted and baptized people or was it the politicians who baptized them?
Depends. The Catholic Church as always believed (theologically) that anyone can baptize. However, via Canon Law, limits who can baptize.

When secular leaders would force baptize people, they either found ordained clergy who were willing, or used non-ordained clerics who were loyal to the political leaders who wanted such things.

For example, a non-ordained Cardinal, who was loyal to such a King, Duke, etc would surely have been involved with such an effort.

NOTE: Back in the time of the 1400 and 1500, a lot of Cardinals were laymen, not ordained. This lead to abuse, which is why the Church changed it to Bishops only.
 
Last edited:
The Inquisitions were typically held to extirpate heresy and root out heretics, not to convert or proselytize.
 
As a person of the 21st century, of course I think it is wrong.
Human beings over the course of history have done any number of things that are abhorrent to us now. As time marches on, we grow, learn, change our positions, adjust our moral compasses, etc
In debates I have seen between athiests and thiests it is a lot of times claimed that people get their morality from God and that without good how can right or wrong be known. But when it comes to the Inquisition and other Catholic mistakes it seems all the sudden morality comes from culture context so it’s excused?
 
Well, I’m not yet Catholic. 😉 Also, it’s not an excuse. It is an explanation. I cannot and will not excuse torture.
 
Last edited:
That wasn’t necessarily directed at you lol just what you said got me thinking about that
 
The Inquisitions were typically held to extirpate heresy and root out heretics, not to convert or proselytize.
The Spanish Inquisition seemed to be more of a followup on the Conversion process.

Assert that the conversions that occurred as the former Islamic leaders were driven out, were real
 
The policy became more markedly to either convert (Jews, primarily, or Moriscos) or to exile recalcitrants who refused to convert. The Inquisition was established to seek out and find the false converts, Judaizing Conversos, or false Moriscos who were secretly following Jewish/Islamic practices still. And who were now (being ostensibly Christians) under the authority of such an Inquisition.

It’s more complicated still, and those 1400 pages of Netanyahu’s book, that I mentioned, are full of details. But Kamen is excellent, and Peters (chap. 3) is succinct. Point is, the Inquisition was not an instrument of conversion, by its intent.
 
Last edited:
  1. Assuming that moral relativism is to be denounced, then the inquisitions would be equally moral/immoral whether done then or now. For those who consider the inquisitions to be morally right then, would you agree that similar tactics would be morally right if done now?
  2. For those who say that the inquisition was necessary (whether to root out treason, a need to stomp out heresy, or a belief that such acts outweighed any personal suffering) what would you say to those non-Catholic authorities (whether past, present, or future) using the same reason to justify torture for those who fall out of step with the predominant faith?
 
There was also one record I remember that told the fascinating story of a woman accused of cross-dressing and various other lewd crimes.
 
Good point. Ferdinand and Isabella were very concerned about the Moors returning to power after they achieved peace.
And this is the gist of the whole thing.

The Spanish Inquisition, and it’s focus on Catholic orthodoxy, was not actually about religion. It was about Spanish state security.

hawk
 
Yes, it is important to acknowledge this. I am reading a book about the history of the Netherlands. I was quite appalled at the Spanish Inquisition activities there. They routinely executed Protestants, including burying people alive and other forms of torture. I think perhaps historically tales of the Inquisition were exaggerated, then more recently downplayed.
 
It was about religion. And state security. And limpieza de sangre, ethnic purity.
 
The inquisition absolutely DID happen, along with the recent child abuse / sex scandals / mass infant burials being found under Catholic Churches etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top