Inquisition Questions

[Protestant101]

I have heard some Catholics accuse Protestants of spreading lies and hatred about them, especially regarding subjects like the Inquisitions of “The Dark Ages.”

I thought I would try to start this topic dealing with my own personal questions for Catholics. Hopefully, this will be an opportunity to refer me to links here that might deal with the topic, as well as for Catholics to set the record straight from their perspective.

I have a specific example, (with others to follow), that I would be interested to focus on in order to help us examine my questions about the Inquisitions.

1/ What happened, and why, in 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms?

 

[JFT]

I have heard some Catholics accuse Protestants of spreading lies and hatred about them, especially regarding subjects like the Inquisitions of “The Dark Ages.”

I thought I would try to start this topic dealing with my own personal questions for Catholics. Hopefully, this will be an opportunity to refer me to links here that might deal with the topic, as well as for Catholics to set the record straight from their perspective.

I have a specific example, (with others to follow), that I would be interested to focus on in order to help us examine my questions about the Inquisitions.

1/ What happened, and why, in 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms?

Protestant101, I think I can give a nutshell explanation courtesy of Wikipedia.
In effect, Emperor Charles V convoked (?) the Diet of Worms on January 22, 1521 so that Martin Luther could either renounce or re-affirm his views. For a fuller treatment on Martin Luther, from a Catholic perspective, I would refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia website’s article on Martin Luther (and I would pray that it be read in the spirit in which I offer this article). :twocents:

 

[Contarini]

I have heard some Catholics accuse Protestants of spreading lies and hatred about them, especially regarding subjects like the Inquisitions of “The Dark Ages.”

There was no Inquisition in the “Dark Ages” (roughly 500-100). The Inquisition was founded in the 13th century, which only extreme bigots still refer to as part of the “Dark Ages.” The 13th century was, culturally and intellectually, one of the peaks of Western civilization. Of course, sophisticated culture often goes along with great brutality, and unfortunately this was true of the 13th century as of other great periods of human history.

1/ What happened, and why, in 1521 at the historic interrogation of Luther at the Diet of Worms?

I don’t see what this has to do with the Inquisition. Luther was never under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in any of its forms.

As for what happened: well, the Emperor asked him to recant and he refused, so he was declared an outlaw (having already been excommunicated). There were a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations trying to avoid this, and one of the points I find particularly interesting is that Glapion, the emperor’s confessor (a Franciscan, I believe), said that the only part of Luther’s work up to then that must be condemned outright was the Babylonian Captivity–everything else could be negotiated.

Edwin

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101, I think I can give a nutshell explanation courtesy of Wikipedia.
In effect, Emperor Charles V convoked (?) the Diet of Worms on January 22, 1521 so that Martin Luther could either renounce or re-affirm his views. For a fuller treatment on Martin Luther, from a Catholic perspective, I would refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia website’s article on Martin Luther (and I would pray that it be read in the spirit in which I offer this article). :twocents:

Thankyou; it is the Catholic perspective that I was looking for. I will try to find the link and as soon as I read it I will come back here.

 

[Protestant101]

There was no Inquisition in the “Dark Ages” (roughly 500-100). The Inquisition was founded in the 13th century, which only extreme bigots still refer to as part of the “Dark Ages.” The 13th century was, culturally and intellectually, one of the peaks of Western civilization. Of course, sophisticated culture often goes along with great brutality, and unfortunately this was true of the 13th century as of other great periods of human history.

I don’t see what this has to do with the Inquisition. Luther was never under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition in any of its forms.

As for what happened: well, the Emperor asked him to recant and he refused, so he was declared an outlaw (having already been excommunicated). There were a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations trying to avoid this, and one of the points I find particularly interesting is that Glapion, the emperor’s confessor (a Franciscan, I believe), said that the only part of Luther’s work up to then that must be condemned outright was the Babylonian Captivity–everything else could be negotiated.

Edwin

Thanks for your reply. I would like clarification about only one part for now. You said that only “extreme bigots” would still say that “The Inquisition” had ocurred at a different time period than what you see it as. I would like to know how you know that to be definitively true and verifiable in all cases? I would also like to see sources of reference for your other comments, because I am trying to look at official Catholic perspectives on this. Thanks in advance for helping me out here.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The “Inquisition(s)” were first organized in the 1200s
against the Cathars or “Albigensians.”

This was a gnostic sect which claimed that there were two equal Gods – a good God who created all things INVISIBLE,
and a BAD God, who created all things VISIBLE (i.e. made of Matter).

They condemned marriage outright (but not fornication or other forms of sexual sin) because they believed that human beings were really Good Spirits created by the Good God who, somehow, got “Trapped” in Evil Bodies created by the Bad God.
They were militant in spreading their heresy INside the Church and had a good deal of political backing and didn’t mind using force to spread their views.

I wish there had never been any Inquisitions, but I understand why they were originally organized. Also, according to a documentary I saw on either The Discovery Channel or The History Channel,
the popular view of the number of people who died at the hands of the Inquisitions has been GROSSLY exxagerated. According to the documentary, the total number of people who died during the several-hundred year period, was just over 3,000 and not the
“millions” claimed by anti-Catholic polemicists.
The Spanish Inquisition was another type of Inquisition altogether, but that’s another topic.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Protestant101]

The “Inquisition(s)” were first organized in the 1200s
against the Cathars or “Albigensians.”

This was a gnostic sect which claimed that there were two equal Gods – a good God who created all things INVISIBLE,
and a BAD God, who created all things VISIBLE (i.e. made of Matter).

They condemned marriage outright (but not fornication or other forms of sexual sin) because they believed that human beings were really Good Spirits created by the Good God who, somehow, got “Trapped” in Evil Bodies created by the Bad God.
They were militant in spreading their heresy INside the Church and had a good deal of political backing and didn’t mind using force to spread their views.

I wish there had never been any Inquisitions, but I understand why they were originally organized. Also, according to a documentary I saw on either The Discovery Channel or The History Channel,
the popular view of the number of people who died at the hands of the Inquisitions has been GROSSLY exxagerated. According to the documentary, the total number of people who died during the several-hundred year period, was just over 3,000 and not the
“millions” claimed by anti-Catholic polemicists.
The Spanish Inquisition was another type of Inquisition altogether, but that’s another topic.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

I don’t see how that it matters exactly how many people did die in The Inquisitions. Even one was way too many.

It is not just anti-Catholics who have the opinion of what happened and to who during The Inquisition.

Anyways; I am interested to hear what happened to Luther, and why. I want to know from a Catholic perspective about what role Catholics played, why they did whatever they did in this event of 1521 involving Luther.

Things such as Wikipedia are rather useless in this kind of research as it has become a hot bed of activists and propoganda that neither of our denominations would be likely to approve of.

Can anyone offer official Catholic sources for my question here?

 

[Maria1212]

Here are two god places to start.

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0231.html?L+scstore+jlvy7662ff419541+1202817843

catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s what I could grab out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I hope it helps, although I know it’s incomplete.

The enforcement of the provisions of the Bull (Bull of Excommunication), was the duty of the civil power. This was done, in the face of vehement opposition now manifesting itself, at the Diet of Worms, when the young newly-crowned Charles V was for the first time to meet the assembled German Estates in solemn deliberation. Charles, though not to be ranked with the greatest characters of history, was “an honourable Christian gentleman, striving in spite of physical defect, moral temptations, and political impossibilities, to do his duty in that state of life to which an unkind Providence had called him” (Armstrong, “The Emperor Charles V”, II, London, 1902, 383). Great and momentous questions, national and religious, social and economic, were to be submitted for consideration – but that of Luther easily became paramount.

I thought this part was rather interesting

The pope sent two legates to represent him – Marino Carricioli, to whom the political problems were entrusted, and Jerome Aleander, who should grapple with the more pressingreligious one. Aleander was a man of brilliant, even phenomenal, intellectual and linguistic endowments, a man of the world almost modern in his progressive ideas, a trained statesman, not altogether free from the zeal and cunning which at times enter the game of diplomacy. Like his staunch supporter, the Elector George of Saxony, he was not only open-minded enough to admit the deplorable corruption of the Church, the grasping cupidity of Roman curial procedure, the cold commercialism and deep-seated immorality that infected many of the clergy, but, like him, he was courageous enough to denounce them with freedom and point to the pope himself. His problem, by the singular turn of events, was to become the gravest that confronted not only the Diet, but Christendom itself. Its solution or failure was to be pregnant with a fate that involved Church and State, and would guide the course of the world’s history.

Continued…

 

[NotWorthy]

Germany was living on a politico-religious volcano. All walks of life were in a convulsive state of unrest that boded ill for Church and State. Luther by his inflammatory denunciation of pope and clergy let loose a veritable hurricane of fierce, uncontrollable racial and religious hatred, which was to spend itself in the bloodshed of the Peasants’ War and the orgies of the sack of Rome; his adroit juxtaposition of the relative powers and wealth of the temporal and spiritual estates fostered jealousy and avarice; the chicanery of the revolutionary propagandists and pamphleteering poetasters lit up the nation with rhetorical fireworks, in which sedition and impiety, artfully garbed inBiblical phraseology and sanctimonious platitudes, posed as “evangelical” liberty and pure patriotism; the restive peasants, victims of oppression and poverty, after futile and sporadic uprisings, lapsed into stifled but sullen and resentful malcontents; the unredressed wrongs of the burghers and labourers in the populous cities clamoured for a change, and the victims were prepared to adopt any method to shake off disabilities daily becoming more irksome; the increasing expense of living, the decreasing economic advancement, goaded the impecunious knights to desperation, their very lives since 1495 being nothing more than a struggle for existence; the territorial lords cast envious eyes on the teeming fields of the monasteries and the princely ostentation of church dignitaries, and did not scruple in the vision of a future German autonomy to treat even the “Spanish” sovereign with dictatorial arrogance or tolerant complacency.
The city of Worms itself was within the grasp of a reign of lawlessness, debauchery, and murder. From the bristling Ebernburg, Sickingen’s lair, only six miles fromm the city, Hutten was hurling his truculent philippics, threatening with outrage and death the legate (whom he had failed to waylay), the spiritual princes and church dignitaries, not sparing even the emperor, whose pension as a bribe to silence had hardly been received. Germany was in a reign of terror; consternation seemed to paralyze all minds. A fatal blow was to be struck at the clergy, it was whispered, and then the famished knights would scramble for their property. Over all loomed the formidable apparition of Sickingen. He was in Aleander’s opinion “sole king of Germany now; for he has a following, when and as large as he wishes. The emperor is unprotected, the princes are inactive; the prelates quake with fear. Sickingen at the moment is the terror of Germany before whom all quail” (Brieger, “Aleander u. Luther”, Gotha, 1884, 125). “If a proper leader could be found, the elements of revolution were already at hand, and only awaited the signal for an outbreak” (Maurenbrecher, op. cit., 246).

Continued…

 

[NotWorthy]

Such was the critical national and local ferment, when Luther at the psychological moment was projected into the foreground by the Diet of Worms, where “the devils on the roofs of the houses were rather friendly . . . than otherwise” (Cambridge Hist., II, 147), to appear as the champion against Roman corruption, which in the prevailing frenzy became the expression of national patriotism. “He was the hero of the hour solely because he stood for the national opposition to Rome” (ibid., 148). His first hearing before the Diet (17 April) found him not precisely in the most confident mood. Acknowledging his works, he met the further request that he recall them by a timid reply, “in tones so subdued that they could hardly be heard with distincness in his vicinity”, that he be given time for reflection. His assurance did not fail him at the second hearing (18 April) when his expected steadfastness asserted itself, and his refusal was uttered with steady composure and firm voice, inLatin and German, that, unless convinced of his errors by the Scriptures or plain reason, he would not recant. “I neither can nor will recant anything, for it is neither safe nor right to act against one’s conscience”, adding in German – “God help me, Amen.” The emperor took action the next day (19 April) by personally writing to the Estates, that true to the traditions of his Catholic forefathers, he placed his faith in the Christian doctrine and the Roman Church, in the Fathers, in the councils representing Christendom, rather than in the teaching of an individual monk, and ordered Luther’s departure. “The word which I pledged him”, he concludes, “and the promised safe-conduct he will receive. Be assured, he will return unmolested whence he came” (Forstemann, “Neues Urkundenbuch”, I, Hamburg, 1842, 75). All further negotiations undertaken in the meantime to bring about an adjustment having failed, Luther was ordered to return, but forbidden to preach or publish while on the way. The edict, drafted (8 May) was signed 26 May, but was only to be promulgated after the expiration of the time allowed in the safe-conduct. It placed Luther under the ban of the empire and ordered the destruction of his writings.
It may not be amiss to state that the historicity of Luther’s famed declaration before the assembled Diet, “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me, God. Amen”, has been successfully challenged and rendered inadmissible by Protestant researches. Its retention in some of the larger biographies and histories, seldom if ever without laborious qualification, can only be ascribed to the deathless vitality of a sacred fiction or an absence of historical rectitude on the part of the writer.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**I don’t see how that it matters exactly how many people did die in The Inquisitions. Even one was way too many. **

I don’t hear you moaning and weeping over the tens of thousands of Catholics who died at the hands of the Reformers and their supporters. You only whine about the Inquisitions.
I wish the Inquisitions never happened, but I understand why they DID.

People thought differently about heresy at that time.
When a person was a persistent, defiant heretic,
he was regarded as a poisoner of souls, as equal to or worse than a murderer, for a murderer only kills the body whereas heresy destroys the soul. Very few, if any, of those who died as a result of being found guilty by the Inquisition, were innocent.
It was defiant, militant heretics that the Inquisitors were after, not the average Christian who might have a mistaken personal view about something, but troublemakers.

The Spanish Inquisition was another inquisition altogether.
It was motivated by the King’s desire to ferret out anyone whom he thought might be a threat to his Throne.

 

[Montalban]

There was no Inquisition in the “Dark Ages” (roughly 500-100). The Inquisition was founded in the 13th century, which only extreme bigots still refer to as part of the “Dark Ages.” The 13th century was, culturally and intellectually, one of the peaks of Western civilization. Of course, sophisticated culture often goes along with great brutality, and unfortunately this was true of the 13th century as of other great periods of human history.

Excuse me; the 13th Century! Try 1184, against the Albigensians!

 

[Montalban]

The “Inquisition(s)” were first organized in the 1200s
against the Cathars or “Albigensians.”

This was a gnostic sect which claimed that there were two equal Gods – a good God who created all things INVISIBLE,
and a BAD God, who created all things VISIBLE (i.e. made of Matter).

They condemned marriage outright (but not fornication or other forms of sexual sin) because they believed that human beings were really Good Spirits created by the Good God who, somehow, got “Trapped” in Evil Bodies created by the Bad God.
They were militant in spreading their heresy INside the Church and had a good deal of political backing and didn’t mind using force to spread their views.

Yes, they were indeed a dualist religion.

They suffered a ‘crusade’ against them which I believe undermined the whole crusading movement.

For up till then people went off to the Middle East to fight Moslems. It was far quicker to go on a 40 day crusade to southern France, for the same ‘spiritual rewards’ as that promised to those who went to the Holy Land

 

[Yerusalyim]

You have to deal with these things in their historical perspective…by today’s standards the inquisitions were a bad deal…by the standard of the day the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most just courts of it’s time…even if it was abused by the Spanish Crown…

and yes, it does matter how many were killed…the Inquisition never killed anyone…execution was carried out by the State…not the Church…the number for the Spanish inquisition was around 2400…not the 100’s of thousands mentioned by Lea and others. Execution was normally only used against those who under inquisition denounced their “heresy” and when released returned to their “heresy.” Torture was used in only about 15% of the cases…yep…even at 2400 deaths and 15% torture…the numbers are too high…but compare that to other courts of the day and it doesn’t look so bad.

The Inquisition actually has a much older history than you attribute to it…it has roots that go back to around AD 400…and still exists today as the Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith.

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your reply. I would like clarification about only one part for now. You said that only “extreme bigots” would still say that “The Inquisition” had ocurred at a different time period than what you see it as.

No, I said that only “extreme bigots” still use the term “Dark Ages” for the whole of the Middle Ages.

I would also like to see sources of reference for your other comments, because I am trying to look at official Catholic perspectives on this. Thanks in advance for helping me out here.

Well, I’m not the best source for official Catholic perspectives, and the Catholic Church doesn’t, by and large, give official teachings about history! You would do better to look at standard historical sources by reputable historians.

One useful source for the persecution of heretics in the Middle Ages is R. I. Moore, *The Formation of a Persecuting Society. *Another is Malcolm Lambert’s Medieval Heresy. And a more specific one would be Jeremy Cohen’s The Friars and the Jews. You might also want to look at BenZion Netanyahu’s The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-century Spain. While you’re at it, if you want a broad survey of the Spanish Inquisition (though that didn’t appear to be the main focus of your question) I would recommend Henry Kamen’s *The Spanish Inquisition *(a good balance to Netanyahu, since Kamen takes a “revisionist” approach arguing that the Inquisition wasn’t as harsh as people think).

My recommendations are rather vague, because I find your question rather vague. What exactly do you want to know?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**I don’t see how that it matters exactly how many people did die in The Inquisitions. Even one was way too many. **

I don’t hear you moaning and weeping over the tens of thousands of Catholics who died at the hands of the Reformers and their supporters.

Unless you are counting those killed in war, there is no support for this. A few hundred were executed in England and a couple in Scotland, some Carthusians were killed in the Netherlands, and there were some deaths in riots in France. I’m not saying these were all, but I doubt that if you put them all together they would exceed a thousand.

Of course, that’s still very bad.

Edwin

 

[mgrfin]

Edwin

Part I
How short the memory is, even of Church historians:
catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05033.htm

Those who suffered death in England for the Catholic Faith and for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, from 1535 to 1681. The total number of them is over 600; of these, fifty-four were beatified in 1888 and nine more in 1895; 247 others had their cause of beatification introduced in 1886, and were declared Venerable; the remainder (about 286), though they all died heroically, led such retired and obscure lives that there is very little known about them, which fact has hindered even the introduction of their cause. The following is a complete alphabetical list of all the English Martyrs, under their last names. Those who have been beatified, canonized, or declared venerable have separate articles. In a few cases nothing is known of the martyr except his name.

If you want to make a grown man cry, read of the deaths of those just under Henry VIII:
• Cardinal: John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, 22 June, 1535.
• Lord Chancellor: Sir Thomas More, 6 July, 1535.
• Carthusians: John Houghton, Robert Lawrence, Augustine Webster, 4 May, 1535; Humphrey Middlemore, William Exmew, Sebastian Newdigate, 19 June, 1535; John Rochester, James Walworth, 11 May, 1537; Thomas Johnson, William Greenwood, John Davye, Robert Salt, Walter Pierson, Thomas Green, Thomas Scryven, Thomas Redyng, Richard Bere, June-September, 1537; Robert Horne, 4 August, 1540.
• Benedictines: Richard Whiting, Hugh Farringdon, abbots, 15 November, 1539; Thomas Marshall (or John Beche), 1 December, 1539; John Thorne, Richard James, William Eynon, John Rugg, 15 Nov., 1539.
• Doctors of Divinity: Thomas Abel, Edward Powell, Richard Fetherstone, 30 July, 1540.
• Other secular priests: John Haile, 4 May 1535; John Larke, 7 March, 1544.
• Other religious orders: Richard Reynold, Brigittine (4 May, 1535); John Stone, O.S.A., 12 May, 1538; John Forrest, O.S.F., 22 May, 1538.
• Laymen and women: Adrian Fortescue, Knight of St. John, 9 July, 1539; Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, 28 May, 1541; German Gardiner, 7 March, 1544.
• 1537-38: Anthony Brookby, Thomas Belchiam, Thomas Cort, Franciscans, thrown into prison for preaching against the king’s supremacy. Brookby was strangled with his own girdle, the others died of ill treatment.
• 1539: Friar Waire, O.S.F., and John Griffith p. (generally known as Griffith Clarke), Vicar of Wandsworth, for supporting the papal legate, Cardinal Pole, drawn and quartered, (8 July) at St. Thomas Waterings; Sir Thomas Dingley, Knight of St. John, beheaded, 10 July, with Bl. Adrian Fortescue. John Travers, Irish Augustinian, who had written against the supremacy; before execution his hand was cut off and burnt, but the writing fingers were not consumed, 30 July.
• 1540-1544: Edmund Brindholme p., of London, and Clement Philpot l., of Calais, attainted for having “adhered to the Pope of Rome”, hanged and quartered at Tyburn, 4 Aug., 1540; Sir David Gonson (also Genson and Gunston), Knight of St. John, son of Vice-Admiral Gonson, attainted for “adhering” to Cardinal Pole, hanged and quartered at St. Thomas Waterings, 1 July, 1541; John Ireland p., once a chaplain to More, condemned and executed with Bl. John Larke, 1544; Thomas Ashby l., 29 March, 1544

Lord have mercy on us.

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

Edwin

Part II

1534: Elizabeth Barton (The Holy Maid of Kent), with five companions: John Dering, O.S.B., Edward Bocking, O.S.B., Hugh Rich, O.S.F., Richard Masters p., Henry Gold p., 1537. Monks, 28.
After the pilgrimage of grace and the rising of Lincolnshire many, probably several hundred, were executed, of whom no record remains. The following names, which do survive, are grouped under their respective abbeys or priories.
• Barlings: Matthew Mackerel, abbot and Bishop of Chalcedon, Ord. Præm.
• Bardney: John Tenent, William Cole, John Francis, William Cowper, Richard Laynton, Hugh Londale, monks.
• Bridlington: William Wood, Prior.
• Fountains: William Thyrsk, O. Cist.
• Guisborough: James Cockerel, Prior.
• Jervaulx: Adam Sedbar, Abbot; George Asleby, monk.
• Kirkstead: Richard Harrison, Abbot; Richard Wade, William Swale, Henry Jenkinson, monks.
• Lenten: Nicholas Heath, Prior; William Gylham, monk.
• Sawlet: William Trafford, Abbot; Richard Eastgate, monk.
• Whalley: John Paslew, Abbot; John Eastgate, William Haydock, monks.
• Woburn: Robert Hobbes, Abbot; Ralph Barnes, sub-prior; Laurence Blonham, monk.
• York: John Pickering, O.S.D., Prior.
• Place unknown: George ab Alba Rose, O.S.A.
• Priests: William Burraby, Thomas Kendale, John Henmarsh, James Mallet, John Pickering, Thomas Redforth.
• Lords: Darcy and Hussey.
• Knights: Francis Bigod, Stephen Hammerton, Thomas Percy.
• Laymen (11): Robert Aske, Robert Constable, Bernard Fletcher, George Hudswell, Robert Lecche, Roger Neeve, George Lomley, Thomas Moyne, Robert Sotheby, Nicholas Tempest, Philip Trotter.
1538 (7): Henry Courtney, the Marquess of Exeter; Henry Pole, Lord Montague; Sir Edward Nevell and Sir Nicholas Carew; George Croft p., and John Collins p.; Hugh Holland l. Their cause was "adhering to the Pope, and his Legate, Cardinal Pole

Lord have mercy on us

mgrfin

 

[Petergee]

Unless you are counting those killed in war, there is no support for this. A few hundred were executed in England and a couple in Scotland, some Carthusians were killed in the Netherlands, and there were some deaths in riots in France. I’m not saying these were all, but I doubt that if you put them all together they would exceed a thousand.

Of course, that’s still very bad.

Edwin

One is too many. But modern historians acknowledge that the number of Catholics killed by protestants just for being Catholics, exceeded, or at a very minimum was comparable in number to, the total number of people killed after conviction by the Inquisition (most of whom were not protestants). When you add that in general the Inquisition’s trials were much fairer and more humane to the accused than the trials (if any) which Catholics received, and that if the Inquisition had not existed the number of accused heretics executed by secular governments and local civic authorities would have been much greater, then it’s hard to imagine how any protestant could point the finger at the Catholics over the Inquisitions.