Is the Inquisition a black mark on the Catholic Church?

[Elizium23]

The Inquisition

Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.

An Inquisition Primer

The Spanish Inquisition is the source of most of the myths surrounding “The Inquisition.” But the Spanish Inquisition was actually a mid-fifteenth century adoption of inquisition courts for a very specific political purpose. It was a government-controlled inquisition aimed primarily at faithful Catholics of Jewish ancestry. The image of a Spanish Inquisition burnings hundreds of thousands of Protestant heretics has no basis in fact— there were few if any Protestants in Spain.

Though first established with papal approval, the Spanish Inquisition quickly came to be dominated by the Spanish monarchy—not the Church. It had strong and ugly racial overtones as it was aimed at those of Jewish and, later, Muslim ancestry. While it certainly was a force that kept Protestant thought out of Spain in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, the number of those actually prosecuted for such theological dissent was very small.

The last major outburst of the inquisition in Spain was again aimed at Jewish converts in the 1720s. The Spanish Inquisition was formally ended by the monarchy in 1834, though it had effectively ended years earlier.

The Spanish Inquisition became the primary source of the myths and Reformation propaganda that created the Catholic urban legend of the Inquisition. This is the urban legend of an all-embracing, papally dominated Inquisition that lasted from the thirteenth through the seventeenth centuries, supposedly aimed at a hidden, Bible-believing Church.

This myth of the Inquisition grew out of sixteenth-century Reformation propaganda. It served as a means to generate anti-Catholic sentiment, particularly during the revolt of Netherlands against Spain that began in 1548. The myth of the Inquisition created a black legend that circulated throughout sixteenth-century Europe. It portrayed Spain as a symbol of repression, brutality, intolerance, and backwardness for centuries. This image became inextricably tied to the Church in general.

Oddly enough, the building of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition had little to do with the actual racial persecution in Spain against Jewish converts to the faith. That real tragedy of the Spanish Inquisition would not be rediscovered until unbiased historical studies of the late nineteenth century.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

The “Black Legend” began as an anti-Spanish propaganda campaign that succeeded largely because of the invention of the printing press. The Inquisition was the prime target.
Inquisitors were not fanatical priests as they are often portrayed. In fact, many of them were not priests at all but legal experts trained in Spanish schools.
Contrary to popular belief, torture was rarely used. It was used less by the Inquisition than it was in the tribunals of other countries throughout Europe at the time.
Stories about cruel torture methods used by the Inquisitors and the terrible conditions in which prisoners were kept were completely falsified. The Inquisition actually had the best jails in Spain.
Prisoners of secular courts would actually blaspheme so that they could be transferred to Inquisition prisons and escape the maltreatment of the secular prisons.
Persecuting witchcraft was a craze in Europe at the time, and secular courts were not tolerant of these kinds of offenses. The accused were often burned at the stake. The Inquisition, on the other hand, declared witchcraft a delusion. No one could be tried for it or burned at the stake.
The Inquisition was virtually powerless in rural areas.
In the entire sixteenth century, the Inquisition in Spain executed only about 50 people, which is contrary to the “Black Legend,” which numbers the executions in the hundreds of thousands.
Of all the Inquisitions together throughout Europe, scholars estimate that the number of people executed ranged somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000. That averages, at most, about fourteen people per year throughout the entire continent over a period of 350 years.

Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed

 

[GKC]

The Inquisition

An Inquisition Primer

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed

Or, for those interested in more depth, Peters/ INQUISITION, for an overall all look at the multiplicity of them, or Kamen/THE SPANISH INQUISITION, for the one everyone thinks of. Peters is particularly even-handed on Lea, who brought the Inquisitions into the world of modern historiography.

These books are not the Black Legend. Neither are they a whitewash.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

An arch-heretic is someone who spreads their heresy (like Martin Luther). A heretic just believes in heresy. “Arch-heretic” is a less commonly used term but is more specific and useful for this discussion since there was different treatments for heretics & arch-heretics.

Were heretics not killed, only arch-heretics?

Since you are an atheist that was baptized Catholic, you are actually an apostate & infidel and not a heretic. You aren’t a heretic because you are not nominally Christian. The Church only concerned itself with arch-heretics.

Oh, I think the Church was also quite concerned with all heretics not just so-called arch-heretics.

So if I’m not technically a heretic, let’s change my scenario to someone today who is a Christian yet disagrees with much of what the Catholic Church teaches. Would you kill that person if there was no chance of punishment in either this life or the next one? Is that man’s life worth the 100 souls you might save by his death?

This seems to be coming down to the question of the validity of the Catholic Faith. Beyond an established belief in the Catholic Church, I don’t know how to justify the execution of heretics since it will just seem like a lack of toleration for justifiable disagreement on matters of philosophy. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can answer your questions.

You can’t justify it because it is unjustifiable. Do you think someone out there is going to have a better attempt at a justification than Thomas Aquinas? No, there is no justification for the death of heretics waiting to be posted here. Thomas Aquinas rationalized evil as good and after all these centuries no one has demonstrated that those deaths were warranted.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church only concerned itself with arch-heretics. .

Like Joan of Arc, for example, who was burned at the stake?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Like Joan of Arc, for example, who was burned at the stake?

She wasn’t killed by an inquisition IIRC.

 

[campeador]

Presentism—
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church only concerned itself with arch-heretics.

She wasn’t killed by an inquisition IIRC.

That is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the Church concerned itself only with arch-heretics. Joan of Arc was put on trial by the Most Reverend Roman Catholic Bishop of Beauvais Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After the Most Reverend Bishop Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Presentism—
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis

It looks like you left the right parenthesis outside the URL tag, so the link doesn’t work.

But perhaps you can demonstrate why it’s right and good for heretics of that time to be killed at the time of the inquisitions? Then you can explain why that reasoning can’t be applied to modern times.

 

[campeador]

That is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the Church concerned itself only with arch-heretics. Joan of Arc was put on trial by the Most Reverend Roman Catholic Bishop of Beauvais Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After the Most Reverend Bishop Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431

Truth:

Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians during an attack near Compiègne. After the French King Charles VII failed to intervene, she was eventually purchased by the English government from Duke Philip of Burgundy. She was tried in a politically motivated ecclesiastical court and found guilty in spite of many irregularities. Her appeals to the Council of Basel and to the Pope should have stopped the proceedings, but were denied by Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan. She was condemned to death and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. A posthumous retrial authorized by Pope Callixtus III declared her innocent on July 7, 1456 and implicated Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a secular vendetta.

 

[Tomdstone]

Truth:

Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians during an attack near Compiègne. After the French King Charles VII failed to intervene, she was eventually purchased by the English government from Duke Philip of Burgundy. She was tried in a politically motivated ecclesiastical court and found guilty in spite of many irregularities. Her appeals to the Council of Basel and to the Pope should have stopped the proceedings, but were denied by Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan. She was condemned to death and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431. A posthumous retrial authorized by Pope Callixtus III declared her innocent on July 7, 1456 and implicated Bishop Cauchon with heresy for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a secular vendetta.

How many other innocent people were wrongly convicted by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts and burned alive at the stake? IMHO, it is not a good idea to burn people alive at the stake since as this example shows, it is possible to make a mistake.

 

[campeador]

It looks like you left the right parenthesis outside the URL tag, so the link doesn’t work.

But perhaps you can demonstrate why it’s right and good for heretics of that time to be killed at the time of the inquisitions? Then you can explain why that reasoning can’t be applied to modern times.

That’s already been explained to you by Elizium23, JustaServant, Confiteor Deo, etc. much better than I could.

 

[campeador]

How many other innocent people were wrongly convicted by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts and burned alive at the stake? IMHO, it is not a good idea to burn people alive at the stake since as this example shows, it is possible to make a mistake.

As JustaServant succinctly explained in post #35:

That is exactly why Christ set up the Church the way he did Ron, because human beings are sinful and corruptible.

 

[dronald]

As JustaServant succinctly explained in post #35:

That is exactly why Christ set up the Church the way he did Ron, because human beings are sinful and corruptible.

Which is a fine answer, and really the only acceptable one. Admission that Aquinas and the entire Catholic Church was wrong for Centuries and lead by extremely terrible people in regards to what to do with heretics.

Not everyone here is willing to do that however, and that certainly keeps the discussion going.

 

[campeador]

Which is a fine answer, and really the only acceptable one. Admission that Aquinas and the entire Catholic Church was wrong for Centuries and lead by extremely terrible people in regards to what to do with heretics.

Not everyone here is willing to do that however, and that certainly keeps the discussion going.

Wow. Not sure how you got ‘…the entire Catholic Church was wrong for centuries and led by extremely terrible people…’ out of my comments.

Personally I find Aquinas’ argument satisfactory, as found in post #5:

But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death. The Decretum repeats Jerome’s comment, Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house . . . the whole body, the whole flock burn, perish, rot, die.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Were heretics not killed, only arch-heretics?

Oh, I think the Church was also quite concerned with all heretics not just so-called arch-heretics.

So if I’m not technically a heretic, let’s change my scenario to someone today who is a Christian yet disagrees with much of what the Catholic Church teaches. Would you kill that person if there was no chance of punishment in either this life or the next one? Is that man’s life worth the 100 souls you might save by his death?

You can’t justify it because it is unjustifiable. Do you think someone out there is going to have a better attempt at a justification than Thomas Aquinas? No, there is no justification for the death of heretics waiting to be posted here. Thomas Aquinas rationalized evil as good and after all these centuries no one has demonstrated that those deaths were warranted.

As far as I know, the Church only killed arch-heretics since they were the only ones that killed other people’s souls. I would imagine they would not know who was just a normal heretic since they can’t peer into people’s souls to see their hidden beliefs. St. Thomas’ quote seems to only support the execution of people that kill other people’s souls, only arch-heretics do this.

No, that person shouldn’t be executed because he isn’t killing other people’s souls along with his own. I would not kill him even if he did because it is not in my authority to judge his case, a court would have to do that. Just like how I wouldn’t kill a man accused of murder since I have to leave that judgment up to the judicial system.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

How many other innocent people were wrongly convicted by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts and burned alive at the stake? IMHO, it is not a good idea to burn people alive at the stake since as this example shows, it is possible to make a mistake.

It is possible to make a mistake in anything and in any court, but that doesn’t mean the punishments that are executed should stop for fear of mistakes that are in the vast minority.

 

[dronald]

Wow. Not sure how you got ‘…the entire Catholic Church was wrong for centuries and led by extremely terrible people…’ out of my comments.

Personally I find Aquinas’ argument satisfactory, as found in post #5:

But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death. The Decretum repeats Jerome’s comment, Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house . . . the whole body, the whole flock burn, perish, rot, die.

I don’t find it satisfactory.

Aquinas and Popes supported the idea that heretics could be burned for centuries, therefore it was led by aweful people for centuries. Not all were, I’m sure; but distorting the true message of Christ by calling for the burning of human beings is terrible.

It’s amazing that even Aquinas took Titus out of context:

3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I’m pretty certain “Have nothing more to do with him” doesn’t mean have him murdered.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I don’t find it satisfactory.

Aquinas and Popes supported the idea that heretics could be burned for centuries, therefore it was led by aweful people for centuries. Not all were, I’m sure; but distorting the true message of Christ by calling for the burning of human beings is terrible.

It’s amazing that even Aquinas took Titus out of context:

3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I’m pretty certain “Have nothing more to do with him” doesn’t mean have him murdered.

Burning people at the stake for dissent and disagreement is wrong. Luther knew this and that’s why one of the objections to Luther in Exsurge Domine was that Heretics being burned at the stake was not against the will of the Holy Spirit. It was one of the biggest blunders of that document.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

No, that person shouldn’t be executed because he isn’t killing other people’s souls along with his own. I would not kill him even if he did because it is not in my authority to judge his case, a court would have to do that. Just like how I wouldn’t kill a man accused of murder since I have to leave that judgment up to the judicial system.

So we’re just pushing this back another step. Let’s say the Church said that it was within their right to in the present day kill one Christian preacher who they felt was teaching millions of people heresy. Would you say that they had the right to do so? Would you say that such an authorized killing would be good and/or moral?

 

[campeador]

I don’t find it satisfactory.

Aquinas and Popes supported the idea that heretics could be burned for centuries, therefore it was led by aweful people for centuries.

Slavery is wrong, and Jesus and his Disciples were wrong for not condemning it, and awful for allowing it to continue for centuries… :dts: