Is the Inquisition a black mark on the Catholic Church?

[Moses613]

Moses -
With all due respect, the Church didn’t do this to the Jews. Many lay Catholics did, but not the Church.

The Inquisition only had jurisdiction over Baptized and/or Confirmed Catholics.

The laity became xenophobe during that time, yes. And lay people performed many horrors to Jews, Protestants and even honest converts to Catholicism.

A major reason the Spanish Inquisition was called was to stop the mob violence and lynch mobs.

The Church tried to save people, not kill them. If a defendant was executed, the priests viewed that as a failure

Again, I highly recommend the following talks

saintjoe.com/products/fire-and-sword-crusade-inquisition-0690e84e-69c5-43f9-abf1-7d1807684372?taxon_id=27

shop.catholic.com/catholic-digital-media/the-real-story-of-the-inquisition-set.html

I will do deny that individual Catholics (who were not practicing their faith) did horrible things during that time. However, the idea that it was lead and carried out by the Church was created by 17th, 18th, and 19th century anti-Catholics.

And there may have even been some individual priests who were bad, but the Church herself did not commit the reported horrors of that time.

Blaming the Church for the actions of individual Catholics would be akin to blaming the entire Jewish Religion for killing Jesus and His followers in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Or akin to saying the Jewish religion doesn’t believe God is real because many atheists identify themselves as Jewish.

God Bless

I don’t have much time to respond, but I’ll say this. My complaint is against the Inquisition’s treatment of confirmed Catholics as well. In the late 14th/early 15th century many Jews were forced to convert or be expelled from Spain. Many succumbed, but secretly they retained Jewish practices. This was repeated inn 1492 with the expulsion. Some wealthy Jews remained and converted, and in some cases pretended to convert, to Catholicism. The ones who secretly practiced their Jewish faith were indeed under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.

That said, I’ll consider visiting the links you recommended when I have time.

 

[phil19034]

I don’t have much time to respond, but I’ll say this. My complaint is against the Inquisition’s treatment of confirmed Catholics as well. In the late 14th/early 15th century many Jews were forced to convert or be expelled from Spain. Many succumbed, but secretly they retained Jewish practices. This was repeated inn 1492 with the expulsion. Some wealthy Jews remained and converted, and in some cases pretended to convert, to Catholicism. The ones who secretly practiced their Jewish faith were indeed under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.

That said, I’ll consider visiting the links you recommended when I have time.

I highly recommend this article on this free website: catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-inquisition/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition.html

There are also more articles here: catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-inquisition/

The issues surrounding the Spanish Inquisition are very nuanced and for the most part very Secular. The Church was involved to stop the mob violence.

 

[abucs]

I don’t have much time to respond, but I’ll say this. My complaint is against the Inquisition’s treatment of confirmed Catholics as well. In the late 14th/early 15th century many Jews were forced to convert or be expelled from Spain. Many succumbed, but secretly they retained Jewish practices. This was repeated inn 1492 with the expulsion. Some wealthy Jews remained and converted, and in some cases pretended to convert, to Catholicism. The ones who secretly practiced their Jewish faith were indeed under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.

That said, I’ll consider visiting the links you recommended when I have time.

I’ll just point our that the Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish monarchy and was set up to protect the Spanish state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I remember reading that a couple of years before the Spanish Inquisition Muslim ships sailed up and down the Spanish coast and slaughtered thousands of Spanish townsfolk. Many more were killed in just one of those raids than the following 350 years of the inquisition combined. In one town they sawed the local mayor in half over a barrel while he was still alive.

It was thought at the time that Jews pretending to be Christians were giving help to the Muslims against the Spanish state. I don’t know if they were or not but context is important when we assess historical actions.

 

[GKC]

I’ll just point our that the Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish monarchy and was set up to protect the Spanish state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I remember reading that a couple of years before the Spanish Inquisition Muslim ships sailed up and down the Spanish coast and slaughtered thousands of Spanish townsfolk. Many more were killed in just one of those raids than the following 350 years of the inquisition combined. In one town they sawed the local mayor in half over a barrel while he was still alive.

It was thought at the time that Jews pretending to be Christians were giving help to the Muslims against the Spanish state. I don’t know if they were or not but context is important when we assess historical actions.

And I’ll note that the linked article mentions, in the body of the piece, the three books I recommended, above. I recommend them, again. Not the Black Legend, but not a whitewash, either. Context is good and needed. Balance is, too.

 

[abucs]

And I’ll note that the linked article mentions, in the body of the piece, the three books I recommended, above. I recommend them, again. Not the Black Legend, but not a whitewash, either. Context is good and needed. Balance is, too.

I think for balance it is also important to read the records kept of the Spanish Inquisition.

These papers were released in the mid 1990’s and demolished much of the black legend. In fact much of the scholarship since then has centred on why people were so over the top in condemnation of the Church.

In these released papers are a series of letters between the Spanish monarch and the Pope. Highlights include the Spanish monarch threatening to not defend the papacy against Islamic attacks if an inquisition was not set up and subsequent papal conditions of the non use of torture, not drawing blood, penalties for false accusations, the need for reliable witnesses, the option of repentance, not causing disfigurement and papal complaints when such directives were not adhered to by the Spanish.

Other important letters include Spanish citizens writing to the papacy complaining the inquisitors were too lenient and church officials writing to the papacy claiming secular criminals were purposely blaspheming in order to be transferred to inquisition trials because they were seen as far more lenient than normal civil trials.

Monks also were writing to the pope asking what to do with prisoners that should be transferred to the secular civil process. The monks wrote in their letters that the death rate in secular prisons was so high that if they moved the prisoners they were unlikely to last a month due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and disease.

Since the records were opened the entire execution rate has been ascertained as 1% of prison trials and somewhere around 3000 total executions 0ver 350 years.

This is in stark contrast to previously ‘estimated numbers’ which even ran into the millions and was presented as some religiously inspired horrific departure from normal civil law.

The records themselves have separated fact from political polemics and this is where serious scholarship goes to get the clearest picture of the Spanish Inquisition.

Balance is important but truth should be the final objective and I agree with the scholars that the records themselves are where we find it.

 

[GKC]

I think for balance it is also important to read the records kept of the Spanish Inquisition.

These papers were released in the mid 1990’s and demolished much of the black legend. In fact much of the scholarship since then has centred on why people were so over the top in condemnation of the Church.

In these released papers are a series of letters between the Spanish monarch and the Pope. Highlights include the Spanish monarch threatening to not defend the papacy against Islamic attacks if an inquisition was not set up and subsequent papal conditions of the non use of torture, not drawing blood, penalties for false accusations, the need for reliable witnesses, the option of repentance, not causing disfigurement and papal complaints when such directives were not adhered to by the Spanish.

Other important letters include Spanish citizens writing to the papacy complaining the inquisitors were too lenient and church officials writing to the papacy claiming secular criminals were purposely blaspheming in order to be transferred to inquisition trials because they were seen as far more lenient than normal civil trials.

Monks also were writing to the pope asking what to do with prisoners that should be transferred to the secular civil process. The monks wrote in their letters that the death rate in secular prisons was so high that if they moved the prisoners they were unlikely to last a month due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and disease.

Since the records were opened the entire execution rate has been ascertained as 1% of prison trials and somewhere around 3000 total executions 0ver 350 years.

This is in stark contrast to previously ‘estimated numbers’ which even ran into the millions and was presented as some religiously inspired horrific departure from normal civil law.

The records themselves have separated fact from political polemics and this is where serious scholarship goes to get the clearest picture of the Spanish Inquisition.

Balance is important but truth should be the final objective and I agree with the scholars that the records themselves are where we find it.

And I suggest looking a number of things to find the truth, certainly any records you can find included. I suggest looking at Kamen and Peters, at a minimum. Or Netanyahu, if you have the time.

Kamen puts the estimate for the Spanish Inquisition at around 2000 executions. I’ve seen the 3000 figure, also.

Neither the Black legend, nor a whitewash is what one looks for. Kamen and Peters were among the first to slay the Legend. Read them or not, as you wish.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ll just point our that the Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish monarchy and was set up to protect the Spanish state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

I remember reading that a couple of years before the Spanish Inquisition Muslim ships sailed up and down the Spanish coast and slaughtered thousands of Spanish townsfolk. Many more were killed in just one of those raids than the following 350 years of the inquisition combined. In one town they sawed the local mayor in half over a barrel while he was still alive.

It was thought at the time that Jews pretending to be Christians were giving help to the Muslims against the Spanish state. I don’t know if they were or not but context is important when we assess historical actions.

There were other Inquisitions, not just the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[GKC]

There were other Inquisitions, not just the Spanish Inquisition.

And for them, Peters.

 

[abucs]

And I suggest looking a number of things to find the truth, certainly any records you can find included. I suggest looking at Kamen and Peters, at a minimum. Or Netanyahu, if you have the time.

Kamen puts the estimate for the Spanish Inquisition at around 2000 executions. I’ve seen the 3000 figure, also.

Neither the Black legend, nor a whitewash is what one looks for. Kamen and Peters were among the first to slay the Legend. Read them or not, as you wish.

Thankyou I’ll put the authors on my list. The figures between 2000 and 4000 are projections from the opened records. Since the records are incomplete it depends on assumptions from the missing districts. I usually put it at 3000 to split the high and low level totals taken from the different assumptions.

 

[GKC]

Thankyou I’ll put the authors on my list. The figures between 2000 and 4000 are projections from the opened records. Since the records are incomplete it depends on assumptions from the missing districts. I usually put it at 3000 to split the high and low level totals taken from the different assumptions.

I think 3000 is fair, but what do I know. All such figures, from historical events like this, are more or less approximations. Kamen, in the first edition of his book, gives no precise totals, but does say that figures were lower than traditionally given. I’d guess this might be influenced by the records of the Inquisition in Barcelona, generally available since 1819. In his second edition, printed in 1997, he suggests a more formal total. This was a year before the Holy Office records were made available, so he was basing that on something else, likely, or maybe a sneak preview. His 4th edition, out in 2014, might be of interest. I think I’ll get it, though the Inquisition is not a major interest of mine. I just don’t like Black Legend or whitewash extremes, on anything.

I’m assuming when you refer to the record here, you are thinking of the records of the Holy Office opened by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1998. They reveal a number of things. I’ve read one book, on a peripherally related topic, based a great deal on them, and the access the author had to them. I doubt his book would conform to your views, but that’s one reason I recommend wide ranging reading.

 

[Adamski]

No, I don’t think it is. What people falsely believe it to be is what is the bad mark on the Church. A lot that is believed of it today is not anything like what it really was like. Barely anybody was killed in it and most denounced their heresy and were pardoned or were simply innocent. Their method of trying people was actually more just than the civil courts at that time. There may have been some abuses of it, but they were in the minority. Here is a video that has a lot of information on the matter. The Inquisition

I’m glad you found Michael voris on line

 

[fhansen]

One death is too many. Also heresy is never a good reason to hurt, imprison, torture, or kill someone…

I agree. Society has progressed from such sentiments; the Church would never condone those actions today, and, I believe, such is the case because she and the rest of us have continously been challenged by and come to better heed the light of her own gospel, consciously or not.

 

[abucs]

I agree. Society has progressed from such sentiments; the Church would never condone those actions today, and, I believe, such is the case because she and the rest of us have continously been challenged by and come to better heed the light of her own gospel, consciously or not.

I agree in sentiment but I do look at the heresy of Luther, the heresy of a section of the French revolutionaries, the heresy of the Bolsheviks, the heresy of Hitler and all of the evil and death that proceeds from it and I wonder where the balance actually is when opposing heresy in order to prevent such evil and death.

So for example the 1937 papal encyclical against the Nazis

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

or the 1891 papal encyclical against socialism

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

or the 1907 papal encyclical against modernism

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

All of these were timely warnings against heresy but were not strong enough to counter it and prevent the subsequent suffering in society.

Perhaps it is a matter of continually defending the church and pointing to its historical wisdom and having to accept that humans sometimes choose against God, accepting the colossal suffering that such a decision brings?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I agree in sentiment but I do look at the heresy of Luther, the heresy of a section of the French revolutionaries, the heresy of the Bolsheviks, the heresy of Hitler and all of the evil and death that proceeds from it and I wonder where the balance actually is when opposing heresy in order to prevent such evil and death.

Luther not a heretic, Hitler was an agnostic ,and the French revolutionary were atheistic .

 

[dronald]

I agree in sentiment but I do look at the heresy of Luther, the heresy of a section of the French revolutionaries, the heresy of the Bolsheviks, the heresy of Hitler and all of the evil and death that proceeds from it and I wonder where the balance actually is when opposing heresy in order to prevent such evil and death.

So for example the 1937 papal encyclical against the Nazis

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

or the 1891 papal encyclical against socialism

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

or the 1907 papal encyclical against modernism

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

All of these were timely warnings against heresy but were not strong enough to counter it and prevent the subsequent suffering in society.

Perhaps it is a matter of continually defending the church and pointing to its historical wisdom and having to accept that humans sometimes choose against God, accepting the colossal suffering that such a decision brings?

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Protestants for WW2, or Catholics for that matter. There’s nothing any Church could have done including the CC.

I often wonder how many Protestants are in this video:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bYp_vN84p_U

But it probably doesn’t matter.

 

[TheSurvivor]

Thanks for the informational post. Yes, I skimmed thru most of the rest of the thread. A little shocking, but my general feeling is that most of the Catholics that defend the Inquisition here are just totally deceived about the autos-da-fe and other terrors perpetrated during the Spanish Inquisition. That they only burned arch-heretics who secretly tried to convert faithful Catholics to Judaism is absurd and laughable. Yes, that’s what Torquemada and documents of the time claimed - OF COURSE! If you were caught secretly lighting candles Friday night in your basement - you were burned. That was enough proof you were a dangerous Jewish missionary.
I’m a sensitive person so I couldn’t even bring myself to follow the links that talk about how the official inquisition actually “moderated” or improved on what the rabble was doing. I might get nauseous.
I was under the impression that according to Catholics only papal statements made ex cathedra are infallible, but I guess that’s an oversimplification.

The Church did NOT run the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Government started the Spanish Inquisition.

Also, Papal Infallibility is not limited to Ex Cathedra statements. newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[phil19034]

The moral law always remains the same, it is the circumstances that change. Today, the execution of heretics in itself is not a sin just as it wasn’t a sin back then, but the Church knows that to execute leaders of heresy today would cause scandal which is a separate sin.

The clergy, the vast majority anyway, have not worked hard at catechizing the faithful concerning the intrinsic evil of contraception. That is the fault of the individual clergy, not of the Church as a whole, since the Church has always taught from the Magisterium that contraception is a mortal sin.

Let’s remember here that The Church never executed anyone. That it was civil law. It used to be a capital crime to be a heretic. Civil authorities did this and sometimes even when The Church asked then not to

 

[GKC]

Let’s remember here that The Church never executed anyone. That it was civil law. It used to be a capital crime to be a heretic. Civil authorities did this and sometimes even when The Church asked then not to

As always, I suggest Peters/INQUISITION and/or Kamen/SPANISH INQUISITION, for some in-depth knowledge. Peters has a couple of chapters on the evolution of the relationship between civil and church, in the growth of the Inquisitions. Very useful.

 

[phil19034]

As always, I suggest Peters/INQUISITION and/or Kamen/SPANISH INQUISITION, for some in-depth knowledge. Peters has a couple of chapters on the evolution of the relationship between civil and church, in the growth of the Inquisitions. Very useful.

Yes. I also recommend the articles here on this site, catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-inquisition/

Starting with the first one by Dr. Thomas Madden

 

[GKC]

Yes. I also recommend the articles here on this site, catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-inquisition/

Starting with the first one by Dr. Thomas Madden

I certainly agree with looking into all possible sources of information. I find books to be the best source for in-depth info. But I certainly suggest reading from all sorts of places. I rely on the internet the least. Like many historical topics, this is a complex and many-layered one, not well suited to sound bites. Hitchcock gives 2 sentences to the Roman law issue. Peters has a 40 page chapter (“The Law of Rome and the Latin Christian Church”). Which, of course, is not exhaustive, but certainly informative.

I note that Madden is upping the total for the Spanish Inquisition to 4000, from Kamen’s 2000. Makes me more certain I need Kamen’s 4th edition. And Hitchcock also recommends Peters and Kamen, among others.

Not Black Legend, not whitewash. History is complicated.