The Inquisitions

[CWBetts]

I had a chat with a former (non-Catholic) history professor the other day. Seeing as how she is a specialist in Europe of the Mideavial and Renaissance periods, I asked her a question: “I have heard that victims of Inquisition range from 1200 to 68 million. What is the truth of the matter?” Before I get to her reply, I will tell you that she is tenured faculty at a major secular university. I have had her for various classes and consider her to be neither “pro-Catholic” nor “anti-Catholic.” Unfortunately, there is no really there is no real short answer to the question. First, a distinction must be made between the inquisitions (AD 1200-1600) and the Inquisitions (AD 1600-1800). The inquisitions of the middle ages were largely peaceful affairs. The Church would hear that things were being done inappropriately (such as in the case of “Saint” Guinifort), inquisitors would be sent to correct the problem through questioning and education of the populace, and the inquisitor would report back to Rome that the error has been corrected. During this period, about 95% of those accused would accept the ruling of the Church, without any torture or loss of life (such as in the aforementioned case). Problems arose with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. The dreaded Spanish Inquisition was not the same kind of affair. This was when a function of the Church was used as a tool of the state to strengthen the ruling dynasty. When Rome offered to send Spain inquisitors with Pontifical sanction, they were refused. Thus the “Spanish Inquisition” was not an act of the Church, but an act of a state using an office of the Church for their own ends. In fact, Native Americans, when persecuted by Spanish soldiers, know that they could find sanctuary in Spanish monasteries and missions.
There are a couple more points that need addressing. First is the use of torture. The Church only used torture as a case of last resort. In order to condemn a heretic, there needed to be eye-witnesses or a confession. Torture was (sadly) used to elicit confessions. For this, the Church has issued apology. The second point is related to this. The Church viewed heresy as a disease. It was better for some to die, if the disease was kept from spreading, and infecting the whole Church. Think of the inquisitions as a from of “spiritual chemotherapy” to treat the cancer of heresy. I do not make excuse for the Church, but I do ask that the actions of the Church be judged by the understanding of the world in which these actions were taken. I think what we can learn form this is the inherent danger in a state religion. We can also learn that what we perceive history to be is not necessarily what it was. I would like this to be a discussion, so I welcome any thoughts.

 

[vwtaylorii]

That is a lot of stuff your teacher gave, and I don’t know the whole history about it. However, newadvent.org may have the answer:

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

What I do know is that 68 million is such an inflated number. One person told me 500 million people were killed. Most of the people were Catholic. if they killed that many people, Catholic Church would probably kill off the human race.

In addition, people who were really suppressed by the Inquisition were Cathari- a gnostic group with Christian elements.

 

[CWBetts]

That is a lot of stuff your teacher gave, and I don’t know the whole history about it. However, newadvent.org may have the answer:

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

What I do know is that 68 million is such an inflated number. One person told me 500 million people were killed. Most of the people were Catholic. if they killed that many people, Catholic Church would probably kill off the human race.

In addition, people who were really suppressed by the Inquisition were Cathari- a gnostic group with Christian elements.

There were several inquisitions. The thing to remember is the one that is truly a tragedy was the mess that happened under Isabella and Ferdinand, who used an office of the Church as a weapon of state.

 

[BrianH]

So…how many did they say?
Did they give any kind of a ballpark range?

 

[CWBetts]

So…how many did they say?
Did they give any kind of a ballpark range?

the 1200 number is most accurate. The 68 million only works if you include deaths of slaves (participation in the slave trade earned an excommunication, so you really can’t say the Church is responsible for those), witch burnings (which were mostly carried out in Protestant or mixed lands, but not solidly Catholic countries) and the Spanish Inquisition (which, as explained was an office of the Church being wielded by the state as a weapon). This should put to rest the exaggerated claims. Suffice it to say, the number of victims was quite small.

 

[1ke]

the 1200 number is most accurate. The 68 million only works

68 million is a ridiculous number on its face and does not “work” any way you try to make it.

The entire population of Europe from around 1200 to the time of the black death was about 70-90 million. There is no way the Inquisitions killed over 70% of the population in 200 years.

The Black Death, during a period of 100 years starting in 1348, **did **kill off up to 50% (about 50 million people) of the population with complete, massive socio-economic upheaval in Europe as the result. Entire cities were depopulated. Vast regions were wasteland. We have documented results of such a massive kill off of the population.

Yet the inquisitions were supposed to have killed off more people in about 200 years time? Yeah, right.

And, people actually expect any educated person to believe that the inquisition killed 68 million when that number plus the number killed in the Black Death (which was going on at the same time) exceeds the **entire **population of Europe during that time by 10 million people?

 

[CWBetts]

68 million is a ridiculous number on its face and does not “work” any way you try to make it.

The entire population of Europe from around 1200 to the time of the black death was about 70-90 million. There is no way the Inquisitions killed over 70% of the population in 200 years.

The Black Death, during a period of 100 years starting in 1348, **did **kill off up to 50% (about 50 million people) of the population with complete, massive socio-economic upheaval in Europe as the result. Entire cities were depopulated. Vast regions were wasteland. We have documented results of such a massive kill off of the population.

Yet the inquisitions were supposed to have killed off more people in about 200 years time? Yeah, right.

And, people actually expect any educated person to believe that the inquisition killed 68 million when that number plus the number killed in the Black Death (which was going on at the same time) exceeds the **entire **population of Europe during that time by 10 million people?

Not what i said is required to make the 68 million work: the salve trade and the Native Americans. We are looking at not one continent, but 4. Also I in no way endorse such an inflated number.

 

[EricFilmer]

I do not make excuse for the Church, but I do ask that the actions of the Church be judged by the understanding of the world in which these actions were taken.

I agree. This is a good approach when studying history in general. Although the role of the Church in the Inquisitions has been exaggerated in anti-Catholic propaganda, there were obviously some very harsh acts committed by representatives of the Church and European monarchies (as Pope John Paul II acknowledged). But even though the modern mind can condemn such harsh acts, the fact remains that medieval Europeans were products of their times.

Although not every inquisition dealt with heresy, I will use heresy as an example. In terms of the timescale, medieval Europeans were not very far removed from their barbarian ancestry, and it was customary to deal with many problems by reaching for harsh and even violent solutions. With this in mind, consider how problematic they deemed heresy to be. A heretic was considered worse than a mass murderer. After all, murder kills the body but heresy kills the soul, and therefore they saw heretics as minions of the devil who lead large groups of people away from the saving grace of Christ and into the gateways of hell. Objectively speaking, this notion is not altogether incorrect, and heresy is still considered a major problem today. But the question is, how does one deal with the heretics? To use the Tarantino term, we should not be surprised to learn that medieval Europeans “went medieval” on them.

 

[Pax]

The numbers quoted thus far in this thread are insanely high. Henry Kamen is one the foremost modern historians on the inquisition. He estimates the total number of executions during the Spanish Inquisitions at a maximum of 3,000. He also exposes where and how the falsely exaggerated numbers were generated. Kamen is an atheist and not a shill for the Catholic Church or Catholic history.

 

[Rolltide]

Not what i said is required to make the 68 million work: the salve trade and the Native Americans. We are looking at not one continent, but 4. Also I in no way endorse such an inflated number.

I am a professional historian of Latin American history. There is NO realistic way, even taking all of that into account, that you could even approach a figure of 68 million, or even a fraction of that. The entire Black Death in Europe killed 25 million people, for example, and that was 25-40% of the population.

 

[CWBetts]

The numbers quoted thus far in this thread are insanely high. Henry Kamen is one the foremost modern historians on the inquisition. He estimates the total number of executions during the Spanish Inquisitions at a maximum of 3,000. He also exposes where and how the falsely exaggerated numbers were generated. Kamen is an atheist and not a shill for the Catholic Church or Catholic history.

That is precisely why I went to my former professor. Hearing reasonable explanations from a non-Catholic with credentials blows the silliness out of the water. The 60 million number came form Jack Chick. A non-denominational friend of mine claims 50 million. (I asked what her source was, She said it was reliable. I asked what it was. She sent me a link to a video on YouTube. )

 

[Timothy17]

I think what we can learn form this is the inherent danger in a state religion. We can also learn that what we perceive history to be is not necessarily what it was. I would like this to be a discussion, so I welcome any thoughts.

I agree up to a point ; but, before we “blame Spain,” let’s remember that Isabella is the god-mother, as it were, of exploration, but undoubtedly both her and Ferdinand were extremely Machiavellian, and hence Ferdinand especially is commended by Machiavelli in his treatise on politics, “The Prince.”

Now, this statement,

“I think what we can learn form this is the inherent danger in a state religion…”

Seems to me to imply - at first glance - that a state religion, even the Christian one, is dangerous, and therefore is more bad than good ; however, one could easily contend that the “bad use” of a religion by a kingdom (it is, to be frank, inaccurate to think of Medieval or renaissance kingdoms as “states,” this implying something much more modern, namely of the Napoleonic age) makes the whole idea of an official religion “dangerous,” without specifying even which religion. Today, we could argue that something like abortion is state-sponsored killing, in keeping with secularism, which is the religion of modern states, though abortion can be argued against without a necessary recourse to religion or religious authority.

Truth itself is Sovereign and Supreme. This is a basic fact of life : we cannot abridge the laws of the universe ; however, we find when we explore and understand them, rather than deny or ignore them, we benefit from understanding those truths, and our environment becomes less menacing to us when we conform to and understand its truths ; in fact, we benefit from understanding truth even in the natural world, as it permits us to explore those truths and make good use of them to conform the natural world to our human requirements. Now fire is dangerous ; however, where would man be if his fear of fire drove him from it, or if he was utterly ignorant of its basic nature and operations? Fire indeed is dangerous, but when we understand it, we learn to respect it, and then are permitted to make so many good uses of it, so much so we could hardly imagine life existing without it. So truth first makes peace (understanding), and then liberates. Gravity could be called a menacing enslavement ; however, when we understand it accurately, we become free to use that understanding to exploit the laws of gravity for our benefit. Now the truths of religion are in no wise different, in that they are immutable, and when we understand them and apply them, we find our happiness and general welfare is increased. Now the Christian religion is itself Truth, and if Truth reigns Supreme (as it does), it is child-like to ignore or deny it, and no different than pretending gravity does not exist or the earth does not rotate round the sun, etc., and expecting to be happier or enjoy greater liberty by ignoring these truths. When we understand our environment, we make peace with it, and if this understanding be true, then “the truth shall make you free.” Now, if we desire Truth, and liberty, and life, and happiness, then we do man some disservice by denying or depriving him (that is, mankind) of the Truth. A man or many men may choose ignorance or darkness, but I do not think their decision ought to rob others from that Truth which is like a fountain for every good thing ; in fact, these men rob others by in some wise depriving them of Life or Truth itself, which certainly is every man’s due, or at least every willing man’s due, if he seek it with a sincere heart.

Pax,
Tim

 

[CWBetts]

I agree up to a point ; but, before we “blame Spain,” let’s remember that Isabella is the god-mother, as it were, of exploration, but undoubtedly both her and Ferdinand were extremely Machiavellian, and hence Ferdinand especially is commended by Machiavelli in his treatise on politics, “The Prince.”

Now, this statement,

“I think what we can learn form this is the inherent danger in a state religion…”

Seems to me to imply - at first glance - that a state religion, even the Christian one, is dangerous, and therefore is more bad than good ; however, one could easily contend that the “bad use” of a religion by a kingdom (it is, to be frank, inaccurate to think of Medieval or renaissance kingdoms as “states,” this implying something much more modern, namely Napoleoninc-era) makes the whole idea of an official religion “dangerous,” without specifying even which religion. Today, we could argue that something like abortion is state-sponsored killing, in keeping with secularism, which is the religion of modern states, though abortion can be argued against without a necessary recourse to religion or religious authority.

Truth itself is Sovereign and Supreme. This is a basic fact of life : we cannot abridge the laws of the universe ; however, we find when we explore and understand them, rather than deny or ignore them, we benefit from understanding those truths, and our environment becomes less menacing to us when we conform to and understand its truths ; in fact, we benefit from understanding truth even in the natural world, as it permits us to explore those truths and make good use of them to conform the natural world to our human requirements. Now fire is dangerous ; however, where would man be if his fear of fire drove him from it, or if he was utterly ignorant of its basic nature and operations? Fire indeed is dangerous, but when we understand it, we learn to respect it, and then are permitted to make so many good uses of it, so much so we could hardly imagine life existing without it. So truth first makes peace (understanding), and then liberates. Gravity could be called a menacing enslavement ; however, when we understand it accurately, we become free to use that understanding to exploit the laws of gravity for our benefit. Now the truths of religion are in no wise different, in that they are immutable, and when we understand them and apply them, we find our happiness and general welfare is increased. Now the Christian religion is itself Truth, and if Truth reigns Supreme (as it does), it is child-like to ignore or deny it, and no different than pretending gravity does not exist or the earth does not rotate round the sun, etc., and expecting to be happier or enjoy greater liberty by ignoring these truths. When we understand our environment, we make peace with it, and if this understanding be true, then “the truth shall make you free.” Now, if we desire Truth, and liberty, and life, and happiness, then we do man some disservice by denying or depriving him (that is, mankind) of the Truth. A man or many men may choose ignorance or darkness, but I do not think their decision ought to rob others from that Truth which is like a fountain for every good thing ; in fact, these men rob others by in some wise depriving them of Life or Truth itself, which certainly is every man’s due, or at least every willing man’s due, if he seek it with a sincere heart.

Pax,
Tim

I would still be wary of a state religion, because of the potential for for abuse. Referring to Spain as a “state” is valid, as the concept existed before Napoleon. After all it was Louis XIV who said “Je suis l’etat,” long before Napoleon was born.

 

[CWBetts]

I am a professional historian of Latin American history. There is NO realistic way, even taking all of that into account, that you could even approach a figure of 68 million, or even a fraction of that. The entire Black Death in Europe killed 25 million people, for example, and that was 25-40% of the population.

I was simply giving those making such claims the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are people of goodwill, but misinformed.

 

[Timothy17]

I would still be wary of a state religion, because of the potential for for abuse. Referring to Spain as a “state” is valid, as the concept existed before Napoleon. After all it was Louis XIV who said “Je suis l’etat,” long before Napoleon was born.

Oui, c’est vrais Mais, this statement of that King in fact bolsters my point, if I can be permitted to furnish it out :

Louis was seduced, as it were, by the sect of jurists of his day (whether genuinely seduced or happily misguided we know not) who were men of letters and learning, and wishing to expand the scope proper to the schools into that proper to the states, began to articulate those theories which furnished themselves into the idea that we today refer to as, “the Divine Right of Kings,” which itself is a trespass not of the Church (or principality) upon the State, but in fact the exact opposite. Today’s states profess a division of powers ; namely, legislative, executive and judicial. Now, this division is like the more ancient order of things, where State, Church and School (study) were each seen as institutional and independent, with each enjoying a jurisdiction (as it were) proper and fitting to it, and each sharing those findings and truths proper to it, for the benefit of all. Now, to cross over from one to the other always did a disservice to all, and jeopardized the more or less harmonious order, but the temptation was, as ever, to consolidate power, so the jurists (School), wishing to reorganize things in a manner more to their liking and thinking, professed above all the others the authority of kings, which was naturally condusive to the interests of kings, and the careers of jurists. The Kingdom of France, for a long time, was behaving quite badly in regards to the authority of the papacy, and frustrations there existed on both sides, as it were, which were exploited by the jurists (on the side of the temporal kings). This frustration included often threatening seperation and establishment of an independent, national Church by certain French Kings, which thing Henry the VIIIth, an English king - who seems above all other kings to have utilized this idea of divine right - would himself later do, much to the detriment of his kingdom’s religion, and to Christendom overall, and thus his State would pass laws in regards to religion that it had no authority to do, offending not only the Church and true religion, but men of learning also.

Now, in passing of time, states would correctly proclaim the seperation of Church and State, which thing is well and fine, as there always was supposed to be, the Church ever recognizing her role and authority was over things spiritual and ecclesiastical ; nonetheless, those who professed seperation of State and Church took for granted also the seperation of School and State, but today we see the two so firmly wed and intertwined that the former is virtually a servant to the latter, much to the detriment of education. Now, man is as ever a religious animal, and states professing no-religion do deceive themselves, and find they make or invent new religions in the process of “seperating” from the others, as if man can seperate himself from his nature. This “new religion” we generally call secularism, which, far from being neutral to other religions, finds itself hostile - even militantly and jealously so - to all other religions, as religions so often do.

We find also arguments of science (Schools) being admitted into the State (maintenance and enforcement of the laws), and this much to the detriment of the law especially. For we found in those states most militantly secularist the admission of scientific theory as almost creeds of religion, which things produced horrible results, such as general indoctrination of the populace (propaganda) in lieu of general education and learning, and also perversions like eugenics becoming programs of mass-murder or sterilization and the like. In the United States, we find specially the example of scientific thinking being admitted authoritatively into the law in the case of Roe v Wade, where the justices, being unconvinced a feotus or embryo could be called - at least scientifically - “human,” determined that they were not human, and therefore it was no thing to kill them. Of course, this is a most threatening precedent, as it subjects human life to scientific thinking or understanding, which error we saw breed so many horrors in the Nazi state, for example, but also in Communist ones ; furthermore, science being ever-changing, always searching, ever-debating and arguing means one day something is discovered to be true, the next false, and if we begin to base our laws upon such things, we will in short order find something a crime one day, while the next it is no crime at all, etc. In sum, the law - which has but one true spirit - is found to be infused with many diverse spirits, each requiring maintenance (updating the letter of the law) and enforcement (making the law so). This state of affairs brings the law into disrepute, especially when justices condescend to become scientists, and thus become like made scientists, and science itself becomes a danger, because what scientists profess to discover or be true then has effect in law, which thing can be detrimental to the peace of the state and human happiness. Now something can be true in science, but not true or correct in law, and it this disctinction especially that gives rise to the necessary and proper division.

Continued…

 

[Timothy17]

So in the ancient order where we find the seperation of State, Church and School professed - but the unity of religion throughout - we find a harmonious order. We find states concerned with the maintenance, enactment and enforcement of the laws ; the schools busy discussing and debating philosophy, science and the natural world, etc., and training men to make use of this knowledge ; and we find the Church doing what God has so wonderfully granted her infallibility to do ; namely, profess and protect the Truth of God and religion, which, being based upon Truth, so wonderfully works to create concord among men of good will, and bring order and stability to human life. Now, we find in history that whenever this order was trespassed upon - regardless by which institution into whichever other - then and there do we find so much horror and lamentable occurences, such as the Spanish Inquisition or the Diving Right of Kings, or a commingling of State and Church, as in ecclesiastical offices or appointments. Now, this trespassing of the orders, or institutions, being itself a trespass, does not then negate the value of the divisions, or the orders each in particular, but rather demonstrates how true, proper and necessary such divisions are.

 

[CWBetts]

The relationship of Church and state has changed over the centuries. In the ancient world religion and state were so closely aligned one with the other that a separation is unworkable. We are no longer in the ancient world. The world had changed. We cannot assume that antiquated ideas still have validity.

 

[Timothy17]

We cannot assume that antiquated ideas still have validity.

I think it fair to thus then also admit that, likewise, we cannot assume that because an idea is ancient it thus must not have any validity

Pax,
Tim

 

[CWBetts]

I think it fair to thus then also admit that, likewise, we cannot assume that because an idea is ancient it thus must not have any validity

Pax,
Tim

Of course but what happens when there is a state religion is persecution of those who are not of the faith, and abuse by the secular rulers. What you are really in favor of is a state religion, as long as it is Catholic. What if you are not on the winning team?

 

[Timothy17]

What if you are not on the winning team?

Then I choose Christ’s team ; namely, His Church, which team we are given Divine assurances not only shall, but in some wise already is, Triumphant, though she Suffers. I choose this team not merely for my own sake, though it is better for me, but because by virtue of its Author and Originator, is better for all men, everywhere, and throughout all time. In this team, or rather City, its citizens belong to heaven, are loyal to Christ, Who is the King of kings, the Author of Truth, and the Way, and the Life, Who’s mercy also endures forever, and justice is perfect : so much so, that, even if this City were not, by the temporal reckoning of things, the winning one ; nonetheless, it is promised a sure reward and certain victory, even admidst persecutions, and death no longer a threat, but a crown and act of liberation : the door to that most perfect yet undiscovered country, the Heavenly Kingdom, which thing, being priceless, is worth all in this life, and may God help me, and all of us, to believe it so, and live accordingly.