The not-so-evil Spanish Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious11

Guest
Now I’m not justifying the Spanish Inquisition or saying we need to bring it back. But let’s put things into perspective. It appears that the inquisition was among the most progressive tribunals of the day. Indeed there appears to be evidence that trials were quite fair by the standards of the times and prisoners in secular prisons seemingly blasphemed in order to be transferred to the custody of the inquisition. Also worth mentioning is its seemingly moderate (by the standards of the times!) use of torture.
 
Last edited:
The Spanish Inquisition, at least when it was instituted, was more of a national security measure that really a religious one. Between 711 and 1492, the Spanish people are involved in a Reconquista.

A lot of Muslims presumably converted , and the Inquisition sought to make sure that they actually did, as the Spanish didn’t want to go back to the previous situation.
 
On the subject of everyone’s favorite Inquisition, Kamen/THE SPANISH INQUISITION is recommended. On the topic of the Inquisition, generally, Peters/INQUISITION.

There are more detailed books, but these are good for openers.
 
This is spin. Saying the Inquisition was “fair for its day” is like saying the Holocaust was “fair for Nazi Germany” or that slavery was “fair for the US in the 1700’s.” It was wrong, wrong, wrong, period. Excusing it even a little is unconscionable.

Saying it was for national security doesn’t excuse that one bit and regardless of what it was for, the Church, not the state, specifically authorized it. Pope Innocent IV’s papal bull “Ad extirpanda” of 1252, which explicitly authorized the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics (which included Jews, Protestants and suspected “witches”) is wrong no matter when it was done. If we are saying it is OK for someone in apostolic succession to approve TORTURE, negates the whole concept of apostolic succession.

Do we think Jesus would have authorized torture? Why else would Pope John Paul II have apologized to the victims centuries later? The “victims,” not the “fairly (for the time) convicted heretics,” the victims.
 
Last edited:
When Pope John Paul II opened the Vatican Archives for historians, new unheard of information came out about the Spanish Inquisition as well as the other less famous Inquisitions.

First off, the Inquisitions were Ecclesiastical Courts. Their main function was to hear arguments by those accused of spreading heresy.

As a result, only Catholics could be brought before the Church’s Court. Non-Catholics were dismissed. Jews and Muslims who had fraudulent Baptismal Records, were handed back to the state for punishment according to state laws.

In Spain, the Ecclesiastical Court was in fact the fairest trial you could get at that time. In fact, our current court system is based much on the Ecclesiastical Courts.

Unlike the state courts, a person brought before the Ecclesiastical Court, had the right for representation by an expert in canon law. The accused had the right to face their accusers and question them. The accused had a right to defend themselves.

This was not the case in the state courts and as mentioned before, the Ecclesiastical Courts were so much more fair, criminals sought to have their cases brought before the Church court. This often meant that a criminal, who’s case was brought before the Ecclesiastical Court and was found guilty for their crimes against the state, were returned to the state for their punishment.

In the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, it’s estimated that 2500 people were executed, and again, the majority of those were criminals who where found guilty for crimes against the state. The Church never executed anyone, only the state had that authority.

When the Church closed the Spanish Inquisition, the people rioted against it, because now the state court would be the only judicial system in place.

Most of what we learned about the Spanish Inquisition in the past, came via British History, which of course was biased against the Catholic nations still loyal to the Church.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Yes you are right, it was wrong. But just as Lot was righteous as compared to the rest of Sodom, the Spanish Inquisition was much more moderate and fair than other tribunals of the day. It does not deserve to be singled out as the outstanding creator of evil in those days, as Calvinist inquisitions were actually pretty terrible too. And comparing the inquisition to the holocaust is actually not fair, the holocaust millions of times more brutal
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
Most of what we learned about the Spanish Inquisition in the past, came via British History, which of course was biased against the Catholic nations still loyal to the Church.
Click to expand...
And the information from the Vatican archives comes from Catholic sources, who were biased toward defending the Church.

It disappoints me that fellow Catholics are defending horrible acts that even a sainted pope admitted were wrong.
 
Last edited:
They are not defending them, just putting things into perspective
 
But the Church claims apostolic succession, those other offenders don’t. It must be held to the absolute highest standard. An apostle of Christ should never have done what Christ would never have condoned. That casts doubt on the whole succession concept.
 
My intention here was not to say Christ would approve, but that it was relatively moderate and benevolent.
 
I think you are “weasel wording.” The title of the thread is “The not-so-evil Spanish Inquisition.” Doe that title not sound like a defense? Should we put the Holocaust “in perspective?” Should we put slavery “in perspective?” Or is it better to just condemn those things because of their great evil?"

I prefer to follow JPII’s example on this.
 
Last edited:
Because it’s history and it’s bringing the Catholic Church an unnecessary bad name. People think that life was good until the inquisition came up, or that the reformation brought the liberation of mankind fighting the evil inquisition. By putting things into perspective we do a favour to the church, in that it was a product of the times not the bringer of evil into the world. Let’s put the holocaust into perspective: it was the most barbaric act that has ever EVER been done, it was brutal by today’s standards, by the standards of the 1940s and also by the standards of the 1940s BC. When we put things into perspective we get an objective view, not one of dismissing evil, but rather finding out what the true evil was and apologizing for what really happened, nobody should be held into account for sins they did not commit.
 
Last edited:
Curious11 said:
My intention here was not to say Christ would approve, but that it was relatively moderate and benevolent.
Click to expand...
Really? You can say Church approved torture was relatively moderate and benevolent? I am flabbergasted.
 
“Relatively”, i.e. as compared to the norm of the time where torture was used much more liberally. Yes I can say that. What I CANNOT and DO NOT say is that it was good and should be continued today
 
I can’t believe you are doubling down on this. When you are in a hole, stop digging. It has nothing at all to do with when it was done. It has to do with the fact that the Church, the heir to Christ on Earth, did it at any time.
 
Curious11 said:
Now I’m not justifying the Spanish Inquisition or saying we need to bring it back. But let’s put things into perspective. It appears that the inquisition was among the most progressive tribunals of the day. Indeed there appears to be evidence that trials were quite far by the standards of the times and prisoners in secular prisons seemingly blasphemed in order to be transferred to the custody of the inquisition. Also worth mentioning is its seemingly moderate (by the standards of the times!) use of torture.
Click to expand...
There are many things that can be done for evangelization.
Shining up the Inquisition is not one of the more productive efforts, in my humble opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top