The not-so-evil Spanish Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Curious11 said:
We are not denying your claim that it was evil.
Click to expand...
But per the title you gave to this thread, you are saying Church sponsored torture and burning at the stake is “not-so evil.” You asked if I have been reading what you wrote. Did you not write that?
 
During the inquisition, the Church did not approve torture.

Those arrested were pretty much treated on the same level as cops treated suspects during prohibition.

Although in today’s mindset this can’t be defended. However, during the 1500’s, laws were very tough on criminals.

In 1500’s Spain, the penalty for stealing a sheep was disembowelment.

We don’t even tolerate capital punishment for rape these days.

Jim
 
What happened was a product of the time. The church has apologized for those acts.

There are much worse forms of religious persecution in almost all countries throughout the 20th and 21th centuries.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did. Not-so-evil is not the same as good. Not so evil is what it is: not so evil. Was the inquisition evil? Yes, it was. Was it AS evil as people claim? No, it was not. That’s it
 
Last edited:
Curious11 said:
Yes I did. Not-so-evil is no the same as good.
Click to expand...
It is worth noting, the inquisition was at times instrumental to human rights. Such was the case in India where widows were reduced to misery after death of the husband - with the families themselves stealing the deceased’s property from the widow and orfans. The ecclesiastical courts were instrumental in imposing the right to inheritance.
 
Last edited:
Today we still hear of the millions who were tortured and put to death during the Spanish Inquisition.

Fact is, about 2500 were put to death by the state in the 350 period of the Inquisition.

Jim
 
jfz178 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
OK, then try listing five things in Nazi Germany worse than Holocaust, or five things in USA in 1700s worse than slavery.

I’d say that the things you listed at least arguably are the worst things about those societies.

Thus this your comparison doesn’t work.
jfz178 said:
It was wrong, wrong, wrong, period. Excusing it even a little is unconscionable.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be better, if that was a conclusion, and not a premise?

This attitude prevents us from actually finding out what went wrong and why. And from avoiding that in the future.

But yes, it is much more convenient to just proclaim that “they” were evil without looking too closely, and to pretend that “we” are obviously better, immune to whatever temptations “they” had.
jfz178 said:
And the information from the Vatican archives comes from Catholic sources, who were biased toward defending the Church.
Click to expand...
And the anti-Catholic sources are to be presumed to be impartial and infallible? 🙂
jfz178 said:
I’m talking about the Church authorizing atrocities, including torture specifically authorized by a pope, burning at the stake, etc.
Click to expand...
OK, so perhaps we should start by finding out why those things count as atrocities? For example, are you saying that burning on stake was wrong, because it was a death penalty, because it was a bad method of death penalty, because innocents were being executed? Any of these positions seems to be arguable, and it would be nice to know which of them is yours.
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
Today we still hear of the millions who were tortured and put to death during the Spanish Inquisition.

Fact is, about 2500 were put to death by the state in the 350 period of the Inquisition.

Jim
Click to expand...
Very true!!! Blowing things “out of proportion” and taking “out of context” is always the first step in these arguments.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
During the inquisition, the Church did not approve torture.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false. The pope appointed the inquisitors and they were clergy. Do you think they didn’t know what was going to happen as a result of their verdicts?
 
You folks carry on with this “rationalize the morality of the Inquisition” thread. I am out. This thread makes me embarrassed for my faith.
 
Thank you for contributing with your views. But please in future attempt a more conciliatory tone, it just makes things easier for everyone
 
The Church prohibited the use of torture except in very rare cases and a witness had to be an independent overseer.

The level of torture allowed in the Spanish Inquisition, was the level the cops in the US used during prohibition.

Jim
 
No one is rationalizing morality, but when you learn about history, it’s important to understand the context of the times rather than judging the people of those times with a 21 century mindset.

Hindsight is important for how we behave today, but not for judging those of the past who were not privy to that hindsight.

Jim
 
And even the Black Legend types could be industrious and honest historians, by their lights. Lea for example.

Again, I suggest books, as above.
 
Entwhistler said:
I understand where you are coming from but many twist the Inquisition into the most horrible thing in the history of the world. The OP is merely trying to put it into perspective and lowering it to merely a bad thing that happened. There have been worse things that have happened in the history of ever.

Now that doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t make a mistake (although I’ve heard pretty good arguments justifying some of the Inquisition). But I’m pretty sure the OP made tons of qualifications in the original post that have been skipped over.
Click to expand...
I object to your use of the word “merely” in relation to the executions of human beings, no matter their deserving or not.

On this issue, the cultural, historical, and political contexts surely need to be considered, as does anti Catholic distortion of history.
At the same time, it’s not a very productive exercise to relativize evil. It serves no good purpose.
I’m with the recent Popes: admit the Church’s failings and weaknesses and address them honestly, no matter the fallout.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The British accusations about the wide use of torture and such, came from what is known by historians as the “Black Legends.” This was the anti-Catholic propaganda the English used to create anti-Catholic sentiments among the people.
Click to expand...
I think it goes beyond just anti-catholic sentiments, but also anti-Spaniard sentiments. During the epoch of the Spanish Inquisition, Spain was the biggest rival to England as far as world affairs with the Spanish Armada and all that. Religion was just one of the differences they had, but even if that didn’t exist, the animosity would have still been there.
 
I don’t think anyone here has said Catholics should not admit that the Inquisition was a bad thing. I would argue that we are addressing the failings honestly by pointing out the facts, not leaving the Black Legend version of events. You don’t condemn a thief as a murderer and call that justice, you condemn a thief as a thief. Analogously, you don’t condemn the Inquisition as the equivalent of Hitler because it simply wasn’t, you condemn it as something un-christian, but nevertheless acknowledge that it was better than what was around back then
 
jfz178 said:
Should we put the Holocaust “in perspective?” Should we put slavery “in perspective?
Click to expand...
What does this mean? There were worse genocides than the holocaust. There were historically better and worse forms of slavery. In our criminal justice system we have the concept of aggravating factors which means that, for instance, some murders are worse than other murders. Putting in perspective means considering all the facts. There is nothing wrong with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top