The Spanish Inquisition: so what?

[didymus]

A while back I read a book The Mezuzah in the Madonna’s Foot about hidden Jews (“Marranos”) during the Inquisition. It was very sympathetic, from the modern viewpoint chronicling the survival of an oppressed minority. But the author says that Marranos would become priests (some even bishops) so that they could protect their families.

No wonder the authorities freaked out – not to say that they would not have gone after the Marranos anyway, but I think the sense thatthe Church itself had been infiltrated added an extra dimension.

 

[bobzills]

No wonder the authorities freaked out – not to say that they would not have gone after the Marranos anyway, but I think the sense thatthe Church itself had been infiltrated added an extra dimension.

I don;t understand this idea that the Catholic Church was inflitrated? How was it being infiltrated? When the Church was starting there was never any question of Jews infiltrating the Church, in fact, weren’t the prime movers in the Catholic Church Jews in the first place?

 

[Genesis315]

I don;t understand this idea that the Catholic Church was inflitrated? How was it being infiltrated? When the Church was starting there was never any question of Jews infiltrating the Church, in fact, weren’t the prime movers in the Catholic Church Jews in the first place?

It’s not the same. In that case they were sincerely becoming Christians. In the case at issue, they were pretending to become Christians and becoming priests, all the while secretly retaining their Jewish faith which denied Jesus Christ, not to mention His Real Presence. This would make all thier absolutions and consecrations invalid.

 

[Nevarlander]

You do understand that torture was used much less in the Inquisition than in the civil courts of the day, don’t you.

It’s easy to find fault with ages past. What’s more difficult is to view those ages with proper perspective.

There are stories of people in Spain who had gone to prison for other things blaspheming in front of everyone else so they could get sent to the Inquisitorial prisons. It was a lot better there.

 

[VociMike]

The point is that it set a bad precedent for the Church to approve of torture to extract confessions. The title of the thread sasy “So what?” I am responding to this ignorant question “so what?” by showing that people were hurt by the inquisition.

Has anybody here disagreed that people were hurt by the inquisition? The point of the OP was that the myth of the inquisition (created as a deliberate Protestant propaganda lie) is a far, far different thing than the reality of the inquisition. Facts matter. People were hurt by a lot of authorities 500 years ago. The key fact about torture and the inquisition, for those who desire truth and clarity, was how much the inquisition limited and controlled the use of torture that was so widespread in that time.

Some people really and truly act as though the inquisition was still torturing people right now, today, and not 500 years ago. They act that way, of course, as a way to attack the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, there was never a post with the title “Grand Inquisitor”. That came from a Dostoevsky novel, The Idiot I believe, but I may be mistaken.

The Brothers Karamazov (and the story is told by the skeptical brother Ivan–an article in First Things a few years ago questioned whether we can assume that Ivan is Dostoyevsky’s mouthpiece), though The Idiot has similar criticisms of Catholicism.

I believe (having checked with wikipedia) that the correct title was “Inquisitor Generalis.” “Inquisitor General” is of course a more literal rendition of this than “Grand Inquisitor,” but it doesn’t seem to me that the latter is inappropriate. I’m pretty sure Dostoevsky did not invent the term “Grand Inquisitor” (obviously he didn’t literally do so, since this is an English translation and he wrote in Russian!). The question that interests me is whether this was an accepted English rendition of “Inquisitor Generalis” used by Catholics, or whether it was first used by Protestant propagandists because of its pompous and sinister ring (perhaps coined by analogy to the phrase “Grand Turk” generally used by Europeans to describe the Turkish sultan). I incline toward the latter, but I’d be interested to hear evidence. I don’t know if the OED would give the first usage for a two-word phrase like this, but I would hope it might.

From this website (linked from wikipedia) I see that the correct Spanish term appears to be also “Inquisidor General” (am I forming the singular correctly?). That bolsters my belief that “Grand” was probably a polemical English coinage intended to link Catholics and Turks as cruel enemies of true Christianity.

Edwin

 

[rpp]

The following quote from you is a slander:

If you have read Kamen, then you know that what I have referred to is not false.

There was no slander in the statement. And you have not answered the question.

 

[rpp]

The Brothers Karamazov (and the story is told by the skeptical brother Ivan–an article in First Things a few years ago questioned whether we can assume that Ivan is Dostoyevsky’s mouthpiece), though The Idiot has similar criticisms of Catholicism.

I believe (having checked with wikipedia) that the correct title was “Inquisitor Generalis.” “Inquisitor General” is of course a more literal rendition of this than “Grand Inquisitor,” but it doesn’t seem to me that the latter is inappropriate. I’m pretty sure Dostoevsky did not invent the term “Grand Inquisitor” (obviously he didn’t literally do so, since this is an English translation and he wrote in Russian!). The question that interests me is whether this was an accepted English rendition of “Inquisitor Generalis” used by Catholics, or whether it was first used by Protestant propagandists because of its pompous and sinister ring (perhaps coined by analogy to the phrase “Grand Turk” generally used by Europeans to describe the Turkish sultan). I incline toward the latter, but I’d be interested to hear evidence. I don’t know if the OED would give the first usage for a two-word phrase like this, but I would hope it might.

From this website (linked from wikipedia) I see that the correct Spanish term appears to be also “Inquisidor General” (am I forming the singular correctly?). That bolsters my belief that “Grand” was probably a polemical English coinage intended to link Catholics and Turks as cruel enemies of true Christianity.

Edwin

First, I do not entirely trust Wikipedia as a sources, as anyone can say nearly anything there.

As for the title “Inquisidor General” we can look at the rules regarding the inquisitors and Roman Curia of today for guidance.

First, at no time were there ever more than 4 inquisitors operating in a Spain (or Italy or any other country). They generally each had only one or two assistants and rarely, if ever, operated alone. A notable exception to this was Torquemada, but then he got himself into very serious trouble because of his abuses.

Next the Inquisition was renamed a while back and is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is headed by a prefect. Currently, that position is held by Cardinal LeVada, former Archbishop of San Francisco and before that Portland Oregon. Before Cardinal LeVada, the post was help by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

The primary purpose of the Inquisition was primarily that of re-conversion. The Inquisitional courts had no jurisdiction in civil matters. More than that, they had a reputation for being much more lenient than civil courts. It was not uncommon for a criminal facing criminal charges to blaspheme while in jail. The Spanish courts would then remand the criminal to the Inquisitional court where the criminal would then repent, do a penance, and be free, avoiding the criminal prosecution in many cases.

 

[Contarini]

First, I do not entirely trust Wikipedia as a sources, as anyone can say nearly anything there.

I don’t either. I am happy to hear from a better source, but Wikipedia is generally a good place to start for basic factual questions (it is a very bad place to go for complex questions of interpretation and theological analysis).

I don’t think the rest of what you say is relevant to the question of whether there was such a title. We are specifically talking about the Spanish, not the Roman Inquisition, although I admit that calling Ratzinger the “Grand Inquisitor” was fun

Edwin

 

[rpp]

I don’t either. I am happy to hear from a better source, but Wikipedia is generally a good place to start for basic factual questions (it is a very bad place to go for complex questions of interpretation and theological analysis).

agreed. Good starting point.

I don’t think the rest of what you say is relevant to the question of whether there was such a title. We are specifically talking about the Spanish, not the Roman Inquisition, although I admit that calling Ratzinger the “Grand Inquisitor” was fun

Edwin

First let me respond to your last sentence. I am sure our Holy Father has a good enough sense of humor to see the ironic humor there, such a gentle man and a gentleman.

As for relevance, I guess my point was that the inquisition was a committee of four in each country. No one was designated as the chairman or inquisitor general or held leadership over the other three. All four reported to Prefect of the Inquisition in Rome. Most, if not all, of the Inquisitors were Dominicans so they would also report to their Dominican Superior.

Now, of course, I am doing this from memory. My understanding may be flawed. So well meaning, polite and informed correction is welcome.

 

[bobzills]

It’s not the same. In that case they were sincerely becoming Christians. In the case at issue, they were pretending to become Christians and becoming priests, all the while secretly retaining their Jewish faith which denied Jesus Christ, not to mention His Real Presence. This would make all thier absolutions and consecrations invalid.

Why were they pretending to become Christians? Was there any type of force involved in their conversion or did they convert freely and willingly?

 

[bobzills]

Has anybody here disagreed that people were hurt by the inquisition? The point of the OP was that the myth of the inquisition (created as a deliberate Protestant propaganda lie) is a far, far different thing than the reality of the inquisition. Facts matter. People were hurt by a lot of authorities 500 years ago. The key fact about torture and the inquisition, for those who desire truth and clarity, was how much the inquisition limited and controlled the use of torture that was so widespread in that time.

Some people really and truly act as though the inquisition was still torturing people right now, today, and not 500 years ago. They act that way, of course, as a way to attack the Church.

It just doesn’t seem right to me for a Church sponsored Court to go around torturing thirteen year old girls. Perhaps you see some jsutification for this?

 

[bobzills]

The primary purpose of the Inquisition was primarily that of re-conversion. The Inquisitional courts had no jurisdiction in civil matters. More than that, they had a reputation for being much more lenient than civil courts. It was not uncommon for a criminal facing criminal charges to blaspheme while in jail. The Spanish courts would then remand the criminal to the Inquisitional court where the criminal would then repent, do a penance, and be free, avoiding the criminal prosecution in many cases.

Why should someone have to repent if he were accused of the offense of being a Greek Orthodox?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

1. You might try the book by Kamen, or the more scholarly book by Lea.
2. Sorry, but Kamen is judged by many Catholics to be a moderate and fair book, and you can find the information about torture in his book. So you have some reading to do before you start talking about falsehoods and making your unconvincing, ignorant and slanderous ad hominem arguments.

No ad hominem attacks are present in the post to which you respond.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It just doesn’t seem right to me for a Church sponsored Court to go around torturing thirteen year old girls. Perhaps you see some jsutification for this?

Do you think someone here is going to raise there hand and offer excuse for the situation you offer?

Ultimately Bob, as you and I have sparred on this one for days in other threads, I have to simply ask: Do you delight in this?

Persons with the time, effort, or incilination can go through your post history. You seem to just eat this up.

 

[VociMike]

It just doesn’t seem right to me for a Church sponsored Court to go around torturing thirteen year old girls. Perhaps you see some jsutification for this?

If you insist on living in the 15th century then you must reject all of Christianity (for such deeds were done by all), all of Judaism (stoning, anybody), Islam, and I don’t know how many other faiths. I guess you’re left being a secularist.

Oh wait. Nazi Germany. Stalin’s Russia. Mao’s China. Nevermind…

So I guess the question is, what life-guiding truth do you draw today from the reality of the inquisition 500 years ago? Do you have some kind of Catholic self-loathing issue?

 

[Contarini]

a

First let me respond to your last sentence. I am sure our Holy Father has a good enough sense of humor to see the ironic humor there, such a gentle man and a gentleman.

I am in fact a great admirer of the Holy Father. and have been ever since I became acquainted with his writings. Part of the fun of calling him the “Grand Inquisitor” was precisely that he is personally such a gentle man (in both the senses to which you allude!), filling (reluctantly) a position in which he was required sometimes to act sternly (though I’d be the first to agree that the CDF acted with great restraint during his tenure). I apologize for the impression I might have created by my joke, since I know that a lot of people did think of him as some sort of ferocious monster (and some are foolish enough to do so still).

As for relevance, I guess my point was that the inquisition was a committee of four in each country. No one was designated as the chairman or inquisitor general or held leadership over the other three. All four reported to Prefect of the Inquisition in Rome. Most, if not all, of the Inquisitors were Dominicans so they would also report to their Dominican Superior.

Now, of course, I am doing this from memory. My understanding may be flawed. So well meaning, polite and informed correction is welcome.

Beyond the wikipedia article, I don’t have a lot of info at hand (I’d have to go look at Kamen or something of that sort), but I wonder if you are not confusing the structure of the medieval Inquisitions with that of the Spanish Inquisition. I would be surprised if there were only four Inquisitors in Spain, but I’ve been surprised before. And there’s no reason why there couldn’t be one person in a supervisory position even among four.

Edwin

 

[rpp]

Why were they pretending to become Christians? Was there any type of force involved in their conversion or did they convert freely and willingly?

I believe the reason was to introduce subversive ideas. Another is to spy. There are lots of reasons why people want to blend in with the population of an “enemy country”.

As I say this, I have in mind the Muslim Moors whom the Spanish finally ejected in 1492 after more than 500 years of war.

 

[rpp]

Why should someone have to repent if he were accused of the offense of being a Greek Orthodox?

Because they were a schismatic group perhaps?

But I think the question, pejorative as it is, may be moot. I do not recall that the Inquisition had addressed an Greek Orthodox folks. Greece was quite some distance from Spain.

 

[Contarini]

I believe the reason was to introduce subversive ideas. Another is to spy. There are lots of reasons why people want to blend in with the population of an “enemy country”.

How about the very simple reason that they had been living there for hundreds of years and wanted to go on doing so.

The “they were spies” argument is sheer special pleading. The Spanish wanted to “purify” the country of non-Christians. Of course non-Christians would be seen as subversive–but obviously forcing people to convert made that problem worse, because as long as you have an officially non-Christian population you can have some sort of control over them.

The whole tragic story is a typical example of how one act of cruelty and wickedness leads to others.

Edwin