The Spanish Inquisition: so what?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rpp said:
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.
Click to expand...
Southern Italy and Sicily came under the rule of the Crown of Aragon at some point in the fifteenth century, I believe.

Edwin
 
rpp said:
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.
Click to expand...
There were Greek Orthodox in Italy who were targeted by the Inquisition. For example, we read:
“The Spanish Inquisition was set up by King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile in 1478 with the forced approval of Pope Sixtus IV. In contrast to the previous Inquisition, it operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It aimed primarily at converts from Judaism and Islam (who were still residing in Spain after the end of the Moor control of Spain), who were suspected of either continuing to adhere to their old religion (often after having been converted under duress) or having fallen back into it, and later at Protestants; in Sicily and Southern Italy, which were under Spanish rule, it targeted Greek Orthodox Christians. After religious disputes waned in the 17th century, the Spanish Inquisition more and more developed into a secret police against internal threats to the state.”

answers.com/topic/inquisition
 
ASimpleSinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is certainly another unconvincing ad hominem argument.
The question raised by the topic of this thread is: “So what?”
I am saying that it is simply not true that the Inquisition can be easily dismissed with a “So what ?” The example, i gave of a thirteen year old girl being tortured by the inquisition is, I beleive, a simple answer as to why it is not appropriate to dismiss the Inquisition with a “so what?” The inquisition set a horrific and terrible precedent for the Church to endorse torture as a means of extracting confessions and I don;t beleive that it is right to dismiss it so casually as if it were of no consequence.
 
VociMike said:
Oh wait. Nazi Germany. Stalin’s Russia. Mao’s China. Nevermind…
Click to expand...
Correct. These regimes also used torture. The Church had approved the use of torture to extract confessions long before these regimes came into existence.
 
bobzills said:
This is certainly another unconvincing ad hominem argument.
The question raised by the topic of this thread is: “So what?”
I am saying that it is simply not true that the Inquisition can be easily dismissed with a “So what ?” The example, i gave of a thirteen year old girl being tortured by the inquisition is, I beleive, a simple answer as to why it is not appropriate to dismiss the Inquisition with a “so what?” The inquisition set a horrific and terrible precedent for the Church to endorse torture as a means of extracting confessions and I don;t beleive that it is right to dismiss it so casually as if it were of no consequence.
Click to expand...
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Click to expand...
Its not an ad hominem attack. It is a question.
 
bobzills said:
There were Greek Orthodox in Italy who were targeted by the Inquisition. For example, we read:
“The Spanish Inquisition was set up by King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile in 1478 with the **forced **approval of Pope Sixtus IV. In contrast to the previous Inquisition, it operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It aimed primarily at converts from Judaism and Islam (who were still residing in Spain after the end of the Moor control of Spain), who were suspected of either continuing to adhere to their old religion (often after having been converted under duress) or having fallen back into it, and later at Protestants; in Sicily and Southern Italy, which were under Spanish rule, it targeted Greek Orthodox Christians. After religious disputes waned in the 17th century, the Spanish Inquisition more and more developed into a secret police against internal threats to the state.”

answers.com/topic/inquisition
Click to expand...
(Text in bolded for emphasis by me.)

Thank you clarifying that the Church was not responsible for much of the Spanish inquisition. You make it clear that Spanish royal family hijacked many certain aspects of the Inquisition.

We all appreciate you finally absolving the Church. 👍
 
Alright, this is the full length quote:

“NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" (Que jangle cord) “Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise… Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency… Our THREE weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope… Our FOUR…no… Amongst our weapons…amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise… I’ll come in again.”
 
rpp said:
(Text in bolded for emphasis by me.)

Thank you clarifying that the Church was not responsible for much of the Spanish inquisition. You make it clear that Spanish royal family hijacked many certain aspects of the Inquisition.

We all appreciate you finally absolving the Church. 👍
Click to expand...
You are welcome.
I do still object to using torture to extract confessions, though.
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
Our THREE weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope…
Click to expand...
But the King of Aragon did not follow Pope Sixtus IV, at least in one of the Pope’s bulls. On April 18, 1482, Pope Sixtus IV wrote in a bull that: “…on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other lower and even less proper perons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many.”
I think that this papal bull justifies very well my objection to trivialising the inquisition with a “So What?”
 
IMHO, it’s not a bad idea to burn a few protestants once in a while. It keeps the rest of them in line. If we burned the occasional JW or mormon, I think that we would have many fewer knocking on doors and being a nuisance.😃
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
Alright, this is the full length quote:

“NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" (Que jangle cord) “Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise… Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency… Our THREE weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope… Our FOUR…no… Amongst our weapons…amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise… I’ll come in again.”
Click to expand...
That was a pretty funny sketch. Monty Python was good at poking fun, if rather irreverent at times.

While the Inquisition is a serious subject, it is important to maintain our sense of humor. It is easier to remain charitable that way. 🙂
 
rpp said:
That was a pretty funny sketch. Monty Python was good at poking fun, if rather irreverent at times.

While the Inquisition is a serious subject, it is important to maintain our sense of humor. It is easier to remain charitable that way. 🙂
Click to expand...
Agreed! The Inquisition(s) were a long time ago, hopefully we have learned lessons. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
 
bobzills said:
But the King of Aragon did not follow Pope Sixtus IV, at least in one of the Pope’s bulls. On April 18, 1482, Pope Sixtus IV wrote in a bull that: “…on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other lower and even less proper perons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many.”
I think that this papal bull justifies very well my objection to trivialising the inquisition with a “So What?”
Click to expand...
Simple (but absolutely vital, IMO) question: was the inquisition torture “situation” better or worse than the corresponding non-inquisition torture “situation” of the same time and place?
 
hosemonkey said:
IMHO, it’s not a bad idea to burn a few protestants once in a while.
Click to expand...
I am personally opposed to burning Protestants alive at the stake. Many of the Protestant missionaries who come to my door strike me as decent people of good moral character, unlike some of the Catholic politicians I read about in the newspaper. I don’t agree with some of what these Protestant missionaries are saying, and I let them know that I disagree with them on those points.
 
VociMike said:
Are you hinting that torture was a Catholic doctrine?
Click to expand...
From wikipedia, which I think is accurate?

Ad exstirpanda is the incipit designating a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. It explicitly authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics during the Inquisition
 
bobzills said:
From wikipedia, which I think is accurate?

Ad exstirpanda is the incipit designating a papal bull issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265. It explicitly authorized the use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics during the Inquisition
Click to expand...
I’m slow, so just give me a straight answer. Do you assert that torture was a Catholic doctrine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top