The Spanish Inquisition: so what?

[manualman]

And still some don’t seem to get it. What history proves is that HUMANITY has a tendency towards brutality and cruelty. In the catholic church, we call that sin. We are obviously not immune to it, but in any age the catholic church functioned as an influence of restraint, provided a nudge towards a civilization that more fully resembled the Kingdom of God.

Some people seem to believe that if the hierarchy of the church fails to behave in a totally Christlike manner, then that disproves catholicism. In reality, such a test would disprove the faith of ANY man in ANY age. As usual, God speaks to his people with a still, small voice. Often we ignore it. History is the tale of those who BOTH listen and ignore. Almost all of us are on both lists! He who sneers at the cruelty of church officials in the period of the Inquisition ought to wonder which elements of TODAY’S barbarity he himself has unknowingly embraced and committed. Such men will make apologies on judgement day.

It is always easier to judge in hindsight than to discern truth from lies in the world in which we were raised. Witness how many Americans had no objection to slavery 200 years ago, how many Israelites made a gold calf so soon after walking through the Red Sea, how many Germans failed to resist Hitler, how many muslims revere Osama today… The list goes on.

The man who sees and fights the barbarity of his own day is the one who sees clearly. Those who merely decry the sins of the past only stand on the shoulders of giants and brag about how tall they are!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No. According to the last figures I heard, about 600 Catholics were executed in England, period, not all of them in the reign of Elizabeth. Probably the majority were–but the majority of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition were killed toward the beginning of the period you cite, so the figure you gave was rather misleading.

These comparisons are not very helpful, I think. Both Anglicans and Catholics have been pretty murderous.

Edwin

190 from between the years 1570 & 1602, to be precise. Some died in prison (like some of the victims of the persecution of Protestants under Mary I). For completeness’ sake, those Catholics put to death in Ireland should probably be included - rather inconveniently, the 257 Irish Catholics whom the Irish Bishops proposed to Rome 90 years ago for possible canonisation are investigated separately from the 600 (= 357 whose causes are pending, in progress, or completed; & 243 more, who may in due course be considered by the appropriate Roman Congregation) English & Welsh Catholics who have some claim to be reckoned as martyrs.​

There are also those Catholics executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace - AFA I’m aware, none of them has ever been considered a martyr; & it would be very difficult to prove satisfactorily that they died for the Catholic religion, & not as traitors: many causes fail because of the lack of just this kind of certainty.

As for the Inquisitions - I have difficulty seeing the use of the DP by the Church as compatible with her mission; & the use of burning alive is even harder to understand. Maybe this is an anachronistic POV - & after all, probably every age has its blind spots: but that does not make that kind of thing any more clearly Christian. As the CC sets great store by its claim to be the Christian Church par excellence, I think one is entitled to test it by the standards to which it appeals.

 

[rpp]

On a related note, several posts here have described burning at the stake as burning alive. These are not the same.

Most people who were executed by burning at the stake were strangled to death after being affixed to the stake and before the fire was started. This was usually accomplished by tying a wire around the throat running over the top of the stake and down the back. After being pulled taught, it was tied off to to a nail and the executioner then left the wood pile.

Only after they were dead, less than 2 minutes generally, were they burned.

One purpose of burning was the (superstitious?) belief that a burned body would not be included in the resurrection. Another was to prepare the body for Hell.

My source for this was John Swain’s book, The Pleasures of the Torture Chamber. Sorry, I do not have an internet link for this. Just the book.

Now I am not saying that this form of execution was particularly pleasant for the poor prisoner, it was certainly better than burning alive. Also, if this is being done publicly, imagine what the screams of pain would do to the audience.

There have been some, however, who were burned alive. St. Joan of Arc is thought, by some, to have been burned alive rather than strangled. She was also raped just before her execution then forced to receive Holy Communion after being denied confession. The English judges and jailers at the time wanted her to go to Hell and they though raping her would put her in a state of mortal. Topped by a sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist would ensure, the felt, her eternal damnation. Denying her a body for the resurrection by burning it and the English thought they hit the trifecta. How thoughtful.

 

[bobzills]

There have been some, however, who were burned alive. St. Joan of Arc is thought, by some, to have been burned alive rather than strangled. She was also raped just before her execution then forced to receive Holy Communion after being denied confession.

This is one famous case that we know about. Is it appropriate to say “So what” in this case? I don;'t think so. And what about the cases that are not so well known?

 

[hosemonkey]

This is one famous case that we know about. Is it appropriate to say “So what” in this case? I don;'t think so. And what about the cases that are not so well known?

Do you guys get off on this topic or what? The Inquisition happened a long time ago, get over it.

 

[bobzills]

The Inquisition happened a long time ago, get over it.

It’s part of history and it is the topic ot this thread. I didn’t start this topic, but I have to say that I don;t agree with the “So What ?” attitude that some people are taking toward a horrific episode in history. In my personal opinion, it is important to learn from history.

 

[rpp]

This is one famous case that we know about. Is it appropriate to say “So what” in this case? I don;'t think so. And what about the cases that are not so well known?

This is indeed not a “so what?” case. But it was also not the Spanish Inquisition. It was, in reality, an act of war committed by the English against the French.

 

[VociMike]

It’s part of history and it is the topic ot this thread. I didn’t start this topic, but I have to say that I don;t agree with the “So What ?” attitude that some people are taking toward a horrific episode in history. In my personal opinion, it is important to learn from history.

And since the Church does not now condone torture, it would seem that she has learned from history (or more likely, from a fuller understanding of the gospel). And perhaps that fact is what brings about the “so what?” attitude. It would be as though there were people today going around in the United States denouncing slavery in the United States. At some point people, knowing that slavery in the United States was ended nearly 150 years ago, might very well think “yeah, yeah, so what?” People have a right to be suspicious of the motives of somebody who harps on ancient wrongs which have long since been righted.

Let’s never forget that the thinking behind what the inquisitors did (Catholic and Protestant) came directly from the Old Testament. They really thought they were justified by scripture in doing what they did.

 

[rpp]

It’s part of history and it is the topic ot this thread. I didn’t start this topic, but I have to say that I don;t agree with the “So What ?” attitude that some people are taking toward a horrific episode in history. In my personal opinion, it is important to learn from history.

I am not certain that the 350 years of the Inquisition qualified as “horrific”. I would prefer to reserve that adjective for events like the reigns of Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Tojo, Pol Pot, the Armenian genocide, etc. Not the execution of 2,000 +/- over a period of 350 years.

 

[VociMike]

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?

bobzills, I’m still hoping you’ll address this question.