The Spanish Inquisition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Righteousone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mchale said:
The Church doesn’t downplay it. It is simple really, the amount of attention given to the Inquisition is totally out of proportion to the numbers actually killed or tortured by it.

Remember this was an age where pickpockets were usually hung. The numbers of people the secular state put to death for relatively minor crimes probably dwarfs the inquisition.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
I think they hung dwarfs too…
 
peary said:
One of the great causes of the Eastern Schism was over the Eucharist, unfortunately. In the west, Greek churches were ransacked and their Eucharists desecrated by fanatics who forced them to use unleavened hosts. The pope knew what was going on at the time but he chose not to get involved. In the east, however, this enraged the patriarch of Constantinople who ordered Latin-rite churches in the area to be ransacked and hosts desecrated and these churches were forced to use leavened bread with wine. During these intentional riots in both sides of the Empire, people were killed over it. I don’t think it involved public execution by burning at the stake, as this was a European form of execution in the Middle Ages (i.e., Joan of Arc) and in the 1600s in the American colonies.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t sound like it is the same as setting up an Inquisition and putting people on trial for the heresy of Greek Orthodoxy?
 
bobzills said:
That doesn’t sound like it is the same as setting up an Inquisition and putting people on trial for the heresy of Greek Orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
Greek Orthodoxy isn’t technically heretical. The Eastern Church has been doing the same thing and teaching the same thing for the past two-thousand years as it always has in matters of Faith and morals, for the most part.
 
peary said:
Greek Orthodoxy isn’t technically heretical. The Eastern Church has been doing the same thing and teaching the same thing for the past two-thousand years as it always has in matters of Faith and morals, for the most part.
Click to expand...
Since Eastern Orthodoxy is not heretical, why does an Inquisition set up by the Catholic Church, try people for the crime and heresy of Greek Orthodoxy?
 
bobzills said:
Since Eastern Orthodoxy is not heretical, why does an Inquisition set up by the Catholic Church, try people for the crime and heresy of Greek Orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
Politics and temporal power…plain and simple.
 
Let’s keep in mind, many of the inquisitions were NOT set up, nor administered, nor condoned nor ordained, by the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition in particular was a response by the King and Queen of Spain after they finally got rid of the Moores from Spain. For many years Muslims attacked and controlled a great deal of Spain. When the Spanish Monarchy finally threw the Muslims out of the country, the Spanish Inquisition was established to make sure that people were adhering to the Catholic faith. Because it was the official religion of Spain, and because they didn’t want any more Moores hiding out in Spain, to make sure all the Muslims were gone. It was a state-run inquisition, and state-run executions. Torturing and killing eastern orthodox christians were a part of that, but that was the responsibility of the state-run inquisition.

Most of the catholic church sponsored, and sanctioned inquisitions took place much earlier in the middle ages and did not result in the ludicrous numbers of deaths that are often quoted. I heard at one point the inquisitions killed more than the black plague, which is just plain wrong. The point of the catholic church sponsored inquisitions were to root out heresies and make sure people were truly catholic. There were few deaths, mostly just penances and corrections of faith. And as bad as it sounds today, no there wasn’t a freedom of religion in those days. Not because the Pope didn’t want people to be free to worship as they wanted, but because catholicism was the only christianity and the church’s job was to ensure that it was being practiced correctly.

Keep in mind, at this time there were no protestants. Catholicism was THE christian religion in Europe, and most of western europe was catholic. Catholicism was the state sponsored, official religion of most nations. As bad as it sounds today, there was no freedom of religion in most kingdoms, and you had to be catholic. Not because the church said so, but because the king and queen said so.

And also keep in mind, torture, burning at the stake, all that stuff was seen as normal back then. People were drawn and quartered, tortured, burned, hanged, etc etc for all kinds of crimes. Yes, it’s barbaric today, but we must keep in mind the historical context. And don’t forget, less than 100 years ago we were lynching black people in the US, killing Indians, and segregation was legal and state sponsored.
 
thomasf said:
Let’s keep in mind, many of the inquisitions were NOT set up, nor administered, nor condoned nor ordained, by the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition in particular was a response by the King and Queen of Spain after they finally got rid of the Moores from Spain. For many years Muslims attacked and controlled a great deal of Spain. When the Spanish Monarchy finally threw the Muslims out of the country, the Spanish Inquisition was established to make sure that people were adhering to the Catholic faith. Because it was the official religion of Spain, and because they didn’t want any more Moores hiding out in Spain, to make sure all the Muslims were gone. It was a state-run inquisition, and state-run executions. Torturing and killing eastern orthodox christians were a part of that, but that was the responsibility of the state-run inquisition.

Most of the catholic church sponsored, and sanctioned inquisitions took place much earlier in the middle ages and did not result in the ludicrous numbers of deaths that are often quoted. I heard at one point the inquisitions killed more than the black plague, which is just plain wrong. The point of the catholic church sponsored inquisitions were to root out heresies and make sure people were truly catholic. There were few deaths, mostly just penances and corrections of faith. And as bad as it sounds today, no there wasn’t a freedom of religion in those days. Not because the Pope didn’t want people to be free to worship as they wanted, but because catholicism was the only christianity and the church’s job was to ensure that it was being practiced correctly.

Keep in mind, at this time there were no protestants. Catholicism was THE christian religion in Europe, and most of western europe was catholic. Catholicism was the state sponsored, official religion of most nations. As bad as it sounds today, there was no freedom of religion in most kingdoms, and you had to be catholic. Not because the church said so, but because the king and queen said so.

And also keep in mind, torture, burning at the stake, all that stuff was seen as normal back then. People were drawn and quartered, tortured, burned, hanged, etc etc for all kinds of crimes. Yes, it’s barbaric today, but we must keep in mind the historical context. And don’t forget, less than 100 years ago we were lynching black people in the US, killing Indians, and segregation was legal and state sponsored.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t of said this better. Good and true post. 👍
 
thomasf said:
Let’s keep in mind, many of the inquisitions were NOT set up, nor administered, nor condoned nor ordained, by the Catholic Church. The Spanish Inquisition in particular was a response by the King and Queen of Spain after they finally got rid of the Moores from Spain. For many years Muslims attacked and controlled a great deal of Spain. When the Spanish Monarchy finally threw the Muslims out of the country, the Spanish Inquisition was established to make sure that people were adhering to the Catholic faith. Because it was the official religion of Spain, and because they didn’t want any more Moores hiding out in Spain, to make sure all the Muslims were gone. It was a state-run inquisition, and state-run executions. Torturing and killing eastern orthodox christians were a part of that, but that was the responsibility of the state-run inquisition.
Click to expand...
With respect, I think in the interest of accuracy we need to be careful. The Spanish Inquisition did in fact technically have Church sanction and it was in fact administered by clergy in Spain. That being said, the Spanish government essentially forced the Pope to give it sanction and it was staffed with clergy who were sympathetic to the desires of the Spanish Government.

–
Bill
 
Freshman88 said:
Denying Papal infallibility is not heretical?
interesting.
Click to expand...
I’m not a player in this. But I doubt if it’s a question of denying Papal infallibility. Rather of not recognising the Pope as possessing universal ordinary authority.

I could be wrong.

GKC
 
The oft-encountered allegation that the church was not responsible for the inquisition in Spain is jesuitical at best, meaning given to subtle casuistry. I had to look this one up.
  • ca·su·ist·ry (kzh–str)
    n. pl. ca·sui·ist·ries
  1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.
  2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules*.
…splitting hairs over responsibility when Spain was virtually a theocracy, the RCC in charge of the ‘theo’ part.

The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to put a religion in charge of a state, or to create a state-run religion. In Spain it meant that the state, helped by religion, kicked out, tortured, barbarously murdered and forced conversions on thousands of Moors and Jews. The unintended consequences of the Inquisition was the death of intellectual life in Spain; the deterioration of its monetary and banking industries, arts and medicine; and rise of the Reformation with the reformers’ determination first, NEVER to let the RCC be in charge again; and second to SEPARATE once and for all, religion and the state. This is what our founders intended, who were, incidentally, mainly Protestants and Unitarians.
 
1234 said:
The oft-encountered allegation that the church was not responsible for the inquisition in Spain is jesuitical at best, meaning given to subtle casuistry. I had to look this one up.
  • ca·su·ist·ry (kzh–str)
    n. pl. ca·sui·ist·ries
  1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.
  2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules*.
…splitting hairs over responsibility when Spain was virtually a theocracy, the RCC in charge of the ‘theo’ part.

The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to put a religion in charge of a state, or to create a state-run religion. In Spain it meant that the state, helped by religion, kicked out, tortured, barbarously murdered and forced conversions on thousands of Moors and Jews. The unintended consequences of the Inquisition was the death of intellectual life in Spain; the deterioration of its monetary and banking industries, arts and medicine; and rise of the Reformation with the reformers’ determination first, NEVER to let the RCC be in charge again; and second to SEPARATE once and for all, religion and the state. This is what our founders intended, who were, incidentally, mainly Protestants and Unitarians.
Click to expand...
Yes! Finally, someone sums up the danger of mixing church and state! 👍
 
The oft-encountered allegation that the church was not responsible for the inquisition in Spain is jesuitical at best, meaning given to subtle casuistry. I had to look this one up.
  • ca·su·ist·ry (kzh–str)
    n. pl. ca·sui·ist·ries
  1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.
  2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules*.
…splitting hairs over responsibility when Spain was virtually a theocracy, the RCC in charge of the ‘theo’ part.

The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to put a religion in charge of a state, or to create a state-run religion. In Spain it meant that the state, helped by religion, kicked out, tortured, barbarously murdered and forced conversions on thousands of Moors and Jews. The unintended consequences of the Inquisition was the death of intellectual life in Spain; the deterioration of its monetary and banking industries, arts and medicine; and rise of the Reformation with the reformers’ determination first, NEVER to let the RCC be in charge again; and second to SEPARATE once and for all, religion and the state. This is what our founders intended, who were, incidentally, mainly Protestants and Unitarians.
 
Swan said:
Yes! Finally, someone sums up the danger of mixing church and state! 👍
Click to expand...
One of the listed errors from the Syllabus of errors.
  1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
 
Freshman88 said:
One of the listed errors from the Syllabus of errors.
  1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
Click to expand...
Is this still considered an error after Vatican II, or has the teaching changed on this ?
 
bobzills said:
Is this still considered an error after Vatican II, or has the teaching changed on this ?
Click to expand...
The teaching has not changed.

At the heart of the matter is what one means by the phrase ‘separation of Church and sate’.

If one advocates that Church teaching should have no influence on the state then they are indeed wrong. It is in such a manner that the state is invited to adopt Church teachings (see Catechism #2244)
 
1234 said:
The oft-encountered allegation that the church was not responsible for the inquisition in Spain is jesuitical at best, meaning given to subtle casuistry. I had to look this one up.
  • ca·su·ist·ry (kzh–str)
    n. pl. ca·sui·ist·ries
  1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.
  2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules*.
…splitting hairs over responsibility when Spain was virtually a theocracy, the RCC in charge of the ‘theo’ part.
Click to expand...
With respect, your claim that Spain was a theocracy is just plain silly. Was the Spanish Monarchy Catholic? Absolutely. Was the Spanish Monarchy controlled by the Catholic Church? Absolutely not! At most, the Catholic Church was the semi-willing participant in enacting the policies of the Spanish Throne (semi-willing because some opposed the action, even the Pope criticized the Inquisition and others were enthusiastic participants). The real guilt of the Church is in fostering anti-semitic and anti-islamic sentimant to such a degree that the environment was ripe for that sort of result.

Spain in fact was quite a bit more powerful than the Papacy and used that power to force the Papacy to support its policies. Spain in fact threatened to pull military support from the Pope in a time when the Turks were threatening Italy and the rest of the Central Med.
The moral of the story is that it is very dangerous to put a religion in charge of a state, or to create a state-run religion. In Spain it meant that the state, helped by religion, kicked out, tortured, barbarously murdered and forced conversions on thousands of Moors and Jews.
Click to expand...
Actually, in large part the forced conversions were neither by the Church nor by the State but rather by popular uprisings against the Jews. Now, the state is guilty of turning a blind eye to those conversions, but it was not responsible for them. Further, the Inquisition had absolutely no authority on those who were openly Jewish or Muslim. Only ones who claimed to be Christian and practiced secretly could be targeted. Now, I am sure that some who really were Christian were targeted, but that is another story.
The unintended consequences of the Inquisition was the death of intellectual life in Spain; the deterioration of its monetary and banking industries, arts and medicine; and rise of the Reformation with the reformers’ determination first, NEVER to let the RCC be in charge again; and second to SEPARATE once and for all, religion and the state. This is what our founders intended, who were, incidentally, mainly Protestants and Unitarians.
Click to expand...
The Reformation had very, very little to do with the Spanish Inquisition. Yes, later on the Inquisition targeted Protestants, but in and of itself, it was not a major contributing factor to the actual reformation. In fact, the stated goal of the early Inquisition of targeting “crypto-jews” and “crypto-muslims” was one that Luther and Calvin almost certainly would have agreed with. Certainly, neither Luther, Calvin nor any of the major Reformation figures were arguing for a separation of Church and State. Trying the link the Reformation with the founding of our Country (which owes far more to the Enlightment than to the Reformation) is a serious historical mistake at best.

–
Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top