The Spanish Inquisition...

[mtr01]

Racer X:

Not so, amigo. See catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0056.html

Certainly more “witches” died at the hands of Protestants, but Catholics had their share.

Sorry it was late… I should have added “where the Inquistion was operating”. The text you quoted supports this. It’s interesting to note that where there were witch burnings, it was done by the secular rulers of those lands and not the Church per se. The Inquistions were instituted to bring some order to all the claims of heretics, and to investigate them properly.

However, you did get the main gist of my post. Namely, that the type of justice found in the Inquistion(s) was not unique to the Church. To the contrary, it was the accepted mode throughout the whole of Europe.

 

[mtr01]

redkim:

Besides the aqueduct, sanitation and roads, what have the Romans ever done for us??

education?

(I know, wrong one!)

That movie still cracks me up…

“what did he say?”
“blessed are the cheesemakers, I think”
“well, you can’t interpret that literally, one must take it as blessed are all makers of dairy products…”

or something like that…it’s been a while since I’ve seen it LOL

 

[metal1633]

gaaudge

redkim:

Besides the aqueduct, sanitation and roads, what have the Romans ever done for us??

(I know, wrong one!)

The Rail Gauge of 4ft 8.5in. You know, the distance between railroad tracks. WHY?? And whats this have to do with Rome??

Claudius standardized the width of Roman Roads to help speed along Chariots. Throughout the the middle ages carts and wagons were built to the same width as Roman Chariots so that the wheels would fit in the ruts in the roads. The designers of both chariots and trams and trains were dealing with a similar issue, namely hauling wheeled vehicles behind draft animals. SO In 1845 a royal commission recommended adoption of the 4 feet 8½ in standard, and the following year Parliament passed the Gauge Act, which required that new railways use standard gauge.

 

[Socrates]

Racer X:

The main thing to keep in mind about the church organized inquisitions*** is that they were set up to prevent atrocities and keep heresy-hunting to some semblance of order.

Heresy was a considered a capital crime by the state. The inquisition took over to keep such proceedings from becoming, well…, a witch-hunt.

The Spanish Inquisition was somewhat of an exception in that the state still retained control and would tend to ignore papal scolding.

Lots of articles here: catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=inquisition

*** “Inquisition” refers to the accepted judicial process used in the middle ages. Almost all courts of the time were “inquisitions.”

These are all excellent points that are often overlooked by those who think the Inquisition is a good stick with which to beat Catholics. Especially in the USA it is difficult for people to understand the historical context. We are so wrapped up in our “separation of Church and state” that we often fail to remember how intertwined Church and state once were. There was but one form of Christianity and the Church was an authority…Kings and Queens were coronated and crowned by leaders of the Church.

Heresy was indeed considered a capital crime by the state, as were many other things that we’d likely consider misdemeanors today. It was a much different time and should not be judged according to modern sensibilities, other than to express thanks that we have progressed somewhat beyond the type of cruelty that was the standard back then.

 

[Faith_is_First]

Kings and Queens were coronated and crowned by leaders of the Church.

Yes and lets not forget that this supremacy of the Church which was epitomized by Innocent III was in a way a backlash against the dark ages when laymen controlled the church quite literally…so its not just for people to always complain about what the church did to them…they forget what they did to the church/

 

[hermit]

Hm! She is made of harder
stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch…THE COMFY CHAIR!

The…Comfy Chair?

(Biggles pushes in a comfy chair – a really plush one)

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft
cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

(They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair)

Ximinez (with a cruel leer): Now – you will stay in the Comfy Chair until
lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.
(aside, to Biggles) Is that really all it is?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

hermit:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

“Cardinal Fang, bring out the soft cushions!”

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

hermit:

Hm! She is made of harder
stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch…THE COMFY CHAIR!

The…Comfy Chair?

(Biggles pushes in a comfy chair – a really plush one)

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft
cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

(They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair)

Ximinez (with a cruel leer): Now – you will stay in the Comfy Chair until
lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.
(aside, to Biggles) Is that really all it is?

BTW. I heard that the old woman in the sketch was Eric Idle’s mother

 

[hermit]

The old woman was played by Marjorie Wilde.

 

[redkim]

Crucifixion? Good…

 

[mango_2003]

Socrates:

These are all excellent points that are often overlooked by those who think the Inquisition is a good stick with which to beat Catholics. Especially in the USA it is difficult for people to understand the historical context. We are so wrapped up in our “separation of Church and state” that we often fail to remember how intertwined Church and state once were. There was but one form of Christianity and the Church was an authority…Kings and Queens were coronated and crowned by leaders of the Church.

Heresy was indeed considered a capital crime by the state, as were many other things that we’d likely consider misdemeanors today. It was a much different time and should not be judged according to modern sensibilities, other than to express thanks that we have progressed somewhat beyond the type of cruelty that was the standard back then.

I don’t understand this “historical perspective” point. Yes, I get that things were done differently…whatever. It’s still wrong. It shouldn’t have been done.

Jesus was also a victim of “historical perspective”.

~mango~

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

One fact not often reported is that the Inquisitors were known for following canon law, and were less likely than civil courts to use torture. Inquisition incarceration was also gentler and kinder than the respective civil incarcerations. (Not to say gentle or kind by contemporary standards.)

Records of civil criminals blaspheming in order to be moved to the Inquisition which was seen to be more humane. We just tivo’d and watched PBS’ special on the Inquisition which outlined all that has been said.

 

[metal1633]

mango_2003:

I don’t understand this “historical perspective” point. Yes, I get that things were done differently…whatever. It’s still wrong.

Wrong by whos standard? By thier standard political dissent in any form was worthy of the death penalty. In our country political dissent is a freedom we have. We cannot judge the past by modern American standards. Standards which most of the world currently disagrees with. King Ferdinand wasnt even considered an evil tyrant yet the Inquisition was his personal tool to purge the nobility of political dissidents. That was his “Right” as King. We are in no position to say it was “Wrong”. He will be judged by God

 

[Robert_in_SD]

mango_2003:

I don’t understand this “historical perspective” point. Yes, I get that things were done differently…whatever. It’s still wrong. It shouldn’t have been done.

Jesus was also a victim of “historical perspective”.

~mango~

Dear Mango;

Viewing the period of the inquisition from a proper historical perspective is not the same thing as *excusing * the conduct as your comment seems to imply. It’s easy to view the inquisition from the present-day perspective and say it shouldn’t have happened. We can all agree that it would have been better for all if it had not occurred. The point is that you cannot fully and fairly examine the inquisition by viewing it out of context with history.

You seem to imply that because the inquisition was so obviously wrong (from a 21st century perspective) the Catholic Church must not have the authority that it claims to have. That logic is not persuasive.

Consider that, perhaps 500 years from now, people may look back on American society and say, “the death penalty was clearly wrong, it should never have existed in American society.” But is it correct to leap from such a statement to the conclusion that the United State of America en toto must be evil and corrupt for allowing executions to ever occur? (See my point?)

With respect to your other comment: We believe Jesus is Lord and God. He chose to lay down His life for us and then He took it back up. He did exactly what He wanted to do. He was no victim of history.

Yours in charity,

 

[SCTA-1]

Robert in SD:

Dear Mango;

Viewing the period of the inquisition from a proper historical perspective is not the same thing as *excusing * the conduct as your comment seems to imply. It’s easy to view the inquisition from the present-day perspective and say it shouldn’t have happened. We can all agree that it would have been better for all if it had not occurred. The point is that you cannot fully and fairly examine the inquisition by viewing it out of context with history.

You seem to imply that because the inquisition was so obviously wrong (from a 21st century perspective) the Catholic Church must not have the authority that it claims to have. That logic is not persuasive.

Consider that, perhaps 500 years from now, people may look back on American society and say, “the death penalty was clearly wrong, it should never have existed in American society.” But is it correct to leap from such a statement to the conclusion that the United State of America en toto must be evil and corrupt for allowing executions to ever occur? (See my point?)

With respect to your other comment: We believe Jesus is Lord and God. He chose to lay down His life for us and then He took it back up. He did exactly what He wanted to do. He was no victim of history.

Yours in charity,

500 years from now they will also say how could the American society condone the slaughter of millions of their innocents (abortion)

 

[Lorarose]

Consider how today we deal with treason and spies who have betrayed our country.
Some have even been sentenced to death.

Now apply that to Spain.
The Church and the State were one.
On top of that, Spain was the only country that had managed to throw off the sword of Islam - and the muslims weren’t ready to give up on Spain!(still aren’t as a matter of fact)

Some muslims were pretending to be converts to christianity but had secretly remained muslim.
At that time it was the equivalent of treason.
Considering the many years of bloodshed, it’s not all that difficult to understand.

 

[mango_2003]

Robert in SD:

Dear Mango;

Viewing the period of the inquisition from a proper historical perspective is not the same thing as *excusing *the conduct as your comment seems to imply. It’s easy to view the inquisition from the present-day perspective and say it shouldn’t have happened. We can all agree that it would have been better for all if it had not occurred. The point is that you cannot fully and fairly examine the inquisition by viewing it out of context with history.

You seem to imply that because the inquisition was so obviously wrong (from a 21st century perspective) the Catholic Church must not have the authority that it claims to have. That logic is not persuasive.

Consider that, perhaps 500 years from now, people may look back on American society and say, “the death penalty was clearly wrong, it should never have existed in American society.” But is it correct to leap from such a statement to the conclusion that the United State of America en toto must be evil and corrupt for allowing executions to ever occur? (See my point?)

With respect to your other comment: We believe Jesus is Lord and God. He chose to lay down His life for us and then He took it back up. He did exactly what He wanted to do. He was no victim of history.

Yours in charity,

I understand and appreciate what you’re saying. It makes a lot of sense. My point isn’t to undermine the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or anything like that… I’m more or less interested in what the Popes during this time period thought of these occurances.

~mango~

 

[Robert_in_SD]

mango_2003:

I understand and appreciate what you’re saying. It makes a lot of sense. My point isn’t to undermine the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or anything like that… I’m more or less interested in what the Popes during this time period thought of these occurances.

~mango~

I wonder the same thing. I can only speculate, but from what I know of the period, religious authorities were more concerned with saving souls than saving human life, with one result being that persons’ lives were placed in mortal peril to extract confessions and - it was thought - conversion from sin to a state of grace. If a “witch” was burned at the stake, but “confessed” her sins and begged forgiveness during her last moments, that was “a good thing” because she ended her life in a state of grace - or so it was believed. A very strange concept for people of our era, but perhaps not so strange in a period when human life was cheap.

 

[mlchance]

redkim:

It’s overrated. Lasted 450 years and fewer people died in it than did in the American Civil War.

Considering nearly 500,000 Americans died in the Civil War, that’s not necessarily a comforting claim.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sherlock]

mlchance wrote: “Considering nearly 500,000 Americans died in the Civil War, that’s not necessarily a comforting claim.”

I agree with this. The American Civil War was a bloodbath compared to the Spanish Inquisition, which claimed about 4,000 lives (I think some put it as high as 6,000, depending on the time frame used). Many Civil War battles saw more killed in a few hours than the Spanish Inquisition killed in hundreds of years, so the comparison is odious.