What was the Inquisition?

[mlchance]

It would be better for Catholics of today to say that they are not responsible for what the Church did then and not defend it…

It’s not a matter of defending the Inquisitions. There are two matters in question:

1. Anti-Catholics/anti-Christians use the Inquisitions as a means of impugning the spiritual mission of the Church, often by citing bogus statistics and false history (such as we’ve already seen just a few posts above). Thus, while maybe Catholics ought not defend the Inquisitions, we must defend the Church against slander and libel.
2. We must also consider the historical record itself. It is improper to judge the trial and execution of a heretic in the Middle Ages as if the event took place within the context of a modern democratic republic. Today such actions are unthinkable, but within the context of medieval society, heretics were often a very real threat to society. Heretic movements such as the Albigensians not only radically undermined the very fabric of medieval society but also practiced mob violence against their neighbors.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[newbie1234]

You make unfounded and unhistorical allegations like this and your credibility is shot. In fact, at this point, I think it is totally lost my friend.

Inquisition started in 1184-Papal bull Ad abolendam
Authorized torture 1252 -Innocent IV -Ad stiripanda
Spanish inquisition officially ended 1834

As for the numbers of people tortured:
do a search for ‘David A. Plaisted’ article

As for torture methods:
there are museums filled with the torture chambers used in the inquisition. Many of them can be seen online.

Keep in mind there was more than one inquisition in different countries over many years, but they are all part of the same inquisition.
For a chilling commentary go to bereanbeacon.org.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholic Answers in its article sums it in their last paragraph;

The Real Point

Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: “If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: “inquire diligently”], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.”

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, “must purge the evil from the midst of you” (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for “heresy” (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Inquisition started in 1184-Papal bull Ad abolendam
Authorized torture 1252 -Innocent IV -Ad stiripanda
Spanish inquisition officially ended 1834

As for the numbers of people tortured:
do a search for ‘David A. Plaisted’ article

As for torture methods:
there are museums filled with the torture chambers used in the inquisition. Many of them can be seen online.

Keep in mind there was more than one inquisition in different countries over many years, but they are all part of the same inquisition.
For a chilling commentary go to bereanbeacon.org.

The false stats you gave out makes me think that your sources are less reliable.

 

[Contarini]

The Church was actively complicit in what happened during the Inquisition and what happened to people whom the Church turned over to the State. As noted in this Catholic source, which provides some interesting insights into the issue, “in many respects - and here is a truth extremely difficult for us at the end of the twentieth century to comprehend - to speak of ‘Church and State’ during the Middle Ages, and indeed much later, is to draw a distinction without a difference.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

I couldn’t disagree more. Church and State had parallel hierarchies and were in continual competition. Clergy weren’t even citizens of the state, for the most part. They were radically different institutions–and precisely for that reason they were very similar (I.e., the Church was a sort of “rival state.”) After the Reformation the Church tended to become an arm of the State, especially in Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

From about the 12th century on, though, Church and State were more or less in agreement on what needed to be done about heretics.

Edwin

 

[newbie1234]

The false stats you gave out makes me think that your sources are less reliable.

If you want to learn about the torture look up:iron maiden strapado, judas cradle, the rack, brodequin, heretics fork, skull crusher, iron torture chair.
I didn’t make up this stuff.
Maybe the numbers of people are inflated but that is what I read and heard from various sources.
The papal bulls exist.
The torture methods exist.
This is history.
Pope JP2 even apologized for it on March 12, 2002.
Galileo was also pardoned in 1993.
This isn’t anti-catholic propaganda.
This is the history of the RCC.

 

[mlchance]

…I didn’t make up this stuff.
…This isn’t anti-catholic propaganda.

That’s the funny thing about lies. They almost always contain an element of the truth. But then there’s made-up, anti-Catholic propaganda nonsense like this:

It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake… There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities… Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist… The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Redbandito]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.
It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.
The torture methods were gruesome.
There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.
Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.
Many people of other faiths were killed also.
The inquisition started with pope Innocent III or there about.
It is really a fascinating, albeit tragic, time in RCC history.
The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

LOL! 10-50 million? That is another sad illustration of how ridiculous this myth has become. When talking about the Inquisition, it is important to distinguish between the historical facts of inquisitions, and the myth of “The Inquisition.” The reality is, there are concrete records of those who were questioned. The number of deaths in this time actually are more around 2-3 thousand than anything approaching 10 million.

 

[rr1213]

The number of deaths in this time actually are more around 2-3 thousand than anything approaching 10 million.

Not that two or three thousand people executed for their religious beliefs is a good thing.

 

[jmcrae]

LOL! 10-50 million? That is another sad illustration of how ridiculous this myth has become. When talking about the Inquisition, it is important to distinguish between the historical facts of inquisitions, and the myth of “The Inquisition.” The reality is, there are concrete records of those who were questioned. The number of deaths in this time actually are more around 2-3 thousand than anything approaching 10 million.

So, to put that into perspective.

There are more people sitting on Death Row in the United States of America right this minute.

Than were executed in the entire 300 year history of the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Contarini]

The inquisition was a dark period for the papacy.
It lasted 605 years.

Misleading, because there was no one institution called the “Inquisition.”

It is estimated that between 10 million and 50millon people were either tortured, killed, or burned at the stake.

Estimated by whom? What historian are you citing? I have never heard these ludicrous numbers except from fundamentalist propagandists. They have no basis in reality whatsoever.

The torture methods were gruesome.

Well, torture is never nice. But the rules said that you couldn’t do serious physical damage.

There were over 75 popes in succession that not only condoned but promoted these atrocities.

It all came of the revival of Roman law. . . .

Many Christians were tortured and burned at the stake if they didn’t accept the doctrine of Real Presence in the eucharist.

Some, yes, mostly in England. That certainly counted as heresy.

Many people of other faiths were killed also.

Jews, mostly–the Inquisition started to concern itself with policing orthodoxy among Jews (weirdly enough), though mostly Jews got in trouble if they were accused of committing a sacrilegious act, helping Christians convert to Judaism, or reverting to Judaism after converting to Christianity. The Inquisition had no authority to persecute Jews just for being Jews.

The inquisition made the holocaust look like childs play.

Balderdash. The only way you could make any serious comparison is if you allow for the much smaller populations and the much less efficient social structures. Numerically there’s no comparison at all, but that doesn’t let medieval society off the hook, because frankly there’s no way it could have killed that many people if it wanted to (which is why your numbers are utterly ridiculous). The main difference between the two atrocities is that the Inquisition went after people who had committed crimes by the standards of medieval society, and it gave them a trial according to Roman Law. The Holocaust killed people just for being Jews or Gypsies or whatever, and it killed them on a wholesale level. Your comparison is nothing but ignorant bigotry.

Edwin

 

[Redbandito]

Not that two or three thousand people executed for their religious beliefs is a good thing.

rr1213, I think it would be extremely beneficial if you read some of the links provided on the Inquisition. To say that people were merely “executed for their religious beliefs” is a huge oversimplification of what occurred.

 

[jmcrae]

Not that two or three thousand people executed for their religious beliefs is a good thing.

Keep in mind that they weren’t being executed for keeping their beliefs to themselves and just quietly going about their business. During the period of the Reformation, the heretics were busy burning down churches, monasteries, convents, schools, orphanages, etc. - often, with people inside them.

I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but I think one of the things that really brought home the reality of the Reformation was when I went to St. Andrew’s in Scotland, in 1989. They really wrecked the place, and in the 500 years since the damage was done, no one has ever bothered to make repairs. It’s almost as though modern day Protestants in Scotland are proud of the vandalism and destruction that occurred, as though wrecking one’s own parish Church were a sign of some sort of virtue.

 

[newbie1234]

LOL! 10-50 million? That is another sad illustration of how ridiculous this myth has become. When talking about the Inquisition, it is important to distinguish between the historical facts of inquisitions, and the myth of “The Inquisition.” The reality is, there are concrete records of those who were questioned. The number of deaths in this time actually are more around 2-3 thousand than anything approaching 10 million.

Could you point to some concrete records?
The spanish inquisition alone ‘processed’ 341,021people.
That doesn’t mean they were all killed.
Only a small portion were killed.

 

[newbie1234]

Misleading, because there was no one institution called the “Inquisition.”

Estimated by whom? What historian are you citing? I have never heard these ludicrous numbers except from fundamentalist propagandists. They have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Well, torture is never nice. But the rules said that you couldn’t do serious physical damage.

It all came of the revival of Roman law. . . .

Some, yes, mostly in England. That certainly counted as heresy.

Jews, mostly–the Inquisition started to concern itself with policing orthodoxy among Jews (weirdly enough), though mostly Jews got in trouble if they were accused of committing a sacrilegious act, helping Christians convert to Judaism, or reverting to Judaism after converting to Christianity. The Inquisition had no authority to persecute Jews just for being Jews.

Balderdash. The only way you could make any serious comparison is if you allow for the much smaller populations and the much less efficient social structures. Numerically there’s no comparison at all, but that doesn’t let medieval society off the hook, because frankly there’s no way it could have killed that many people if it wanted to (which is why your numbers are utterly ridiculous). The main difference between the two atrocities is that the Inquisition went after people who had committed crimes by the standards of medieval society, and it gave them a trial according to Roman Law. The Holocaust killed people just for being Jews or Gypsies or whatever, and it killed them on a wholesale level. Your comparison is nothing but ignorant bigotry.

Edwin

go to bereanbeacon.org for a chilling commentary

 

[Contarini]

As for the numbers of people tortured:
do a search for ‘David A. Plaisted’ article

We shouldn’t have to. You should provide the citation yourself. However, I found the article and it’s a collection of quotes from 19th-century propaganda. No reputable modern historians are cited. The article is totally worthless.

As for torture methods:
there are museums filled with the torture chambers used in the inquisition. Many of them can be seen online.

Again, no link is cited. If you want to make an argument you will have to give your sources yourself instead of telling your critics to go look them up.

I’m not going to argue that torture wasn’t gruesome–it always is. But the Inquisition operated under stricter rules than secular governments. There was at least some effort to keep this appalling practice within bounds.

Keep in mind there was more than one inquisition in different countries over many years, but they are all part of the same inquisition.

In what way? How are they united?

For a chilling commentary go to bereanbeacon.org.

Why would I want to read stock Protestant propaganda? I don’t listen to Catholic propaganda about Protestants. It’s all worthless on both sides. Why not study some real history instead?

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

rr1213, I think it would be extremely beneficial if you read some of the links provided on the Inquisition. To say that people were merely “executed for their religious beliefs” is a huge oversimplification of what occurred.

I’ve read most of the links, in fact if you look above you’ll see that I posted a link myself from a Catholic source. Sure, there is plenty of misinformation going around about the inquisitions and people use the inquisition as a way to attack the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, some historical facts seem to be indisputable. Among these facts are that the inquisitions involved and/or were approved by the Church in some fashion and a number of people (two or three thousand according to the cite you provided) were executed. Many others were tried and convicted but not executed because they repented of the sins of which they were accused. Catholics seem to make a big deal out of the argument that the executions were performed by the State and not the Church, but that’s a red herring. The State followed the instructions of the Church. It was not like the Church was unaware of what would happen when it handed someone whom it convicted of heresy over to the State. And, finally, people were executed for the crime of heresy…i.e., incorrect or false beliefs as defined by the Church. In other words, they were executed because of their religious faith which, again, I submit was not a good thing.

 

[rr1213]

Keep in mind that they weren’t being executed for keeping their beliefs to themselves and just quietly going about their business. During the period of the Reformation, the heretics were busy burning down churches, monasteries, convents, schools, orphanages, etc. - often, with people inside them.

I’ve mentioned this a few times before, but I think one of the things that really brought home the reality of the Reformation was when I went to St. Andrew’s in Scotland, in 1989. They really wrecked the place, and in the 500 years since the damage was done, no one has ever bothered to make repairs. It’s almost as though modern day Protestants in Scotland are proud of the vandalism and destruction that occurred, as though wrecking one’s own parish Church were a sign of some sort of virtue.

There are distinctions between: (1) beliefs, (2) speech and (3) actions. With some very limited exceptions, it is proper to punish for transactions that fall in the last category, but not for transactions that fall in the first two categories. I understand that the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of religion was grossly underdeveloped and/or accepted by Catholic or Protestant authorities at the time, but the concept and the distinctions noted are no less important because of that.

 

[newbie1234]

LOL! 10-50 million? That is another sad illustration of how ridiculous this myth has become. When talking about the Inquisition, it is important to distinguish between the historical facts of inquisitions, and the myth of “The Inquisition.” The reality is, there are concrete records of those who were questioned. The number of deaths in this time actually are more around 2-3 thousand than anything approaching 10 million.

Only 2-3 thousand people over six hundred years?
That’s is what 4-5 people a year killed?
Have you ever seen those torture devices?
Look up judas cradle or skull crusher or the rack.
Tell me again how only 4 or 5 people a year got killed.

 

[rr1213]

So, to put that into perspective.

There are more people sitting on Death Row in the United States of America right this minute.

Than were executed in the entire 300 year history of the Spanish Inquisition.

Who cares? People on death row are there because they were convicted of capital crimes which, in almost all cases, requires a conviction of murder with specified aggravating circumstances. (In other words, simply killing someone because you don’t like them would not subject you to the death penalty in most circumstances). People pursuant to the Inquisition were executed for the most part because they were considered to be heretics…in other words they were executed because the State and the Church did not approve of their religious beliefs.