What was the Inquisition?

[newbie1234]

No,

Go to Madrid, Spain and argue with Henry Kamen

Produce **evidence **that refutes Kamen’s estimate of 2200-2700 people executed between 1480-1800–the great majority lumped into the first 25-30 years

BTW, a Wikipedia citation is laughable

That was honest brother Manny’s source not mine.
I don’t think you are being very charitable to your catholic brother.
He spent his time looking and pasting the wikipedia reference. The least you could do is thank him.

 

[newbie1234]

Well, you have read a very one-sided Protestant source on the Inquisition. Even if Peters is a “whitewasher” (which I didn’t get at all from that book), you would have at least have gotten the response to such accusations. Is that not fair? Afterward, you could make an informed decision on where exactly in the “middle” the truth rests.

I don’t feel like spending 20 bucks on a book that is not the truth. I’d rather save the money and take your word for it that Peters claims only a couple of thousand were killed over the hundreds of years.

 

[Redbandito]

But would you accept the fact that there a a bunch of numbers out there on this internet. Some are inflated. Some are deflated. Some are accurrate. But no one here knows the truth. And just as Manny innocently restated something he found, I did exactly the same thing.

I disagree that nobody in here “knows the truth.” The truth should be based on facts. We have concrete records of those who met with inquisitors. Numbers should be based on these records. Your numbers were not even close. Manny’s are closer, but also incorrect. I have never stated that you were not innocently stating what you had previously read. I just stated that what you read is untrue. Big difference. Finally, I implore you to read the book I recommended. It is extremely well done and is a true work of history. You may disagree with some things in it, but overall you will have a much better understanding of the inquisition than from reading sources off the internet. Remember, it’s the INTERNET! The internet is not exactly the best source for credible information.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

That was honest brother Manny’s source not mine.

I don’t think you are being very charitable to your catholic brother.
He spent his time looking and pasting the wikipedia reference. The least you could do is thank him.

Newbie, you’re missing the POINT. Lion of Narnia is telling you that you have NO proof of your assertions of 40,000 people burned at the stake.

He is NOT saying that Kamen is wrong, nor is he saying what you MISUNDERSTOOD from Manny’s posting on that 40,000 number (it had to do with the TOTAL number of people before the Inquisition Courts, not those who were burned for heresy)

YOU were the one who accused our Church of murdering 10s of millions of people.

WHERE are YOUR sources???

 

[Redbandito]

I don’t feel like spending 20 bucks on a book that is not the truth. I’d rather save the money and take your word for it that Peters claims only a couple of thousand were killed over the hundreds of years.

See Newbie, that’s just it. How do you know what the “truth” is? You have admittedly only read anti-Catholic material on the subject. This book is a solid historical book. Not to mention, you can get it used for less than 20 bucks. Finally, Peters goes into a lot more than just how many people were killed. He explains the mechanism of inquisition and where it came from. It would be a good book if you are truly open-minded to knowing what really happened. If not, just let me know, and I will stop wasting my time with this discussion.

 

[newbie1234]

See Newbie, that’s just it. How do you know what the “truth” is? You have admittedly only read anti-Catholic material on the subject. This book is a solid historical book. Not to mention, you can get it used for less than 20 bucks. Finally, Peters goes into a lot more than just how many people were killed. He explains the mechanism of inquisition and where it came from. It would be a good book if you are truly open-minded to knowing what really happened. If not, just let me know, and I will stop wasting my time with this discussion.

Don’t waste your time

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Don’t waste your time

So, according to your “mea Kulpa,” you give up on your wild assertions about tens of millions of innocents murdered by those Spanish Catholics???

I don’t think one mea culpa is enough. How about two with a “mea maxima culpa” thrown in!

I still would like to know your source for your assertions.

But hey, if you’re embarrassed, I understand. Sometimes I say something without foundation (well, my wife :tsktsk: would say ALWAYS) and I gotta beat feet .

But hang in there, newbie, you’re starting to show cracks in that anti-Catholic facade of yours! Our prayers must be working!

Pax Christi

 

[newbie1234]

So, according to your “mea Kulpa,” you give up on your wild assertions about tens of millions of innocents murdered by those Spanish Catholics???

I don’t think one mea culpa is enough. How about two with a “mea maxima culpa” thrown in!

I still would like to know your source for your assertions.

But hey, if you’re embarrassed, I understand. Sometimes I say something without foundation (well, my wife :tsktsk: would say ALWAYS) and I gotta beat feet .

But hang in there, newbie, you’re starting to show cracks in that anti-Catholic facade of yours! Our prayers must be working!

Pax Christi

Bereanbeacon.org and
David Plaisted ‘estimates of the number killed by the papacy in the middle ages and later’ 2006

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Inquisitions were ecclesiastical institutions that came about in the early middle ages to combat heresy and crimes commited by the clergy and religious. Originaly they were not organized until the Spanish Inquistition, which was for the most part the Spanish monarchy using the clergy to combat political enemies. No Inquistitions ever executed anyone- crimminals were given over to the civil authorities for punishment.

In the late 1500s the Holy Office of the Roman Inquistion was founded as an organized structure that acted throughout the entire Church and was subject only to the Pope. In the 1980s the Holy Office (as it was commonly called) had a name change, which is why today we have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It should be noted that it was the Church through Her Inquisitions that introduced what later became the common law that people are innocent until proven guilty. The Inquisition then tried to get the heretics to conform to Catholic doctrine before it would hand them over to secular authorities. There is still an Office of the Inquisition today in the Curia; it is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

We must remember that when “executions” occured it was done by a fuedal state, and most states were theocracies. Spain, for instance, was not a nation-state like we think of a nation-state today. It was a federation of many nobles who had subjects. Each bishop was responsible for its own inquisition and the bishop’s office made the decision as whether or not to turn the offenders over to the secular authorities. Back then, the Church was the culture and was everything. Therefore (rightly or wrongly), many nobles considered it treason to go against the church because the states were theocracies.

The Spanish Inquisition (a number of Inquisitions) is totally blown out of proportion by the mainstream media today in order to bash the church, so keep this in mind when studying religious history from secular materials.

The Spanish Inquisition was setup after the Spaniards reclaimed lands that had been lost for 8 centureis to Moslem/Moorish conquest. The Moors were driven out of the Iberian peninsula and back to Northern Africa. Those that converted to Catholicism were allowed to stay so they were not deemed a threat to the stability of the newly reclaimed Christian society. There were many false conversions, and many so-called “Christians” continued to practice Islam at home.

 

[Zirconia]

Hi all,

Couldn’t resist the temptation to jump in here…

So far as numbers go, I think fifty million is way too high, but 2000 rather low. According to “Western Europe in the Middle Ages”, seven thousand people were killed in the 1209 attack on Beziers alone. There is a rather disturbing quote from the papal legate Arnold Amalric that is also included in the account, “Kill all, for God will know his own.”

Or was this not considered part of the Inquisition?

The source for this information is the sixth edition of the textbook “Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475” by Brian Tierney, page 358.

I also thought I’d add a few quotes from the same medieval historian (same book, pages 359-360) that might also be relevant here. I must say that when I first read them as part of a class on the High Middle Ages, I was quite surprised, having never encountered this perspective before…

“Improbable as it may seem from the standpoint of modern jurisprudence, the procedures of the Inquisition were intended to provide a fair and rational mode of trial for persons suspected of heresy…It was understood that an innocent person might be falsely and maliciously denounced, so when the suspect was summoned for interrogation he was allowed to name any enemies who, he thought, might have accused him. The testimony of any person so named was discarded.”

“Medieval society was held together by shared religious values. Medieval people saw heresy as a threat to their whole way of life; it was like a communicable disease that destroyed people’s souls. For the sake of the common good it had to be eradicated…But the purpose of the Inquisition was honest, and its leaders usually devout, if rather fanatical. What makes the Inquisition hard to defend is its hypocrisy…The church was not adhering to its own conception of right.” (emphasis added).

I must say that after reading such passages, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that while the Inquisition was evil, but an understandable evil in the light of its environment.

I will also add that it seems rather unfair to use the unfortunate over-zealousness of certain members of the Church some 800 years ago as a basis for current inter-Christian feuding.

Zirconia

 

[newbie1234]

It should be noted that it was the Church through Her Inquisitions that introduced what later became the common law that people are innocent until proven guilty. The Inquisition then tried to get the heretics to conform to Catholic doctrine before it would hand them over to secular authorities. There is still an Office of the Inquisition today in the Curia; it is called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

We must remember that when “executions” occured it was done by a fuedal state, and most states were theocracies. Spain, for instance, was not a nation-state like we think of a nation-state today. It was a federation of many nobles who had subjects. Each bishop was responsible for its own inquisition and the bishop’s office made the decision as whether or not to turn the offenders over to the secular authorities. Back then, the Church was the culture and was everything. Therefore (rightly or wrongly), many nobles considered it treason to go against the church because the states were theocracies.

The Spanish Inquisition (a number of Inquisitions) is totally blown out of proportion by the mainstream media today in order to bash the church, so keep this in mind when studying religious history from secular materials.

The Spanish Inquisition was setup after the Spaniards reclaimed lands that had been lost for 8 centureis to Moslem/Moorish conquest. The Moors were driven out of the Iberian peninsula and back to Northern Africa. Those that converted to Catholicism were allowed to stay so they were not deemed a threat to the stability of the newly reclaimed Christian society. There were many false conversions, and many so-called “Christians” continued to practice Islam at home.

So the inquisition was like a positive thing.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi all,

Couldn’t resist the temptation to jump in here…

So far as numbers go, I think fifty million is way too high, but 2000 rather low. According to “Western Europe in the Middle Ages”, seven thousand people were killed in the 1209 attack on Beziers alone. There is a rather disturbing quote from the papal legate Arnold Amalric that is also included in the account, “Kill all, for God will know his own.”

Or was this not considered part of the Inquisition?

No, the Inquisition was characterized by courtroom trials, with lawyers, and only one defendant at a time. Those 7,000 would have been a lot better off if they had been sent to the Inquisition, instead of executed without any trial of any kind, from the sound of it.

“Improbable as it may seem from the standpoint of modern jurisprudence, the procedures of the Inquisition were intended to provide a fair and rational mode of trial for persons suspected of heresy…It was understood that an innocent person might be falsely and maliciously denounced, so when the suspect was summoned for interrogation he was allowed to name any enemies who, he thought, might have accused him. The testimony of any person so named was discarded.”

“Medieval society was held together by shared religious values. Medieval people saw heresy as a threat to their whole way of life; it was like a communicable disease that destroyed people’s souls. For the sake of the common good it had to be eradicated…But the purpose of the Inquisition was honest, and its leaders usually devout, if rather fanatical. What makes the Inquisition hard to defend is its hypocrisy…The church was not adhering to its own conception of right.” (emphasis added).

I must say that after reading such passages, I find myself agreeing with the assessment that while the Inquisition was evil, but an understandable evil in the light of its environment.

I will also add that it seems rather unfair to use the unfortunate over-zealousness of certain members of the Church some 800 years ago as a basis for current inter-Christian feuding.

Zirconia

 

[rr1213]

RR, that is so easy to say from a Protestant perspective. The fact of the matter is, what we are admitting to is the very thing in question. I admit guilt on the part of individuals in the Church where there is guilt. That does not, in any way, tarnish the Church for me. Yet, when I admit this, many Protestants use this to their advantage to attack the Church with. Thus, how can we not be defensive. Protestants (especially in this country) have made it their mission to attack Catholics. Not all Protestants, of course. There are many loving Evangelicals with whom we have excellent dialogues. However, there is a large percentage that use every opportunity to take a pot shot at Catholicism. I am not going to give them the ammunition. Sorry if you can’t understand that. However, you admitting the guilt of Anglicans will not draw near the attention as me admitting in such guilt in Catholicism. That’s a fact.

I did not think that it was Catholic doctrine that the Church could not err about anything but, rather, that it could not err regarding faith and morals. If my understanding is wrong, and Catholics believe that the Church simply cannot err about anything at all in the realm of existence, please let me know.

Assuming that my understanding is correct, then why can’t the Church admit error in conducting the Inquisition? It is not like the Church is admitting error in finding that certain people were heretics, or that these people’s beliefs were heretical, but instead that the Church should not be in the business of using torture and other coercive techniques to determine and ensure conformity with Catholic beliefs. Again, the issue is not the truth of those beliefs but the actions of the Church in enforcing the faith.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Assuming that my understanding is correct, then why can’t the Church admit error in conducting the Inquisition? It is not like the Church is admitting error in finding that certain people were heretics, or that these people’s beliefs were heretical, but instead that the Church should not be in the business of using torture and other coercive techniques to determine and ensure conformity with Catholic beliefs. Again, the issue is not the truth of those beliefs but the actions of the Church in enforcing the faith.

Actually, you will find that the Church has spoken out against the use of torture in any case, not just ‘determining and insuring conformity with Catholic beliefs’. If that is what you seek, look no further–the Church agrees with you.

If OTOH you’re wanting the Church to in essence ‘apologize’ on behalf of those who conducted the Inquisition because they used torture. . .that’s a slightly different matter.

We can’t put 21st century attitudes retroactively into 16th century people.

Now I am for example not asking Edwin to ‘apologize’ on behalf of the Protestants in England for torturing Catholics, such as Edmund Campion, who was racked so hard that he could not even stand at his trial. To those 16th century people, torture was a ‘necessary evil’ which was required by the lawful government. They may (some did) protest personally (just as we do today when we protest legal abortions, likewise seen by our lawful government as ‘necessary evil’).

We may (as we do in the latter situation) argue that, had torture not been ‘permitted’ by the legal government, that it would have been better for all (I certainly think that of abortion in this country). We can argue that torture and abortion are evil. But we cannot ‘go back’ to the Inquisition and demand that, **because today torture is no longer government sanctioned, that torture then be condemned on the grounds that torture is not today officially sanctioned. ** (and as Edwin will note, since being a Catholic no longer poses the risk of being found a traitor to the crown, we cannot ‘go back’ to 16th century England and denounce the people then for executing Catholics as traitors purely because we no longer execute them today).

Just as people from the 24th century may not in 2350 argue that, because abortion then (hopefully) is no longer officially sanctioned, all the people living in the 1950s-2006 time should be condemned for 'being complicit with an evil which is (at that future time) no longer officially sanctioned.

My point is not that torture, unjust (though legal) executions, or abortion are not evil–they are. My point is that one cannot simply make a retroactive judgment against people or actions based on what is permitted NOW and find them guilty of wrong based on THAT; which appears to be the premise of most who are judging the Catholic Church as being ‘guilty’ of criminal behaviors in the Inquisition. For the most part, inquisitors were guilty of absolutely no ‘legal’ crime, and for their time frame, were guilty of no ‘moral’ crime either. In the long term, we have learned more of the inherent evil of torture, even if done for what are presumed and legally judged ‘just’ reason. In the long term, we will hopefully learn more of the inherent evil of abortion, even if done for what are presumed and legally judged ‘just’ reason.

And–not to be off topic, as an offshoot from the above–what are your opinions on abortion?

 

[Stephen_C]

I did not think that it was Catholic doctrine that the Church could not err about anything but, rather, that it could not err regarding faith and morals. If my understanding is wrong, and Catholics believe that the Church simply cannot err about anything at all in the realm of existence, please let me know.

Assuming that my understanding is correct, then why can’t the Church admit error in conducting the Inquisition? It is not like the Church is admitting error in finding that certain people were heretics, or that these people’s beliefs were heretical, but instead that the Church should not be in the business of using torture and other coercive techniques to determine and ensure conformity with Catholic beliefs. Again, the issue is not the truth of those beliefs but the actions of the Church in enforcing the faith.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Apologies

Apologies
Over the later parts of his reign, John Paul II made several apologies to various peoples that had been wronged by the Catholic Church through the years. Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. During his reign as a Pope, he publicly made apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

The persecution of the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei in the trial in 1633 (October 31, 1992).
Catholic involvement with the African slave trade (August 9, 1993).
The Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
The injustices committed against women in the name of Christ, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (July 10, 1995, in a letter to “every woman”).
Inactivity and silence of some Roman Catholics during the Holocaust (March 16, 1998).
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (December 18, 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church’s reformers, and acknowledged that “independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation’s moral education.” It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (March 12, 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).
For missionary abuses in the past against indigenous peoples of the South Pacific (November 22, 2001, via the Internet).
For the massacre of Aztecs and other Mesoamericans by the Spanish in the name of the Church.

 

[kaycee]

So the inquisition was like a positive thing.

Offcourse! what else could it be from the infallible church.

Turn the other cheek and love your enemies was just expressed differently back then.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Offcourse! what else could it be from the infallible church.

Turn the other cheek and love your enemies was just expressed differently back then.

Look everyone, another anti-Catholic who knows not what he/she is talking about that likes to take pot-shots at the Church.

 

[VociMike]

So the inquisition was like a positive thing.

You have to separate out the procedures from the crimes.

In terms of the legal procedures used by the Inquisition, it was certainly a positive advance over the practices of the day.

In terms of the crimes being investigated and punished, while we should have the intellectual honesty to understand why they did what they did, we cannot condone it today (as the Church does not condone it today).

 

[mlchance]

You have to separate out the procedures from the crimes.

In terms of the legal procedures used by the Inquisition, it was certainly a positive advance over the practices of the day.

A noteworthy point. While certainly never perfect, the Church’s judicial procedures were always head-and-shoulders above the secular counterparts. For example, it was a Catholic inquisitor in Spain who first enunciated the principle that torture was not a valid instrument of judicial inquiry since it forced people to testify against themselves.

Another point that has been largely glossed over by the Church’s critics is that in, say, the 15th century, heresy was a serious crime. The nature of the social order then was such that challenges to the Church’s authority and doctrine invariably were also challenges to the secular order as well.

This is why heresy and treason were conflated by the anti-Catholic thugs were suppressed the Church in England. To be a heretic was to be a traitor. The two crimes were virtually inseparable, and were made that much worse in Protestant regions such as England where any sense of separation between the powers of church and state were abolished.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rr1213]

Actually, you will find that the Church has spoken out against the use of torture in any case, not just ‘determining and insuring conformity with Catholic beliefs’. If that is what you seek, look no further–the Church agrees with you.

If OTOH you’re wanting the Church to in essence ‘apologize’ on behalf of those who conducted the Inquisition because they used torture. . .that’s a slightly different matter.

We can’t put 21st century attitudes retroactively into 16th century people.

Now I am for example not asking Edwin to ‘apologize’ on behalf of the Protestants in England for torturing Catholics, such as Edmund Campion, who was racked so hard that he could not even stand at his trial. To those 16th century people, torture was a ‘necessary evil’ which was required by the lawful government. They may (some did) protest personally (just as we do today when we protest legal abortions, likewise seen by our lawful government as ‘necessary evil’).

We may (as we do in the latter situation) argue that, had torture not been ‘permitted’ by the legal government, that it would have been better for all (I certainly think that of abortion in this country). We can argue that torture and abortion are evil. But we cannot ‘go back’ to the Inquisition and demand that, **because today torture is no longer government sanctioned, that torture then be condemned on the grounds that torture is not today officially sanctioned. ** (and as Edwin will note, since being a Catholic no longer poses the risk of being found a traitor to the crown, we cannot ‘go back’ to 16th century England and denounce the people then for executing Catholics as traitors purely because we no longer execute them today).

Just as people from the 24th century may not in 2350 argue that, because abortion then (hopefully) is no longer officially sanctioned, all the people living in the 1950s-2006 time should be condemned for 'being complicit with an evil which is (at that future time) no longer officially sanctioned.

My point is not that torture, unjust (though legal) executions, or abortion are not evil–they are. My point is that one cannot simply make a retroactive judgment against people or actions based on what is permitted NOW and find them guilty of wrong based on THAT; which appears to be the premise of most who are judging the Catholic Church as being ‘guilty’ of criminal behaviors in the Inquisition. For the most part, inquisitors were guilty of absolutely no ‘legal’ crime, and for their time frame, were guilty of no ‘moral’ crime either. In the long term, we have learned more of the inherent evil of torture, even if done for what are presumed and legally judged ‘just’ reason. In the long term, we will hopefully learn more of the inherent evil of abortion, even if done for what are presumed and legally judged ‘just’ reason.

And–not to be off topic, as an offshoot from the above–what are your opinions on abortion?

I agree that we have to be careful in judging people from the past according to the moral and political standards of today. Nonetheless, you see it all the time. For example, the Virginia General Assembly just passed a resolution apologizing for the Commonwealth’s participation in the sin of slavery (which, of course, has been illegal in the Commonwealth for over 140 years). Many Churches and corporations have also apologized for their historical role in promoting and/or profiting from slavery in their pasts. The US government apologized for imprisoning Japanese citizens during WWII. Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes not. It can be justified somewhat if an institution or enty that exists today also existed and participated in the sin at the time it happened. It is harder to justify when you are simply saying that someone’s ancestors did some wrong, because certainly we are not at fault for the sins of our fathers. Likewise, the Catholic Church should not be wary of apologizing for the Inquisition.

Abortion? A terrible sin, it is morally defensible only in cases of serious, life-threatening risk to the mother (which is almost never the case). As a matter of political but not moral compromise, it could also be justified in cases of proven rape or incest. Roe v. Wade is a laugh from a legal standpoint, mere political legislation divorced from any valid Constititional arguments and bearing in itself the seeds of its own destruction–if the Supreme Court were ever to be honest enough to recognize those seeds. (Per the Court’s opinion, the state has a valid interest in regulating abortion during the time of viability of the unborn child which, as we all know, is a date constantly being pushed by science earlier and earlier into the pregnancy).