I have a topic that I thought would be interesting to start a thread on. The Spanish Inquisition. I have studied and read much on Queen Isabel and her husband King Fernando. They were the Catholic monarchs of Spain in the mid 1400's. She was an awesome queen, very interesting life story. I have a book titled "Isabel, the Catholic Queen." One of the best books I have ever read. However, it touched very little on the Spanish Inquisition, but what it did touch on that subject was very interesting. I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this topic, as I will also share some of my own. (I cannot tonite, though, as it is past my bedtime, and I am busy for most of the day tomorrow, but will check back tomorrow night, when I will add some of my own thoughts.)

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), June 14, 2002

Answers

Twice I tried to send an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the INQUISITION, but somehow I wasn't able to do it. But for anyone interested here is the Page:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 15, 2002.

Enrigue and Isabel

The Spanish inquisition is a subject that is well known to Gene Chavez. he has posted some interesting facts on it in previous threads. I am not sure where they are, but maybe he could point to them later on. It will open your eyes to some hidden truths.

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

Hello, Isabel.

As you can imagine, in the forum's 4.5 years, "Inquisition" has come up several times. I have found three past threads for you to examine. They are short, mid-length, and long (but worth reading), respectively. Here are some links for you:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2002.

The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with the Church, but was run by the secular government of Spain, and the popes condemned many of its actions as criminal.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), June 16, 2002.

Isabel, here is another long thread, partially on Inquisition.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 16, 2002.

Hey, Does anyone actually know the political reasons of the spanish Inquisition? I'm researching it for school and I need to know. If you can find any information please send me an email--Sarathesnd@yada-yada.com

-- Sara (Sarathesnd@yada-yada.com), September 12, 2003.

The king of Spain appointed the Inquisitors and the major purpose was to ferret out quislings and internal enemies of the state. (ref: "Triumph" by H.W. Crocker) He has an article here about it: http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2002/feature6.htm

Where he says: "The Spanish Inquisition was a state-run affair, where the Church’s role was to act as a brake of responsibility, fairness, and justice on the royal court’s ferreting out of quislings (who were defined, after centuries of war against the Muslims, as those who were not sincere and orthodox Catholics). Recent scholarship, which has actually examined the meticulous records kept by the Spanish Inquisition, has proven—to take the title of a BBC documentary on the subject—"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition." We now know, beyond all doubt, that the Monty Python sketch of inquisitors holding an old lady in "the comfy chair" while they tickle her with feather dusters is closer to the truth than images of people impaled within iron maidens. (One of the standard works of scholarship is Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, Yale University Press.) In the course of an average year, the number of executions ordered by the Spanish Inquisition—which covered not only Spain but its vast overseas empire—was less than the number of people put to death annually by the state of Texas. And this at a time when heresy was universally considered a capital crime in Europe. The myth of the Spanish Inquisition comes from forged documents, propagandizing Protestant polemicists, and anti-Spanish Catholics, who were numerous. The fact is, far from being the bloodthirsty tribunals of myth, the courts of the Spanish Inquisition were probably the fairest, most lenient, and most progressive in Europe."

In Christ, Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

There is another excellent write-up on the political issues here: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

I hope this helps you, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Hi Bill my eyes are straining...where can I buy those rose tinted glasses? ;)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Kiwi:

The best advice that I can give is to read the current historians about the Inquisition and then you will know who is wearing the rose colored glasses and who isn't. Toward that end, I would recommend the following works to start: "The Spanish Inquisition": A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen; and "Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition?" by Very. Rev. Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran. Both are highly footnoted. If you have any real facts that counter the modern historians, please do so. Ad-hominum remarks really don't help the educational process.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi.
Sorry to see that you seem to have been fooled by anti-Catholic propaganda on the Inquisition. Not surprising, since there is plenty of it!

However, you really need to take Bill Nelson's information seriously. Try to get a chance to see the BBC documentary he mentioned. It debunks some of the myths that you have been taught. Know also that the book Bill mentioned twice -- the one by Henry Kamen -- is by a Jewish man, not a Catholic. A man you have admired greatly for a long time, Chris Butler, highly recommended the Kamen book and wrote essays (here and at his now defunct site) proving that the Inquisitions [there were actually three or four different ones] were not the incredible horrors depicted in many bigots' exagerrated accounts.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.

O my goodness! I totally forgot about this thread!

But since then, I have read much more on all the Inquisitions. I am in the middle of a book called "Characters of the Inquisitions", which is about the most 'notorious' inquisitors. Needless to say, it is full of not only interesting historical facts, but plenty of footnotes to back those up, that prove that they were indeed instituted for a good purpose. It proves that the Church was most willing and more than ready to welcome back into the Church any 'enemies within', more so than they were willing to put to death those obstinate heretics. Besides the fact that they [the Church] did not really put to death any [or very few] heretics. It was mostly a state matter, but as the state and Church worked very closely together in those days, the Church examined those accused, but it was the state who carried out the penalties for those guilty of the crimes.

Besides many other interesting details........I would highly recommend this book for those interested in [or fooled by modern historian's accounts] of this time in history. Again, the book is called "Characters of the Inquisition" by William Thomas Walsh. It is available at TAN books.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 12, 2003.

Isabel,

It was mostly a state matter, but as the state and Church worked very closely together in those days, the Church examined those accused, but it was the state who carried out the penalties for those guilty of the crimes.

Not having read much of anything on the Inquisition, do you feel that there is a parallel here to the Jews using Pilate to crucify Jesus?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 13, 2003.

Someone asked, "Not having read much of anything on the Inquisition, do you feel that there is a parallel here to the Jews using Pilate to crucify Jesus? "

Not the same, at least not in the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was instigated by the Spanish crown to take care of perceived threats to the Spanish crown. It was not created by Rome. It really is a reversal of what happened to Jesus. The Spanish crown convinced the Pope to bring over a Church institution (the Holy Office) to investigate possible heresy that the crown thought was a threat to its sovereignty. Once the inquisitional court found the person guilty of a crime, and if it was serious enough to be a capital offense, which was rare, the crown would step in to carry out the sentence. But this was really a project of the Spanish crown much more than a project of Rome.

I hope this helps.

Bill Nelson

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Forgot to mention that the Spanish crown also choise the Inquisitors that were used.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

What information is there about the expulsion of Jews and Roma/Gypsies from Spain at this time? I remember that my high school text-book characterized the exile as being so massive that Spain effectively kicked out its middle class, which hurt its economy.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Bill,

Thanks for the info.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 13, 2003.

Skoobouy, As usual, this story, too, is about power and money. What was going on in the Spanish Inquisition was that Ferdinand V and Isabella were very much afraid of a resurgence of Moorish rule and of loosing the power of the crown to anyone else in Spain. Under the Moors, the Jewish community thrived (a much different experience than they are having now in Islamic States). They were a power both in merchandising and in politics. As such, they were a threat to the crown. As Jews, there was not much the crown’s Spanish Inquisition could do about them, but if they could get them to convert to Catholicism, and were found to keep to their Jewish traditions, they could be tried as heretics. That is, often, what happened. Jews were forced to convert under penalty of extradition. Once ‘converted’ they often were found to keep to their old ways, and were often tried before the Inquisition. When arrested they lost their possessions to the crown.

I hope this helps, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

As far as the gypsies (Roma) were concerned. The Spanish Inquisition had only a superficial affect on them. Laws were written stating they had to convert or be exciled. Since most of them were nomatic anyway, they simply moved up into the mountains of Spain. The crown didn't persue them because they really were no threat.

I hope this helps, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

I think you misunderstand me, the PURPOSE of the Inquistion was not so much the issue for me but the METHODS! I hope you all agree!

I think we may be closer on than issue than my jibe may have implied! Bill holding a different position to your revisionist position is not an "Ad-hominum" attack .. Look, to me the methods used against heretics were not based on Christian principles, in their zeal to counter heretics they forgot that a Catholic cannot commit an evil to achieve a good, ever. These men strayed from the Church however good their intentions were we know today that is not the way to deal with heretics. It was sinful and is was wrong. There is nothing to be ashamed of an imperfect Church*. AT the moment from what Ive read on balance (and with fair, calm objective rational analysis of this issue) I cannot in good conscience agree with the idea that the Church is absolved of ALL guilt in the Spanish inquisition or any of the other inquisitions. To do so is to is a dishonest and great a crime as those bigots who greatly exaggerate the sins of our Church fathers. Moral truths are absolute not relative . The Pope himself has apologised for these sins of men directly, something the Vatican is not prone to doing lightly :-). I think to absolve the Church completely is to greatly underestimate just how much power the Pope had over secular powers, and the influence the Church had throughout all speheres of society in Europe. The Church most certainly encouraged the burning of heretics as pleasing to God in a number of Papal letters and bulls. I reject the assertion that the Church rarely used torture to gain a “confession”, or the idea that any torture methods used were similar to tickling with a feather. The use of torture to gain a confession is never acceptable to Christians of any time, place or society. Considering the persecution of early Christians and the teachings from Scripture the errors of the Church in regard to treatment of heretics was very, very unfortunate. The fact others were committing similar or worse crimes in secular courts doesn’t absolve the sins the Church was committing. The Church was very careful not to end up with "blood on her hands", true, but so what, the fact a husband gets a "hit man" to kill his wife doesn’t absolve the guilt of the husband.

*(for the pedants: Church men acting in the name of the Church)

I enjoyed reading up on Kamen on the net (thanks Bill and John), he does indeed read like a scholar and I acknowledge your basic message about the evils of the Church being greatly exaggerated, but that doesn’t justify the evils that did occur nor does it mean we should attempt to whitewash such evils under the guise of moral relativism.

God Bless

ps Isabel youll be pleased to know I did get to confession and Mass this weekend. A double header!

pps We must never try to dismiss past evils simply becaise of the scale of the evil (ie compared to modern evils of abortion or stalin the inquisitons dont matter). Of course they matter, the fac tthat we acknowledgee "they matter" means we can tackle other evils with integrity and honesty.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

Kiwi, Thanks for the clarification. The methods used were typical of the times, but as you say were not very Christian as we understand Christ’s message. Just look at the horror of the Protestant promoted ‘Peasant Revolt’ of the Reformation for a much more horrendous event. To some degree, the Inquisition's use of torture mirrored a trend in the secular judicial system. During the twelfth century, the courts of Europe started to revive the old Roman legal procedures, including the application of torture to extract confessions. Some of this came from Justinian's code, which was in turn derived from earlier pagan law. In fact, even then there were times when certain Inquisitors were rebuked by Rome for being cruel. Our Pope apologized for what happened during that period, and the Church does take responsibility. I think it is important for anyone interested in this period to really read up on the history that is coming to light today and not assume that everything they learned as a child was correct because we are finding a lot of that was handed down from Protestant political tracts.

Compared to methods used by the secular penal system of the day, which included being burned alive for counterfeiting and execution for thievery, and later being disemboweled or boiled to death, the Inquisition wasn't as serious a threat to health and well-being as its secular counterparts. One of its more odious practices was posthumously denouncing persons, publicly burning their exhumed remains, and confiscating their property, leaving their family, even if they were not heretics, destitute. Imprisonment may well have been the most cruel of the Inquisition's penalties: Like in all ancient jails, cells were cramped and unlit, so that prisoners at times could neither lie down nor stand; only a "very tiny minority" of persons withstood such treatment for months or even (up to 30) years without "confessing". On the other hand, in the Spanish variation, the prisons of the Inquisition were generally, not always, better than those of the secular courts. There are examples of people making heretical statements so that they could be transferred from the prison they were in to that of the Inquisition. Now for the scope of the Spanish Inquisition: Kamen notes that, "Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition....for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability." By Kamen's estimate, for example, "it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe." This is about the number of people put to death each year by the State of Texas. Over the life of the Spanish Inquisition and in spite of spurts of major use, torture was "used infrequently" and only in cases of heresy. Kamen notes that, "A comparison with the cruelty and mutilation common in secular tribunals shows the Inquisition in a relatively favorable light. This in conjunction with the usually good level of prison conditions makes it clear that the tribunal had little interest in cruelty and often attempted to temper justice with mercy." One may as well credit Christianity for making the Inquisition less severe than it would have been had it been conducted by secular authorities addressing the same social fears and concerns! Prison sentences were often not literally observed; a "life sentence" could amount to only 10 years of incarceration and the term could be served at home, in a monastery, or in a hospital when prison space was limited. Sure, the methods were terrible, compared to our methods today. We could argue that they were not what Christ would want us to do. But they were actually more lenient then those used generally at the time. Again, just look at the horror of the Protestant promoted ‘Peasant Revolt’ of the Reformation for a much more horrendous event. In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Hello, Kiwi.
I think that you have misunderstood my point of view on this topic (though it may be partly my own fault for not saying enough). I should have made clear that I am completely against the improper tactics of inquisitors, so that you would not even be tempted to jump to the unjustifiable conclusion that I approve of them.

Kiwi, there is something you have done, at least twice on this thread, that is quite improper. You wrote to someone [with my emphasis added]:
"Bill holding a different position to your revisionist position is not an 'Ad hominem' attack."

You are using a "loaded" word that is inappropriate in this case. The word "revisionist" now has a very negative connotation -- hinting at a dishonest effort, a "cover-up," a "white-washing." That is NOT what is going on in the area of the Inquisitions. Instead what is taking place is a serious, scholarly research effort to get at the truth and to debunk any myths and anti-Catholic lies that may exist. Again I express my hope that you get to see the BBC documentary on this, so that you can know that I am telling you the truth. The fact is that the centuries-old Spanish archives have recently been re-opened and translated, with the facts being noted, the numbers being tallied, etc.. This is how it is now known that the anti-Catholics of northern Europe pulled off a propaganda coup (with tremendous exagerration) that has lasted for centuries, but ought never to be believed again.

You later wrote: "Look, to me the methods used against heretics were not based on Christian principles, in their zeal to counter heretics they forgot that a Catholic cannot commit an evil to achieve a good, ever. These men strayed from the Church however good their intentions were we know today that is not the way to deal with heretics. It was sinful and is was wrong. There is nothing to be ashamed of an imperfect [Church men]. AT the moment from what Ive read on balance (and with fair, calm objective rational analysis of this issue) I cannot in good conscience agree with the idea that the Church is absolved of ALL guilt in the Spanish inquisition or any of the other inquisitions. To do so is to is a dishonest and great a crime as those bigots who greatly exaggerate the sins of our Church fathers."

Kiwi, I would ask you to identify the Catholic who, on this thread, has said that "the Church [should be] absolved of ALL guilt in the Spanish inquisition or any of the other inquisitions." I think that you, in reacting to our appropriate defense of the Church against anti-Catholic exaggerations, have leaped to an unwarranted conclusion.

I most certainly did not, and do not, say that everything that some inquisitorial churchmen did was proper, free of sin, etc.. I think that some of it, though perhaps a "product of the culture of the times," was inexcusably and gravely uncharitable and unjust. It was not what Jesus would have done. Some deeds were not "Catholic" actions, but were instead something pleasing to the devil -- which is the reason for the pope's apology.

God bless you.
John PS: Only those who are guilty of mental errors and then oversensitive to being corrected call others "pedants!"

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Hello, Kiwi.

Hello John

>>>>>Kiwi, there is something you have done, at least twice on this thread, that is quite improper.

When you’re feeling this anal-retentive why don’t you go and wash the car rather than bugging people with your pedantic, and more often than not incorrect legalisms. The only thing "improper" is your unnecessary comments on this and other threads today. You owe Paul an apology for your outrageous and foolish comments on that thread (among others).

"Bill holding a different position to your revisionist position is not an 'Ad hominem' attack."

>>>>>>You are using a "loaded" word that is inappropriate in this case.

Most words are "loaded", The comment was appropriate as Bills position is indeed revisionism. AT any rate Bill was not fussed and the comment was directed at him, not you .

>>>>>>The word "revisionist" now has a very negative connotation -- hinting at a dishonest effort, a "cover-up," a "white-washing.

A revisionist is a historian who is an advocate of revision of some political theory, religious doctrine, historical or critical interpretation, etc) . In itself, it carries no negative connotations whatsoever. Whether a revisionist position such as the one offered by Bill is negative or positive will depend on your point of view.

>>>>>>That is NOT what is going on in the area of the Inquisitions.

Yes it is, and thankfully so, as it is presenting a view of history, a revision of history. It’s not merely disputing minor details its a complete new way of approaching the issue of the Spanish Inquisition.

"The Spanish Inquisition": A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen

>>>>>Kiwi, I would ask you to identify the Catholic who, on this thread, has said that "the Church [should be] absolved of ALL guilt in the Spanish inquisition or any of the other inquisitions." I think that you, in reacting to our appropriate defence of the Church against anti-Catholic exaggerations, have leaped to an unwarranted conclusion.

For the love of God John I was only clarifying my position, offering my opinion. If I was indeed "reacting" to anything I guess it may have been Jakes post

"The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with the Church, but was run by the secular government of Spain". The Church certainly had something to do with The Spanish Inquisition and therefore the “defence” was not “entirely appropriate” and my comments were “warranted”

I also felt that general balance of the thread littered with comments such as "that prove that they were indeed instituted for a good purpose" or "it was the state who carried out the penalties for those guilty of the crimes" etc etc were only telling half the story .

>>>>>John PS: Only those who are guilty of mental errors and then oversensitive to being corrected call others "pedants!

John the reason I put that qualification was because I knew you would post a 1500 word sermon on the definition of the term Church if I didn’t. I call such behaviour pedantic in the extreme. In fact Ive never in my life met someone like you before, with such a zealous obsession with minor insignificant details, quite fascinating and amusing. A fine “Inquisitor” you would make!

Peace be with you.

Note to moderator: whenever you see John start to get these unexplainable "hot flushes" (associated with male menopause I believe) its best for all concerned if you just delete his hormonal aberrations. (He will thankyou later for helping him [helping us] ). emphasis added

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.

"Yes it is, and thankfully so, as it is presenting a view of history..."

correction: "As it is presenting a new view of history..."

-- (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.

Kiwi, There was plenty of blame to go around. The Church's Holy Office was a tool used by the Spanish crown, but it was a willing tool. We have apologized for it, it was an un-Christian act.

I have taken no offense at what you wrote, you seem to be trying to make sure we are keeping honest, and that is a good thing.

take care, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.

Kiwi writes:"As it is presenting a new view of history..."

Like I've mentioned before, you can't trust the historians, they can write history the way they like.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 15, 2003.

PS: Only those who are guilty of mental errors, and then oversensitive to being corrected, call others "pedants!"

PPS: Only those who are too immature to accept being corrected insult others ["anal-retentive" ... "pedantic, and more often than not incorrect legalisms" ... "zealous obsession with minor insignificant details" ... "unexplainable 'hot flushes' (associated with male menopause I believe)" ... "hormonal aberrations"]

Kiwi, you scribbled [note: it doesn't deserve the word "wrote"]:
"You owe Paul an apology for your outrageous and foolish comments on that thread (among others)."

Nonsense. It is Paul who owes many people a lot of apologies, just as you owe me one on this thread. In true bastardly fashion, you goaded me with that "Church-*asterisk*-churchmen" game, but you then couldn't accept the consequences of your misbehavior. All you had to do was write "churchmen" in the main body of the text -- as any mature person would have done -- and all would have been well.

However ... I know that, with you, it's all just a passing thing like the weather, so I'm not going to dwell on it and worry about it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 15, 2003.