Posted on 10/09/2003 8:18:02 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Since the epiphany of last September, we have heard countless comparisons between the murders by militant Mohammedans and various epochs of Western history, in a bizarre, masochistic, self-condemning attempt to extenuate the current jihad movement. Dominating the examples of a Western conduit for bloodthirsty religious fervor similar to that of the Osama Movement has been the Spanish Inquisition. Unfortunately for our media and this self-deprecating sequela, examination of the Spanish Inquisition reveals it to be none of the things it is alleged to be, but to be in fact the most just tribunal of its time.
The very word “Inquisition” (which actually comes from the verb ‘to inquire’) conjures up morbid notions of torture, lynch mobs, and oppressive totalitarian men in brown robes carrying out sadistic punishments for no proven cause. This is the image taught and depicted as an apodictic truth by mainstream society. Modern scholars, and a recent BBC expose, have found the truth to be quite to the contrary.
One must first realize why the Spanish Inquisition was founded. At the time (late 15th century), Spain was under attack by, believe it or not, Turkish Muslims set on their own jihad – as it turns out the Iberian Peninsula was also infringing on Muslim Holy Ground. False conversions to Christianity to avoid suspicion were common – producing converts who would later clandestinely aid their invading cohorts. The uprooting of these bogus conversions in an attempt to halt the invading Turks was the initial aim of the Spanish Inquisition.
Within this and all later purposes, the only persons the Spanish Inquisition had jurisdiction over were self-proclaimed Christians. Contrary to popular belief, the Inquisition could not, nor did, prosecute anyone for being Jewish or Islamic. In fact, one way to avoid the trial or punishment by the Inquisition was simply to say that you were not a Christian. One could believe whatever he or she cared to, as long as the person did not claim to be Christian.
A common vision of the Inquisition is a mob of ignoble churls throwing accusations at some poor widow for being a witch, as portrayed by Monty Python. William Thomas Walsh describes the purpose of the Inquisition as “…a judicial instrument of conformity, which would eliminate the caprice, the anger, and the misinformation of the mob.” This view as a stabilizing effect seems more founded, since the Inquisitors, who as Alphonsus Duran points outs “were university lawyers and not even always priests,” claimed that witchcraft was a figment of the imagination. No one could be tried or burnt for witchcraft under the Spanish Inquisition, however there were harsh punishments for false accusation. In contrast, as the BBC points out: in the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, only between 3,000 and 5,000 people were killed, while at the same time the rest of Europe burnt 150,000 women for witchcraft alone.
Some of the information used by the BBC came from the annals of the Catholic Church, which kept in-depth internal records of each case. Since these were internal, and hence secret (until recently), their veracity is held in high regard, as forgery would gain nothing.
These records give startling enlightenment with regards to the practice of torture, which was universal in the contemporary courts of Europe. Professor Stephen Haliczer of Northern University of Illinois found that the Spanish Inquisition used torture in only 2 percent of more than 7,000 cases studied, and never for more than 15 minutes. Less than 1 percent were tortured more than once, and he found no evidence that anyone was ever tortured more than twice. This during a time when damaging shrubs in a common garden was an offence punishable by death in England.
The dungeon-like, filthy jails of the Inquisition shown in movies such as “Man of La Mancha” are another fabricated slur against the Inquisition. Prof. Haliczer claims the Inquisition’s jails were superior to all other jails in Spain, and notes, “I found instances of prisoners in secular criminal courts blaspheming in order to get into the Inquisition prison.” This is a far cry from the Neanderthal brutality and insane religious fanaticism being alluded to by the media, let alone being analogous to Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Palestinian terror groups.
So if the Inquisition did not just go from town to town executing anyone accused of heresy, how did it operate? Here is the account given in Alphonsus Duran’s book “Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition,” with information provided by the BBC documentary: Upon coming into a district, the Inquisitors would announce a “period of grace.” During this time, anyone accused could freely repent, whereupon a penance would be given and the offender forgiven. After this the accused would appear before the court. At this time he would be given the incredible privilege of writing a list of all his enemies who might want to commit calumny against him, whose testimony would automatically be thrown out. At this point the trial would take place guided by strict procedures which were constantly reviewed and revised by the hierarchy. The defendant could seek the assistance of lawyers. A conviction needed the agreement of at least two witnesses (our courts only require one), and a judge thought to be biased could be rejected by the accused. If convicted, there were multiple levels of appeal available to the accused.
This strict and just method defies our inherited notions of the Spanish Inquisition, but the statistics collaborate this. The BBC research shows that more men and women were executed by the guillotine of the French Revolution in one day than by the Spanish Inquisition during the entire 16th century. In the vast majority of cases, an Inquisition ended in absolution, penance, or a warning – not an execution.
With the chimera of the monolithic, nefarious Spanish Inquisition now debunked, one might still raise the question as to whether it is acceptable to punish, and in particular execute, in the name of God at all; even when done in this comparatively just and benevolent manner.
Is it justifiable to kill for the good of a society or an institution (for a church is an institution, divinely ordered or not)? Our own penal code says yes. Timothy McVeigh can attest to that. If the institution is a church instead of a state, heresy becomes equivalent to treason. American law holds execution as the standard punishment for treason, so the “malodorous” and “fanatical” Inquisitors can not be vilified by our own standards. Would we be better off if Bin Laden and company had been sent to a Muslim Inquisition and made to recant or die, stopping him before he spread his evil ideology? The U.S. response in Afghanistan seems to allude to such a sentiment, making the pathos of the Inquisition more similar to our War on Terror than to the attack on America.
This should make headlines everywhere! < holding breath>
I found this, in a similar vein.
bump for a later read
Does anyone claim the saunas? They preferred the Inquisition because the king's prison was worse, that's all.
In fact, the Holy Inquisition in this country is a bit overdue, in my opinion.
Historical inaccuracy! The witch sketch and the Spanish Inquisition sketch were two entirely different things! The former was in The Holy Grail and was pretty much their standard humor that everybody expected by then, but the latter, well, all I can say is that...
NOBODY expected the Spanish Inquisition!
Yes, because it's documented, as is the Protestant "Black Myth." Remember, the BBC, and the secular historians who conducted the research, aren't generally known as friends of the Catholic Church.
Are you suggesting that some Protestant groups would actually spread falsehoods about the Church? Just shocking.
Since the people who are publishing this stuff are, in all cases, credentialed historians with doctoral degrees, and, in many cases, non-Catholics ... perhaps you would share with us your credentials as a historian, specializing in late medieval Europe, Harley?
You do have some, right? Publications? Books? You're on faculty somewhere, no doubt?
Have you even read any of the books you're dismissing as a "whitewash of history"?
Well, I would refer you to the Encyclopedia Britannica 1927 edition on the Spanish Inquisition. It gives a completely different (and more credible) account of the Inquisition. Undoubtably I'll hear that the Encyclopedia was written by Protestants.
BTW-As a Calvinist I especially found this statement to be especially interesting:
The info is outdated. Recent scholarship based on primary documents, as the article states, proves the Protestant "Black Myth" to be just that.
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition.
Don't let your Protestant faith depend on anti-Catholic bigotry.
The Inquisition was hardly aimed at "wiping out" the Augustinian view of anything; any theologian is simply that, a theologian, with his insights which emphasize one area or the other, and which have to be understood within the totality of Christian doctrine and tradition. Hence it is that our current Pope is a big fan of St. Augustine. However, anyone can take one aspect of a particular theologian's work and overemphasize it, which could have been perceived as a danger.
Gratian was and is highly regarded and during his time was influential for his rather cynical political writings and philosophy. He had many enemies, and one of the unfortunate features of certain phases of the Inquisition was that it had ceased to be religious and was in fact being used by the Emperor or by various members of his court for attacking people perceived as political enemies.
The situation of the Jews was very complicated. They had been badly treated by the Visigothic kings who invaded Spain, who were initially followers of the Arian heresy, and compared to that were relatively well-treated by the Middle Eastern invaders. However, the Jews were first expelled by the Muslims themselves in the 12th century, although by the time of the Spanish Inquisition, many had returned and were settled in the Christian areas of Spain. Those who had remained in Southern Spain (by paying a very high tax or by converting to Islam) were indeed the very definition of dhimmis, and sympathized heavily with the Muslims. Even in towns where relative peace obtained (such as Toledo), the Muslims could not be trusted, and there were occasional attacks on the Christian population, attacks in which Jews participated as well. Later, when the Muslim leaders had been expelled, it was found that some of the Muslims who had been allowed to stay (mostly poor farmers) were plotting with Muslims from the Middle East to invade Spain again; in this case, it was also found that some of the dhimmified Jews who had remained in or returned to Southern Spain were supporting them with money and communications.
The Court of Ferdinand and Isabella was notable for the high presence of powerful Jews, not only conversos. Converso Jews were also very prominent in the Church, in city governments, etc. During the unification of Spain, the power struggles between local leaders, the rising middle class, and those allied with the King and representing central power became very acute. Jews were caught in the middle, and in many cases were perceived as representing the King and the central government. The decision was made to expel them only when the Queen felt she could no longer protect them, after anti-Jewish riots in some Spanish cities motivated by things such as the jealousy of city councilmen over the appointment of a Jew to some position or another.
My point is that the Inquisition did not exist in a vacuum. One may argue that its initial objective was not a bad one, since it sought to reestablish orthodox doctrine and authority in areas where they had become very corrupted. During the Muslim occupation, there were many areas that had not had resident bishops for centuries, and where the underground existence of Christianity had been supported by priests whose notions of Catholic teaching grew fuzzier and more distorted with every generation. In addition, there was considerable moral confusion, and many Inquisition processes were directed at clergy who were living immoral lives, teaching immoral doctrine, etc. The involvement of the State came about because the Church did not have the power to inflict civil penalties and therefore relied upon the State to do this part of it. And this was disastrous for the whole concept of an Inquiry directed at purifying and restoring the Faith.
It is undeniable that politics did get in and play a major part in the Inquisition, particularly in its later phase and even in its earlier phase in certain areas (under the inquisitor Torquemada, for example). The Pope himself issued bulls trying to stop the Inquisition in Spain, which were simply ignored by the Crown, which at that point had found it to be a useful tool having nothing to do with religion.
Interestingly, the Inquisition also functioned in the New World, and the great majority of the people punished by it were clergy, either for teaching syncretist heresies developed from their contact with native cultures, or for immorality, such as sexual abuse of indigenous converts.
I would agree. It's a mistake to think these were necessarily "evil" men bent on religious intolerance. There was a lot of stuff taking place on many sides.
People make the mistake of trying to judge people in the past by our current view of the world. We either soften history, apologize for it or try to explain it away. Instead we should just accept it as the way things were and not try to judge our forefathers. Their views were different than ours. I find these articles nothing more than a softening of historical facts.
Well, ~I~ am not a Catholic, and I think this is a very interesting topic, likely closer to the truth than the various caricaturish Inquisition histories have been.
I've heard analyses like this before and I have no trouble believing that the legends grown up around the Inquisition are very probably inaccurate and overblown. Were some atrocities committed? Probably. Was it as bad as we learned in gradeschool? Probably not.
Many people blame religion for sponsoring atrocites throughout history. Rubbish. Men commit such things. Anti religious zealots of communism killed more people in worse ways than any "inquisition" or "crusade" could ever have dreamed.
History, in the final analysis, is driven by the hearts of men. Wars are fought for territory and resources-- whether it was Vikings, Moors, French, Germans, English or Americans. This is including the Crusades, and in fact, the Spanish Inquistion. None are quite so evil or so good as cast by storytellers, each with agendas of their own.
Correction: Except for Mohammed. He was one murderous S.O.B. :-)
Well put. I think the Inquisition has been definitely been exaggerated; for judicial practices of its time, it was actually (in theory, at least) relatively fair. But the fact remains that it was not a good thing in practice, regardless of its theoretical objectives and structure.
Incidentally, one of the reasons it has always been hard to determine how many people were actually put to death was that a lot of punishments in the later Spanish Inquisition were symbolic. For example, a person who was already dead would be condemned, or someone who was out of the country, etc., and some possession of his, such as his hat or cloak, would be burned or buried. This was done to keep his heirs from claiming property that the State had seized or was claimed by some favorite of the Inquisitors or to sully the family record in such a way that a particular heir of this person was prevented from holding or seeking office. The problem was that these things (the burning of the hat, for example) were recorded as death sentences that had been executed. It's a very interesting subject for research and has kept Spanish scholars busy for centuries.
You have three! Three last chances!
I'm not sure I would agree with the term "fair". I would imagine that the Inquisition was just as tough as the people on the other side. It was just a completely different world then.
How one gauge how many people died during this era would be meaningless. Some people wanted to die rather than recant. Although not part of the Inquisition, Sir Thomas More was more than happy to die for the Church simply for telling King Henry not to fool around. Catholics were putting Protestants to death while Protestants were doing the same. Martin Luther, had to go into hiding after he refuse to recant because Catholics wanted to kill him. The Pilgrims came to this land to get away from religious persecution. I think the Inquisition is only a small piece of a larger picture.
In a way it was a different world in which people put a very high value on religion which was often mixed with politics. It's difficult to judge anyone or to ever know how many were killed (what about the War of the Roses) on religious beliefs. However, one has to wonder if we haven't become too complacent not wishing to offend anyone and trying to whitewash history where our forefathers were willing to die for their cause. Are we that ashamed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.