The Myth Of The Spanish Inquisition

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1103847' date='Oct 29 2006, 01:10 AM']
I am not questioning that His Holiness did sanction the Inquisition(s), but could you provide for me the document in which he did so?
[/quote]

From wikipedia:

The Inquisition was created through the papal bull Ad abolendam, issued at the end of the 12th century by Pope Lucius III as a way to combat the Albigensian heresy in southern France. There were a number of tribunals of the Papal Inquisition in various European kingdoms during the Middle Ages. In the Kingdom of Aragon, a tribunal of the Papal Inquisition was established by the statute of Excommunicamus of pope Gregory IX, in 1232, during the era of the Albigensian heresy. Its principal representative was Raimundo de Peñafort. With time, its importance was diluted, and, by the middle of the 15th century, it was almost forgotten although still existing in law.

There was never a tribunal of the Papal Inquisition in Castile. Members of the episcopate were charged with surveillance of the faithful and punishment of transgressors. However, in Castile during the Middle Ages, little attention was paid to heresy.

--------------------

Essentially, the sanction of the pope came 3 centuries before what we would consider the "spanish" Inquisition. What the rulers of Spain did was to start back up an inquisition that was close to 300 years old, but one which had never officially been stopped. That's why I don't think the Catholic Church as an institution can be blamed for the Inquisition in Spain. It was effectively started and run by the Spanish government for its own ends. Just my opinion on it...

[Budge]

Really what does it matter, I can go to my library right now, and dig out all the books I own...{I have Catholic books too for opposition research, even quote Inquisition defender Peters, and other academics and go to battle with you all trading historical factoid after factoid} but honestly when I am dealing with people, who...

A) Use the defense those times were different then so those sins were different....

we are not on the same page whatsoever.

B) Defend the use of torture

C) Intellectualize what basically amounts of murder of people for what they believe.

We are in such a different world where you cant even seem to 'see' the difference between good and evil, I dont even know where to begin.

Honestly I have been so astounded to watch people defend these evils so openly it has been beyond nauseating.

The sheer coldness and pride, and lack of humanity in those who defend Inquisitions is astounding.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1103145' date='Oct 28 2006, 11:02 AM']Whatever happened to..."We're sorry this ever happened"? instead of constant whitewashes of history?[/quote]
I'll say it again. The Black Legends of the Spanish Inquisition were malicious lies invented by Protestants that had no basis in fact. They were lies then, they are lies now. This is not "whitewash" but historical truth.

[quote]I've noticed a [b]drop[/b] in the Inquisition numbers claimed by Catholics within the last TWO YEARS of dealing with Catholics online.[/quote]Protestant exaggerations of those allegedly tortured and killed exceeded the entire population of Europe.

[quote]How many torture, and burned at the stake victims are ok by Jesus Christ? {Do you seriously think God is going to cut a break on the fact it may have been 2,000, instead of 200,000 or 2 million?}[/quote]Many more Catholics died at the hands of Protestants than were ever executed by the State, after having been found guilty of heresy by the Inquisitions.

Do you think Protestants get a pass from God? Yes, indeedy. You beleive that all a murderer or rapist or child molester or Catholic-killer needs to do is say he's sorry, "get saved," and he gets a ticket straight to heaven.

Catholics know that there is a penalty for every sin which must be paid in this life or the next, even if one is ultimately destined for heaven. Nobody skates.

[quote]Ye do not know what Spirit you are of....honestly when Catholics start defending, excusing and praising the Inquisition, you all give me the willies. The Inquisition was definitely of Satan. You really do yourself nor your church no favors with threads like this. Instead of a Catholic with a heart and conscience who would say "The Inquisitions were a horrible thing", here you are defending them![/quote]And those who reject the hard evidence of history and the judgment of educated, trained, professional historians whose work is evaluated by their peers give me the willies. Historians have the archives open before them, and still you deny the truth.

I'm not defending the Spanish Inquisition. I am simply exposing the lies Protestants have been telling about it for the last 400 years, the lies that they themselves invented! And I am reporting the good that came of it, which historians recognize, but you deny.

The malicious lies about the Spanish Inquisition are still being repeated. Now that's satanic!

This message was brought to you by a heartless Catholic w/o a conscience. :

------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Budge]

[quote]I'll say it again. The Black Legends of the Spanish Inquisition were malicious lies invented by Protestants that had no basis in fact. They were lies then, they are lies now. This is not "whitewash" but historical truth. [/quote]

So how do you explain the TORTURE museums of Europe, all the torture machines invented by the way to cause pain in ways that did not draw blood.

I would have more respect if one said there were perhaps a few exaggerations rather then this sweeping consensus, "those mean Protestants made it all up!"

[quote]Protestant exaggerations of those allegedly tortured and killed exceeded the entire population of Europe. [/quote]

The numbers are a side issue that your church mandated something from the top that went against the commandments of Jesus, remember when the apostles wanted to call down fire on rejecters of the gospel and Jesus bebuked them?

[quote]Many more Catholics died at the hands of Protestants than were ever executed by the State, after having been found guilty of heresy by the Inquisitions. [/quote]

Calvin and others learned too well from their previous Catholic training.
[quote]
Do you think Protestants get a pass from God? Yes, indeedy. You beleive that all a murderer or rapist or child molester or Catholic-killer needs to do is say he's sorry, "get saved," and he gets a ticket straight to heaven. [/quote]

No, I dont believe that. Unless there is true repentance and the Holy Spirit indwelling they will be on their way to hell.

[quote]Catholics know that there is a penalty for every sin which must be paid in this life or the next, even if one is ultimately destined for heaven. Nobody skates. [/quote]

So you still believe you have to pay for every sin?

You do realize what this means dont you...

You dont hold trust in Jesus Christ as having died on the cross for your sins.

You have just rejected Bible basics of John 3:16


[quote]And those who reject the hard evidence of history and the judgment of educated, trained, professional historians whose work is evaluated by their peers give me the willies. Historians have the archives open before them, and still you deny the truth. [/quote]

So historians are the ultimate masters of moral truth? I doubt it. History has its biases affected by modern culture and liberal academia. You seem to hold much more trust in HISTORY then in God or his Word.
[quote]
I'm not defending the Spanish Inquisition. I am simply exposing the lies Protestants have been telling about it for the last 400 years, the lies that they themselves invented! And I am reporting the good that came of it, which historians recognize, but you deny. [/quote]

Every post you have done has been a defense, not once, have you said horrible things happened.

What are the lies?

That people were put to the stake and murdered because of what they believed?

The quibbling over the numbers is just a diversion.

Anyone who believes in the concept of an Inquisition--ie that someone should be put to DEATH for WHAT THEY BELIEVE {not for any criminal act} is definitely heartless.

Dont you care that the many who were tortured were pernmanentaly disabled?

Dont you care that children were left without mothers and fathers?

Dont you care that people died for what they beleived, and put to the most painful deaths possible?

Im sorry but ANYONE who DEFENDS this is HEARTLESS in my book. Ive told even some average folks, variety of beliefs about these discussions, and every one of them said if they came to this board they would be MAJORLY CREEPED OUT.

[Budge]

From FORDHAM university...CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY--and supported by HISTORIANS

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html[/url]

Do you AGREE with this?

[quote]ANGELO CLARENO ON AN INQUISITORIAL TORTURE SESSION
Angelo Clareno joined the Franciscan order around 1274, just in time to become involved in the first serious confrontation between spiritual Franciscans and their leaders. It was in the province of Ancona, and by the 1280s things were bad enough there so that Angelo and others were thrown in prison for several years. They were released when the newly-elected minister general, Raymond Geoffroi, came through on an inspection tour. Raymond, the only minister general whose sympathies lay with the spirituals, ordered Angelo and his colleagues released and, realizing he could do little to protect them from their superiors, sent them to Armenia. Eventually they fell out with Franciscan leaders there too, and by 1294 they were back in Italy presenting themselves to the new pope, Celestine V. He offered them salvation by setting them up as a separate order, but four months after his election Celestine became the only pope on record to resign, the next pope, Bonificace VIII, canceled all his legislation, and Angelo's group seemed about to be thrown back into the arms of the Franciscan leaders , who by this point had even more to hold against them than before. Angelo's group tried to settle the problem by quietly moving to Greece, where they stayed for some years avoiding first their leaders' efforts to get them back and then a papal summons to face disciplinary action.
Around 1304, shortly after Boniface VIII's death, Angelo's group was drifting back into Italy hoping to convince the new pope that they should be recognized as a separate order. By the time they arrived the new pope himself was on his deathbed and some of the brothers settled into hermitages in the kingdom of Naples, where King Charles II and the local inquisitor, Thomas of Aversa, conspired to make their lives miserable. Angelo gives the impression that Thomas was originally rather unconcerned and let the first group he encountered go their way, but he soon learned that the king felt differently and he hurriedly moved to make up for his error. [b]He arrested the next group of spirituals he came across and wrote the king telling him he had captured, not spirituals, but members of Fra Dolcino's sect, which was then considered the most dangerous heretical group in existence. (They are described here as "Lombards" since Dolcino's group was based in Lombardy.) The inquisitor was soon informed of his error, but that only seems to have made him angrier. [/b]

Obviously Angelo, who by that point had become leader of the Anconan spirituals, had about as little sympathy for the inquisitor as the latter had for the Anconan spirituals in his clutches. Thus we can hardly expect a balanced picture of what occurred, and Angelo was in any case not with the group. Nevertheless, he received a full report and, while this passage may not tell us exactly what happened, it at least gives us a picture of the sorts of tortures used by the inquisition.
[u][b]
A word is in order about the first torture described. The victim's hands were tied behind his back and he was raised by a rope tied to his wrists. He was then dropped a short distance. This was repeated again and again. (For example, imagine him being raised around twenty feet, then dropped a foot, then dropped another foot and so on.) Eventually the victim's arm sockets and tendons. were permanently damaged. [/b] [/u]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then the Lord Andreo wrote the inquisitor informing him trustworthy people had told him that among all those the inquisitor had captured there was only one Lombard. He advised him to attend to the dignity of his inquisitorial office. He advised him as a good friend to stick to the truth in carrying out his duties, because without it neither human nor divine justice is justly performed. When the inquisitor read Lord Andreo's letter he was furious and vengefully turned all his indignation and wrath on the poor brothers he currently held. And he sent to the men of that town, who love the poor brothers deeply, a summons to appear before him in the city of Trevi after a certain number of days, with a fixed fine as penalty if they failed to appear. [b]When they came on the appointed day he had them shut up in an old cistern and kept them there for five days, with no more ventilation than if he'd shut them up in a wine cask, not even letting them out to attend to the necessities of nature. [/b] After five days this new Dacian had a certain place in the city hastily prepared so they could be tortured by the executioners. But when he saw that the bishop and other principle people in the city took the spectacle of such men being tortured very poorly, he changed his mind and, passing through Boiano, ascended to the castle of Maginando, a remote place with a lord vicious enough to conspire in his own evil plans. There he had the prisoners, whom he had dragged along behind him in chains and who were exhausted by the trip, placed under heavy guard. The next day he visited them and, binding himself with a terrible oath, said, "Unless you confess to me that you are heretics, may God do thus and so to me if I don't kill all of you right here with a variety of tortures and torments. If, as I ask, you do confess to me that you do or did err in something or other, I'll give you a light penance and set you free immediately." The brothers replied that he should not ask them to say something that wasn't true. Telling such a wicked lie would cause death to their souls and offense to God. [b]The furious inquisitor selected one of them who seemed more fervent than the others and was a priest, and ordered that he be tortured. The torturer entered with his assistants and tied the prisoner's hands behind his back. Then he had him raised up by means of a pulley attached to the roof of the house, which was very high. After the prisoner had hung there for an hour the rope was released suddenly. The idea was that, broken by the intense pain, he would be defeated and confess that he had once been a heretic. After he had been raised and suddenly dropped many times they asked whether he would confess that he was or had been a heretic[/b]. He replied, I'm a faithful and catholic Christian, always have been, and always will be.. If I said anything else to you shouldn't believe me, because I would only have said it to escape the torture.. Let this be my perpetual confession to you, because it's the truth. Anything else would be a lie extorted by torture."

[b]Driven out of his mind by anger, the inquisitor ordered that, dressed in a short tunic, the prisoner be put first in a bath of hot water, then of cold. Then, with a stone tied to his feet, he was raised up again, kept there for a while, and dropped again, and his shins were poked with reeds as sharp as swords. Again and again he was hauled up until, on the thirteenth elevation, the rope broke and he fell from a great height with the stone still tied to his feet. As that destroyer of the faithful stood looking at him, he lay there only half alive, with his body shattered. The treacherous man's servant's took the body and disposed of it in a cesspool. [/b]
That inquisitor, although he was a learned man and of noble family, was so demented by fury that he began to inflict torture with his own hands. [b]When one of the brothers who was to be tortured devoutly recommended himself to Christ, he was so insane with anger that he struck the man on the head and neck. He hit the man so hard that he drove him to the ground like a ball. For days afterward the man's neck and head hurt and his ears rang. Another brother had his head bound in the inquisitor's presence, and the binding was tightened until the torturers heard the bones in his head crack, after which they ended the torture and took him away for dead. [/b]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation by David Burr [olivi@mail.vt.edu]. See his home page. He indicated that the translations are available for educational use. He intends to expand the number of translations, so keep a note of his home page.
Paul Halsall Jan 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu [/quote]

you know it wasnt just Prots who were victims but CATHOLICS, ones the establishment didnt like, ones who spoke out a bit too much, ones they desired the property of.

In the last days, when the Inquisition is renewed, I am quite sure there will be Catholic victims as well as evangelical ones again.

Why do you defend these sick things?

If you do not.

Tell me right here and now..

THIS WAS EVIL, BUDGE...

I THINK IT IS HORRIBLE.

That is what I need to hear.

[Winchester]

OMG, people may have abused the authority of the Church?

Budge, you're getting too emotional and you're missing what people are saying.

Inquisitors who abused their position or didn't follow the rules were booted if they were discovered by those who weren't likewise corrupt.

And the torture had to leave no mark as well as cause no damage. I don't see how that's really possible, and I would be hard pressed to accept it, even with all the caveats. Of course, solitary confinement is a form of accepted torture in this day and age.

You simply won't admit there were good and bad aspects to the inquisition, and that's a bad position to have put yourself in.

[Justified Saint]

Once we label a broad historical trend and phenomenon like the Spanish Inquisition evil, then we can simply ignore pretty much every detail and qualifier of the event(s).

This is the fundamentalist syndrome. Just call everything evil and you have weaseled out of using your brain. This is why I suspect Budge has so little patience with a book like the one Peters wrote. Peters starts his book by tracing the origins of the inquisition -- in other words he is doing what historians do. Except if the Inquisition was just evil then it doesn't matter the evolution of it since it is simply the wheel of satan turning over and over again. In the mind of the fundamentalist, the Inquisition is just one of so many satanic forces that is prophesied in the Bible, so therefore its individual history and comparative history is meaningless.

Fundamentalists have no use for history because a) everything you would ever need to know is in the Bible and b) they fear history because of that. At the bottom I suspect they fear the incarnation.

[Winchester]

That is an interesting assertion, Just

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Budge' post='1104913' date='Oct 30 2006, 10:38 AM']
From FORDHAM university...CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY--and supported by HISTORIANS

[url="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html"]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html[/url]

Do you AGREE with this?



you know it wasnt just Prots who were victims but CATHOLICS, ones the establishment didnt like, ones who spoke out a bit too much, ones they desired the property of.

In the last days, when the Inquisition is renewed, I am quite sure there will be Catholic victims as well as evangelical ones again.

Why do you defend these sick things?

If you do not.

Tell me right here and now..

THIS WAS EVIL, BUDGE...

I THINK IT IS HORRIBLE.

That is what I need to hear.
[/quote]

First of all, if you'd bothered reading, you would realize that the source you've quoted has a long history of being at odds with the established Catholic orders. So, he has a an ax to grind in what he writes. That doesn't necessarily mean that we disregard what he says, but it does mean that we have to understand what kind of text we're dealing with. This is an anti-inquisitorial polemic penned by a man wronged by the inquisition but not present for the atrocities he describes.

That having been said, the use of torture in the middle ages was considered to be part of the justice system. I'm not saying torture is right or wrong, I'm just saying that it was accepted practice in secular courts as well as religious ones. If anything, the inquisitions had more legal protections in place against torture than did the secular authorities. In fact, the first torture you described, with the hands being raised behind the back is called the strappado. It was used on Dante, of Inferno fame, by the secular authorities of his Italian city state. Secondly, it's important to note that torture, even in this case, has a purpose - to elicit a confession. The man in charge of the inquisition in this case even promises only a light penance to those who confess. This is how the vast majority of inquisitions were concluded - people confessed to heresy and were let off with a slap on the wrist. Torture, burnings, etc were very rare and usually reserved for people who actually were heretics.

I think what you're doing is picking and choosing negative sources to bias the audience. You see, you could do the same thing with a modern American source on our criminal justice system. There are plenty of allegations of torture, false imprisonment, wrongful execution, etc. But, by and large, most people wouldn't consider the American justice system cruel or unfair. Perhaps in seven hundred years, people will.

Edited October 30, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[cmotherofpirl]

thank you

[Winchester]

Who was that masked man?

[Budge]

[quote]

That having been said, the use of torture in the middle ages was considered to be part of the justice system. I'm not saying torture is right or wrong, I'm just saying that it was accepted practice in secular courts as well as religious ones[/quote]

Do you believe torture is right or wrong?

I believe it is totally wrong.

by the way I am consistent against my viewpoints, I have disagreed with neo-con types who have supported the use of torture right on my board.


[quote]. If anything, the inquisitions had more legal protections in place against torture than did the secular authorities. In fact, the first torture you described, with the hands being raised behind the back is called the strappado. It was used on Dante, of Inferno fame, by the secular authorities of his Italian city state. Secondly, it's important to note that torture, even in this case, has a purpose - to elicit a confession[/quote]

Does any means justicfy the ends.

Also when people are tortured, and this has been proven time and time again, the confession is often anything but truthful.

There were many who through the power of the Holy Spirit did not back down and become martyrs for Christ but many also confessed to end the pain, and torture, even if it was not what they truly believed.

[quote]. The man in charge of the inquisition in this case even promises only a light penance to those who confess. This is how the vast majority of inquisitions were concluded - people confessed to heresy and were let off with a slap on the wrist. Torture, burnings, etc were very rare and usually reserved for people who actually were heretics.[/quote]

So basically its blackmail, confess and give in and your punishment will be less. Basically only those with the courage via the Holy Spirit managed to the very end. The torture and burnings were for those who would not give in. I know one method the Inquisition used to ferret out heretics, was for them to announce belief in the wafer as being Jesus Christ.

[quote]I think what you're doing is picking and choosing negative sources to bias the audience.[/quote]

There is plenty of negative sources out there, I even posted copies of Torquemadas manual. I wish I could translate Medieval Spanish, there would be a wealth of information to be found. But even there I find the recent development of the push to deny, deflect and diminishment the horrors of the Inquisition to be unsettling.

[quote] You see, you could do the same thing with a modern American source on our criminal justice system. There are plenty of allegations of torture, false imprisonment, wrongful execution, etc. But, by and large, most people wouldn't consider the American justice system cruel or unfair. Perhaps in seven hundred years, people will.[/quote]

One thing you must be careful of, is dont assume every Bible Christian you talk to is a neo-con supporter. I have gone to battle with those defending torture right on my own message board. I do not believe in secret camps, torture, water boarding even if done by Americans. I believe there is a lot that is wrong in the American justice system and that many in America have lost the love for the prisoner that Christ mandated {did you visit me in prison?}

If any of you read Mark Shea's blog, I AGREE with him about the AMERICAN TORTURE debate course I wish Shea would examine the history of his own church a bit closer}

[Justified Saint]

Does not history prove that what is one day considered acceptable is the next day considered immoral? Read some of the OT and see if you think we should do everything the way they did.

If we follow Budge's reasoning then we would have to condemn Jesus for not leading slave rebellions.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Budge' post='1107330' date='Nov 1 2006, 09:37 AM']
Do you believe torture is right or wrong?

I believe it is totally wrong.

by the way I am consistent against my viewpoints, I have disagreed with neo-con types who have supported the use of torture right on my board.
Does any means justicfy the ends.

Also when people are tortured, and this has been proven time and time again, the confession is often anything but truthful.

There were many who through the power of the Holy Spirit did not back down and become martyrs for Christ but many also confessed to end the pain, and torture, even if it was not what they truly believed.
So basically its blackmail, confess and give in and your punishment will be less. Basically only those with the courage via the Holy Spirit managed to the very end. The torture and burnings were for those who would not give in. I know one method the Inquisition used to ferret out heretics, was for them to announce belief in the wafer as being Jesus Christ.
There is plenty of negative sources out there, I even posted copies of Torquemadas manual. I wish I could translate Medieval Spanish, there would be a wealth of information to be found. But even there I find the recent development of the push to deny, deflect and diminishment the horrors of the Inquisition to be unsettling.
One thing you must be careful of, is dont assume every Bible Christian you talk to is a neo-con supporter. I have gone to battle with those defending torture right on my own message board. I do not believe in secret camps, torture, water boarding even if done by Americans. I believe there is a lot that is wrong in the American justice system and that many in America have lost the love for the prisoner that Christ mandated {did you visit me in prison?}

If any of you read Mark Shea's blog, I AGREE with him about the AMERICAN TORTURE debate course I wish Shea would examine the history of his own church a bit closer}
[/quote]

Right well, I certainly respect your anti-torture stance. However, my point is simply that medieval people didn't have the same kinds of standards that most modern people do in regards to torture. That's not to say that nobody questioned it or that it was okay - rather it was simply the generally accepted common practice in judicial proceedings. As to the truthful confession part, the medieval people agreed with you. One of the rules of most inquisitions was that any confession elicited under torture had to be verified without threat of torture.

As to the whole blackmail thing - you're kind of wrong. When the inquisition was directed against common villagers, as it was in France in the 13th century, most people confessed everything they knew to get off with a light penance - not because of blackmail, but because they didn't have any theological training whatsoever, and they didn't know what to believe. I've heard some really weird beliefs espoused by French villagers in inquisition texts. The inquisitors usually hear their completely unchristian doctrines in shock, and then tell them that they're wrong. At that point, the villagers generally say something to the effect of "Oh, my bad." The only time there really was a blackmail element is when they ran up against someone who really believed he knew what was what - a heretic.

In my university medieval history classes, we would always play a game - using medieval Catholic beliefs, was the inquisition justified? And, inevitably, every year, everyone agrees that inquisitions were justified. (This is the University of California, Santa Barbara. It is NOT a conservative or christian school). Why? Well, following medieval catholic logic, if you aren't Catholic then you're going to hell. So if that's true, then the Church has a responsibility to protect people from going to hell by converting them to Catholicism, and making sure they're truly Catholic. In Catholic theology, this life is transient, hell is forever. So, therefore, it made a great deal of sense to establish inquisitions in order to ensure that the faithful were really faithful, and in order to root out heretics. By medieval catholic standards (and probably current ones) heretics were much worse than murderers because they murder people's souls, and people's hope of heaven. There is simply no getting around it. If you believe that your religion is the only correct religion and that those outside of it go to Hell, you do not simply have an excuse to perform inquisitions and root out heresy - you have a duty to do it in order to protect others. You may read evil motives into it wherever you like, Budge, and I have no doubt in some cases the inquisition was abused. However, by the standards of medieval catholic thought, the inquisition was completely justifiable.

[cmotherofpirl]

We cannot judge the past by our current standards of behavior, I am sure they would be scandalized by us.