Posted on 10/12/2014 3:22:48 PM PDT by Heart-Rest
We do not recall these instances of anti-Catholicism to foster more animosity or violence, but recall them as part of our history, a history that, like so many others, included the targeting of ethnic and religious groups for persecution.
From left to right—Bishop John Hughes, New York, 1844; cartoon from Anti-Catholic book published by the Ku Klux Klan, 1926; Burning of St. Augustine Church, Philadelphia, 1844; Fr. James Coyle, Birmingham Alabama, murdered, 1921.
You have, no doubt, heard the children’s rhyme: “Sticks and stones may break my bones / But names will never hurt me.” That is not exactly true. For in the history of the Church in America, Catholics have been wounded by both physical violence and hate speech. This article will examine episodes of violence against American Catholics, considering the sticks and stones, the broken bones, and the words that encouraged such violence.
If the presence of anti-Catholic violence in American history is unknown to many, it is for good reason. We as Catholics do not usually like to talk about being a minority; we do not like to talk about persecution. For generations, our immigrant ancestors and their descendants fought to be considered “100% American,” not “hyphenated” Americans: Irish-American, German-American, Polish-American, or Italian-American. We Catholics have spent decades trying to assimilate into “White, Anglo Saxon, Protestant” (“WASP”) America and have, consequently, downplayed our distinctiveness. We wanted to fit in, and to achieve the American dream—to get good jobs, get a college education, and move to the suburbs.
In considering some episodes of anti-Catholicism, it should be noted that not all violence against Catholics was motivated exclusively by religion. In many cases, religious misunderstanding blended with nativism, and xenophobia, to bring about a toxic reaction to the United States’ Catholic newcomers. Consequently, anti-Catholic groups—that included the Know-Nothing party, the American Protective Association, and the Ku Klux Klan—espoused a form of bigotry, both religious and racially/ethnically motivated.
It should also be acknowledged that most manifestations of anti-Catholicism have not been violent. Much of anti-Catholicism in this country from the 18th century to today was more or less implicit: Protestants considered Catholics “the other.” Protestants often didn’t have Catholic friends, they (and Catholics!) frowned on Catholic-Protestant marriages, and non-Catholics refused to hire or promote Catholic workers. Other times, anti-Catholicism was muted, but real; non-Catholics questioned whether Catholics were even Christians, calling the Church the “Whore of Babylon” (of Revelation 17), and considered the pope the “Anti-Christ,” or taught unequivocally that all Catholics go to hell.
Other times, anti-Catholicism was more overt. In colonial times, laws forbade Catholics from voting, becoming lawyers, and teachers. Catholics, even in Maryland, which had at first tolerated them, demanded a “double tax” on Catholic property; parents could even be fined for sending their children to Europe to be educated as Catholics. The propagation of anti-Catholic ideas manifested itself in various ways: in newspapers, books, and pamphlets, in sermons, in laws, in popular discussion and debate, and, occasionally, in violence and property destruction.
The examples of violence that follow are admittedly among the most pronounced and outrageous forms of anti-Catholicism, but we should not be led to believe that anti-Catholicism was only the experience of a few. As a corrective, it is important to remember that in the 19th century, Catholic-Protestant debates and discussions, often acrimonious, took center stage. They were on everyone’s mind. When the anti-Catholic novel, Maria Monk’s Awful Disclosure—supposedly written by a former nun, telling stories of affairs between priests and nuns, and the murder of the children they conceived—was published in 1836, it became a near overnight sensation. By the start of the Civil War, it had sold 300,000 copies. Historians of this era claim it was among the most widely distributed book in America prior to the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the popular anti-slavery book.
Anti-Catholic violence has taken the form of protest against Catholics who were taking their place in the public square. Catholics, it was feared, could subvert the American Republic, especially its democratic processes, and its “public” schools. When Franciscan priests and brothers first came to Cincinnati, Ohio, from Austria in 1844, onlookers did not know what to think of them, walking through the streets in their brown habits. But some recognized them immediately as “Catholic monks,” potential anti-American subversives. In his journal, one of the first Franciscans in Cincinnati, Fr. William Unterthiner, described the animosity directed at Catholics, especially priests, in mid-1840s Cincinnati:
The Protestants here are even worse (than in other places in the U.S.); so goes the protest. Today … some people threw wooden sticks at us, and cursed us (as we walked down the street). It is certainly true that a person is free to choose one, or even no religion, but one would still be very mistaken if he believed that Catholics are allowed to live unhindered.
As Catholic immigration increased throughout the 1840s and 1850s, concern mounted that Catholics were taking over America’s public schools—an attempt that would eliminate the Bible (particularly the King James version) from everyday classroom use. The challenge offered by Catholics to “public” schools, that were de facto Protestant schools, brought Catholics and Protestants into frequent conflict.
The so-called “Eliot School Rebellion,” which occurred in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1859, proves a dramatic example. The state law that required the Ten Commandments to be recited (always using the King James Bible) in every classroom every morning, pitted Catholics, who viewed non-Catholics’ Bibles as false translations, against Protestant teachers, parents, and schoolmates. Ten-year-old Thomas Whall, a Catholic, was asked to take his turn leading the recitation of the Ten Commandments. When Whall refused because of his Catholic faith (and his desire to only read from the Douay-Rheims translation, an approved Catholic translation), he was disciplined. Whall had been urged by his parish priest not to recite Protestant prayers, nor read from the King James Bible.
A few days later, when Whall refused again, his teacher struck him with a rattan stick for half an hour until he was bleeding; he refused to give in, and his fellow Catholic classmates cheered him on. The school’s principal demanded that Catholic children, who refused to recite the commandments, leave the school; hundreds left in protest. The “rebellion” helped extend the parochial school system in Massachusetts. Within a year, a Catholic school was established in Whall’s parish with an enrollment of over 1,000.
Not all anti-Catholic violence was physical. Sometimes it resulted in the destruction of property. These episodes represent the ferocity of anti-Catholic violence, though without physical assault or loss of life.
In 1834, an anti-Catholic mob burned the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, near Boston. The convent school there educated primarily upper-class Protestant girls, and worries of the Protestant elites’ attraction to Catholicism festered. This, together with the rumor of an Ursuline sister being held in the convent against her will, and the anti-Catholic preaching of Rev. Lyman Beecher, father of Harriet Beecher Stowe, incited a riot.
An angry mob gathered outside the convent, calling for the release of the sister, but the Ursuline mother superior threatened the crowd: “The Bishop has 20,000 of the vilest Irishmen at his command, and you may read your riot act till your throats are sore, but you’ll not quell them.” The crowd broke down doors and windows to enter the convent, and began to ransack the buildings. The sisters and their students rushed out the back of the convent, and hid in the garden. At about midnight, the rioters set fire to the building, burning it to the ground. Of the 13 men arrested and charged with arson, all but one was acquitted. The governor pardoned him in response to a petition signed by 5,000 Bostonians. Distrust of sisters in convents led eventually to a number of state legislatures proposing “convent inspection laws,” authorizing the warrantless searches of Catholic buildings—convents, monasteries, rectories, and churches—for weaponry, and for young women supposedly seduced into the convent and held against their will.
In 1844, two Catholic churches were burned in Philadelphia after it was rumored Catholics were insisting on the removal of the Bible from public schools. The same scene might have been repeated in New York City, but New York’s Bishop, John Hughes, warned: “If a single Catholic church is burned in New York, the city would become a second Moscow,” a reference to the 1812 burning of Moscow in which its own citizens set fire to the city as Napoleon’s soldiers closed in.
In 1854, as the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., was being constructed, nine men, associated with the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing party, sneaked up to the base of the monument to steal a stone that had been engraved “Rome to America.” The stone, which was to have been placed inside the monument, along with other stones given as gifts from foreign governments, had been shipped from the Vatican. The men carried the stone to a boat waiting at the tidal basin, smashed it into pieces, and dumped it in the middle of the Potomac River. For them, the stone indicated the threat of the Catholic Church’s takeover of the U.S. government, a much talked about, but very unlikely, threat. The identity of the conspirators was shrouded in mystery; no one was ever convicted of the crime. In 1982, a replica of the stone, given by a priest from Spokane, Washington, was installed in the monument by the National Park Service.
The attack on the Shrine of Our Lady of Juan del Valle in San Juan, Texas, provides a final, modern example. In 1970, a non-denominational preacher intentionally flew a small airplane into the church while Mass was being celebrated. No one was injured except the kamikaze pilot who died. While the overall property loss was estimated at $1.5 million, many believed it a miracle that no one else was hurt or died in the tragedy. A new shrine was dedicated in 1980 where the previous church had stood.
Infrequently, physical violence and death were the consequence of anti-Catholicism. In 1853, Pope Pius IX sent Archbishop Gaetano Bedini to visit the U.S. and report back to him on the state of the Catholic Church in America. Because many U.S. Protestants viewed the pope as sinister, and as an enemy of freedom, they blamed his representative.
In Cincinnati, hundreds of protesters marched towards the cathedral where Bedini was staying, carrying signs, a scaffold, and an effigy of the archbishop. The signs read “Down with Bedini!”; “No Priests, No Kings”; and “Down with the Papacy!” Fearing an attack on the residence, the police attempted to turn back the demonstrators. In the ensuing melee, one protester was killed, 15 were wounded, and 63 were arrested. Most of the city’s residents supported the protesters, blaming the police for exercising brutality. Those who had been arrested were released, the charges were dropped, and an investigation of the police commenced. As Bedini continued to tour the country, violent disturbances erupted in Cleveland, Louisville, Baltimore, Boston, and New York. Fearing further violence in New York, Bedini was secretly transported by way of a rowboat to the steamship on which he would depart for Europe.
Not long after Bedini returned to Italy, anti-Catholic mob violence struck Louisville, Kentucky. In an incident known as “Bloody Monday” (August 6, 1855), concern about Catholic influence over the electoral process contributed to a mob attack on Irish Catholic neighborhoods, resulting in 22 deaths, scores of injuries, and widespread property destruction. Five people were later indicted; none was convicted.
Religious and racial prejudice combined in the deep South, resulting in the murder of a priest in 1921. Father James Coyle, priest of Birmingham, Alabama, was shot and killed on his rectory front porch. Coyle had performed the wedding of a recent convert to Catholicism, the daughter of a Methodist minister and Ku Klux Klan member, to a Puerto Rican Catholic man. The Methodist minister’s daughter had become interested in Catholicism as a young girl; she converted at age 18 and was received into the Catholic faith by Father Coyle. Only a few months later, Coyle witnessed the girl’s marriage. When her father found out about the clandestine wedding, he confronted Coyle and shot him. The minister was charged with the priest’s murder, but was acquitted by a jury who found him not guilty by reason of insanity. In 2012, Bishop William H. Willimon of the United Methodist Church presided over a service of reconciliation and forgiveness in Birmingham, asking for forgiveness for the role his church had played in the death of Father Coyle.
In recent years the threat of anti-Catholic violence has surrounded fidelity to the Church’s teaching on marriage and family life. In 2002, Mary Stachowicz, the parish secretary of now Bishop, Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, was raped and murdered. Her killer stated to police that he attacked Stachowicz after she confronted him about his gay lifestyle. Bishop Paprocki, in public addresses on the Church’s approach to same sex attraction, relates the story of his former secretary’s murder in order to condemn all forms of violence based on bigotry. He feels compelled to speak about this form of anti-Catholic violence because it has been almost completely ignored by the media. Bishop Paprocki notes:
A Google search on the Internet for the name “Matthew Shepard” at one time produced 11.9 million results. Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old college student who was savagely beaten to death in 1998 in Wyoming. His murder has been called a hate crime because Shepard was gay. A similar search on the Internet for the name “Mary Stachowicz” yielded 26,800 results.
Mary Stachowicz was also brutally murdered, also the victim of a hate crime, yet, her death went unnoticed. Perhaps, this is a signal that, as in the past, various forms of anti-Catholic violence are still viewed by some as acceptable, or at least, not worthy of notice.
Why examine these episodes of hate? Why not let them remain hidden in scarcely-read tomes of Catholic history? We do not recall these instances of anti-Catholicism to foster more animosity or violence, but recall them as part of our history, a history that, like so many others, included the targeting of ethnic and religious groups for persecution. Though the Church is often seen in overblown narratives as a perpetrator of violence, responsible for the horrors of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust, the Church has also been afflicted by violence motivated by religion. If history teaches us anything, it is that the memory of the past is so often selective.
Yet, this discussion should not end by recalling the role of religious belief in contributing to violence, but should remember the role of religious faith in promoting love. Fundamental to the Church’s teaching is the importance of humanity’s dignity as sons and daughters of the Creator. Violence, if even partly motivated by religion, contradicts what St. John taught us about God—“God is love” (1 Jn 4:8, 16)—a divine love that humanity is called to mirror and extend.
Just to remind you, Morgana, the “witches” at Salem were hanged not burned. Also, one of them was murdered by having piles of large stones dumped on his body - shades of Islam!
But your point is well-taken!
In America we condemn religious intolerance of all sorts.
Anyone who appropriates victim-hood for their selected religion over another is a despicable anti-American hack.
In America you are Constitutionally free to practice whatever religion you wish - it is this, among other Constitutional rights, that are under assault.
This simple fact has eluded the vast majority of participants on this thread. Stupidity is a human foible and not the exclusive domain of any religion. The proof is on this thread.
The "bashing of Christians" will not stop.It will become far worse and in the end most Christians will really suffer for Jesus.The "god of this world" wants it no other way....and since he has so many trailing him he'll mostly get it.Wherever we are in this world,if we follow Jesus Christ we have a neon bullseye in the middle of our back.
Every believer needs to put on the "helmet of salvation" because our adversary is attacking the minds of God's dear children!
Ephesians 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation..."..... "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" 1 John 5:13
Our adversary is going to sorely test our minds on a scale that few of us could possibly imagine.
2 Peter 1:10 "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall"
If you do not have on that helmet you will fall.
"It will not stop until the bashers leave or shut up. And they won’t because they are ignorant and no matter how many facts you put in front of them, they will never acknowledge or change."
In the end it won't matter will it.You either have that helmet on or you don't.
"Tolerated?" Catholics FOUNDED the colony.
What you said.
All of Christianity is being increasingly opposed (ok -- you didn't put it in those exact words, but practice of religion was under assault, instead ) and to what else you said more besides. Yes.
Who could disagree? ---
uh..."stupid" people, maybe? hahhahaa
One of the best studies on the subject is by Henry Kamen, Professor of History who has taught at numerous U.S. Universities, including UCLA and the Univ. of Chicago. He is a Jewish-British citizen and is currently a research fellow in Spain and his analysis support the fact that the Spanish Inquisition, as understood by most today, is based on urban legends. I suggest folks here at a minimum go to amazon.com and examine his work on the Spanish Inquisition.
I am surprised by the lack of intellectual honesty with some individuals with respect to this subject.
The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1480 in the context of the Spanish Reconquest of their homeland from the Muslim invaders, who had overrun their country in the late 7th century resulting in the longest war in history. The Spanish inquisition was designed to confront Catholic heresy, which was seen as being a threat to the state.
Specifically, it was targeting conversos, i.e. persons who had converted from Islam and/or Judaism for political gain. There is a growing consensus among scholars that indeed many of the conversos lived double lives and conspired with the Moslems during the Spanish Catholics war of reconquest.
It is true that torture as used and some were put to death by the state, if convicted twice which Catholic Historian Warren Carroll, in his Volume 3 of History of Christianity: The Glory of Christendom notes can’t be defended.
However, he notes that torture and being put to death were not unique to Spain. Many Catholic Saints were in fact charged in the inquisition and cleared, including St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, and ST. THeresa of Avila. As Carroll notes (p. 608) in Volume 3 of his work, “The Glory of Christendom”, the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Moslems or Jews, only over professed Christians who were still living as Jews or Moslems.
Shortly after the Spanish Inquisition was commenced in 1480, the war of reconquest of Spain began again as on December 26, 1481, the Moslems attacked Granada. Isabella responded with and all out military effort which finally ended what was a 759 year struggle!!! to to drive the Moslems out. In addition, shortly after the reconquest, Isabella in March 1492 issued a decree to expel all Jews from Spain.
Warren Carroll (p. 681 fn) writes “Much has been made of in recent years of Isabel’s decree in March 1492 expelling all Jews from Castille as showing that she was not always good and just. None but God is always good and just. This was the one definitely unjust act in Isabel’s thirty-three year reign; though some Jewish subjects had been proved to be, or could reasonably be expected to be traitors, and some had been proved by the inquisition to have enticed conversos to betray and blaspheme the Christian Faith, the edict of expulsion covered all without exception, the innocent majority along with guilty minority. Those exiled were not otherwise harshly treated; they were given four months to wind up their affairs and take all they wished with them except precious metal, an their persons were under royal protection throughout that time. Yet, the expulsion was still unjust (See Carrolls Isabel of Spain, pp. 207-210 for more detail).
Selective memory lost of the enemies of the Church omit that the Jews were expelled from France in 1181 and from England in 1290.
It seems, based on the scientific evidence, that many Jews of the times adopted Catholicism and married Spanish Catholics, rather than leave Spain. In summary, the Spanish Inquisition should be seen in the context of the 15th century and in the context of Spain’s 759 year conflict to retake their Land from the Moslem invaders. Further, the Spanish Inquisition was no different from any other courts during its time, and in fact, the criteria for evidence was among the best in the era.
Also, non-Catholic never were tried under the inquisition, so this nonsense that all non-Catholics, which you seem to imply in your post, were wound up and tried in the Spanish Inquisition is more bigotry than fact..
For those that in good faith want to delve on the history of the Inquisition:
DEFENSE OF THE INQUISITION
By Jean-Claude Dupuis
http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm
It's a conspiracy.
All the pro-Romanist articles and comments which are posted on the pages of Free Republic are allowed ---because it's all a big giant conspiracy against Roman Catholicism.
Wow, that was weak. One slight illusion to abuses by both in the distant past. The victim card doesn’t play well here.
Not according to Ilorente.
One of the first cases he mentioned in his own book (and he had been of high rank in the office of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, as it was then known) was of a Lutheran bookbinder.
He makes note elsewhere in his book that more a few "Protestants" were singled out for particularly rough treatment.
Being that he was a high officer, and then for a few years researched and wrote of the entire affair -- being able to access documents which may have later become lost --- his testimony, although himself biased against the Spanish Inquisition and seeking it's demise, is impossible to entirely dismiss, for he is a first order, personal witness.
Of course in my own case, speaking of "helmets" -- there are those around here who would say the phrase nutshell be fitting. ;^')
I get that from those who say they are Christians.
Some adopt the arguments of the atheists, it seems...
When in my own critiques --- I'm usually aiming for certain and particular aspects of "religious" stuff to criticize.
It can be difficult to avoid being thought to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- unless one goes to the effort to make exceptions to criticisms tendered, and acknowledge generalized validity for faith (in Christ) held by others.
With all the rest of the noisiness that is sorted through -- it is easy to forget and/or experience difficulty for finding just the right way to execute that last step.
Yes, I fear we are going to see a lot more hatred and possibly violence.
If this is your best source, there not a single scholar today that give any credibility to Llorente.
In his essay on the Inquisition, French historian, Jean Dumont wrote:
“An event shows that the Inquisition not only envisioned the use of persuasion, but also that of reconciliation and assimilation. This is demonstrated by another important event which took place fifteen to nineteen years later, in 1495-1497. “
“This important episode is the Law of Rehabilitation (habilitation) initiated at that time by the Catholic Kings. By this procedure the monarchs exchanged the modest tax levied on all those condemned by the Inquisition during the course of the preceding 15 to 17 years, for the right to take public office and to ply the trades which had been prohibited to them and their decedents.”
“This general Rehabilitation of 1495-97 was laid out in detail in the archives dealing with the matter. Thus, for Toledo by F. Cantera Burgos, and of Seville by Father Azcona.The reading of these documents is of great interest for they give the names of the condemned, their professions, the reason for their condemnation and the penalties incurred during this initial period, the most rigorous of the Inquisition. One immediately sees that the number of those condemned was far fewer than the number given by the anti-Inquisitorial histories. So much for Seville.”
“One can find here a typical case. Thus, for example, among those rehabilitated in Toledo was a merchant named Juan de Toledo, or Juan Sanchez, the grand-father of St. Teresa of Avila, who despite the fact that he was condemned as a Judaizing converso, was given back all his professional and civil rights which made it possible for him to subsequently hold public office, that of tax-collector of royal and ecclesiastical revenues in Avila. And which further allowed him to see the nobility of his sons officially proclaimed by the chancery of Valladolid. This is a model example of reconciliation and assimilation, especially when one considers the fact that the grand-daughter of this rehabilitated converso was to become one of the glories of Tridentine Catholicism, welcomed with respect and supported by Gaspar de Quiroga, the Inquisitor-general of her epoch.“
“I am happy to know you, for it is something that I greatly desire. Please see me as your chaplain. I will help you in any way necessary... I wish to tell you that some years ago a book of yours was presented to the Inquisition. Its doctrine was examined with great care. I have read the entire book and I maintain that the doctrine is very correct, very true and very profitable... You can take it back whenever you wish. I authorize you [to publish] it as you asked... I ask you to always remember me in your prayers.” The Spanish text is found in the Obras de Santa Theresa by Father Silvero de. S. T., T. I, p. 226: French translation of Marcelle Auclair.”
“But the reader will search in vain for any mention of this general Rehabilitation in the current histories about the Inquisition, even the most recent. “
My first thought was 'trust God' my second thought as I glanced at the mirror was 'that's rich'.
...checking my chin-strap...
But we cannot persuade them with our words; we must pray for God to turn their hearts. So much hatred needs to be driven out.
there is still bashing of Christians here. This has to STOP.
And it comes from the fact that too many people know more than what the bible tells us.
No matter what they say here, it doesn’t change the reality of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
You’re right
it was all just a misunderstanding
and those dismemberments, it was all a response to a domestic oversight
There are pro-Catholic articles? Who knew?
The Inquisition was not born in Spain or in France. Many would be surprised to find out that Moses might have been the first Inquisitor and that the victims were several times more than those that had been falsely attributed to the Spanish Inquisition during its 300 years existence.
Moses established the essentials (although considerably more rigorous) of the Thirteen Century Inquisition according to historian William Thomas Walsh in his book “Characters of the Inquisition”: “If any are suspected of offenses against the revealed truth of God, and Inquiry (Inquisition) is to be set in motion; witchcraft, spiritualism, and superstition, in general are to be included: a conviction may be reached if the testimony of two witnesses is accepted and the death penalty may be inflicted, and in the case of the Hebrews is mandatory.”
Moses dealt with all offenses against the Almighty with great force. Of magicians and soothsayers, of spiritualists, he said: “Dying let them die: they shall stone them; their blood be upon them and if the daughter of a priest was taken in whoredom, she was to be burned to death.” This form of capital punishment was not invented in the Middle Ages. For Moses the only good idolaters were dead idolaters.
In Spain the Inquisition covered only religious crimes or heresies committed by Catholics, regardless if they were Catholics by birth or by conversion. Jews and Muslims were not under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The civil authorities would apply the penalties decreed by the Inquisitors. Ordinary state courts handled the civil and criminal cases.
Like Moses and Pope Gregory IX, the Spanish Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada insisted that at least two witnesses of good repute and apparent sincerity must depose against a person, before a “pesquisa,” or secret preliminary investigation could be set in motion. The complaints had to be in writing, and signed (later on, under oath before a notary). No anonymous complaints were accepted. False accusations were severely punished. One of Torquemada’s courts imposed the death sentence on some Jews who had denounced certain “Conversos” in a spirit of revenge, for offenses of which they were proved to be innocent.”
“A person denounced by two witnesses was then investigated, usually without his knowledge; his past, his reputation, his ancestry, his business affairs, his associates. If “indicios” were found against him that were “clear, certain and specific” (all three were necessary) a process was begun, and he was either summoned before a court, or, if his flight seemed likely, arrested. He could be kept in prison only (1) if five witnesses, with satisfactory proofs, testified against him; (2) with the agreement of the Bishop, the Inquisitors and the fiscal, after the “calificadores” had decided that the statements involved were heretical; (3) by a decree of the Bishop, under certain conditions. In any case, the approval of the Supreme Council had to be had before a man could be imprisoned. Finally, two doctors examined him, as to his mental condition.
The prisoner must have a hearing within three days after his arrest. He appeared before he judges, swore to tell the truth, was informed of the charges against him and the grounds for it, and urged to confess and be reconciled. If he refused, he had another hearing after ten days. A third session was granted if he was still obstinate. After that the interrogatory began.
Torquemada’s instructions were that in this “interrogatory” the Inquisitors were to be “cautious, circumspect and charitable,” and to seek nothing but the truth. During the questioning, there must be present, as defenders of the accused, two ecclesiastical persons, and not members of the court. After four days his statement was read to him. He could make any corrections he desired, and has as many hearings as he requested.
When the questioning concluded, the Fiscal presented his proofs to the Inquisitors, and asked for judgement according to the law. The accusation, from beginning to end, was then read again to the accused, with a pause after each article for his reply, while the notary wrote down what he said.
The accused was allowed counsel and the Holy Office had to pay the cost, if the defendant was poor. If he named none, the Court appointed a learned man of good reputation, who took an oath to defend him with zeal, loyalty, Impartiality and good faith. The attorney for the defense had access to the minutes of the trial, could rebut the accusations of the Fiscal, disqualify witnesses, ask for new information or hearings, and a full access to the accused, who also could see copies of the process, although the names of the witnesses were withheld from him. He could, however, mention all his enemies, and all that had a motive to injure him, and the Inquisitors must take this into consideration.
Unfortunately, torture, a staple of the times, was used, and ironically, Torquemada, in spite of all the falsehoods raised against him, tried to limit and mitigate it. He made clear that it was not to be used as a means of punishment but to obtain absolute proof of was already established beyond a reasonable doubt; that is to say, there must already be proof “semiplena” against the accused; he must have contradicted himself in serious matters, his bad faith must be evident, or there must be an overwhelming preponderance of witnesses against him. In order to recur to torture it was necessary a decree of the Fiscal and the “consultores” and the approval of the bishop of the diocese and the visa of the Supreme Council.
If all these citizens agreed that the accused should be subjected to torture, physicians to make sure that his physical condition would permit examined him. A doctor must be present when the torture was applied, and at his command it must be stopped.
In those times Catholics were dismembered roped to the legs of four horses during Elizabeth I and James I of England rule without any kind of legal advise or protection. Those were barbaric time when the English monarchs were granted the privilege to divorce by beheading their wives.
Meanwhile, the Islamic sword was menacing the very survival of Christian Europe. Christians were slain or kept under slavery by the Islamic Crescent by the tens of thousands.
We are witnessing in the Islamic world today the worst traits of the Middle Ages. In most of the Islamic countries those accused of preaching the Gospels are summarily condemned to death. Women were better treated by the cave men that under the fundamentalist Islamic regimes. You cannot equate the moral and civilization standards of the XXI century with those prevailing on the XV and XVI centuries. Unfortunately the Islamic fundamentalists want to take the world back to the Middle Ages by the use of terror. In fact, the Spanish Inquisition could be considered enlightened if compared with the Islamic justice as applied in some Muslim countries today.
“And we can note that anti-Catholicism is alive and well on the web.”
Especially on FR. :-)
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.