You’re right
it was all just a misunderstanding
and those dismemberments, it was all a response to a domestic oversight
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.