The Real Inquisition: Investigating the popular myth.

National Review Online ^ | June 18, 2004 | Thomas F. Madden

[xsysmgr]

When the sins of the Catholic Church are recited (as they so often are) the Inquisition figures prominently. People with no interest in European history know full well that it was led by brutal and fanatical churchmen who tortured, maimed, and killed those who dared question the authority of the Church. The word "Inquisition" is part of our modern vocabulary, describing both an institution and a period of time. Having one of your hearings referred to as an "Inquisition" is not a compliment for most senators.

But in recent years the Inquisition has been subject to greater investigation. In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition's (the institution's) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed. As one headline read "Vatican Downsizes Inquisition."

The amazed gasps and cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

During the 13th century the Inquisition became much more formalized in its methods and practices. Highly trained Dominicans answerable to the Pope took over the institution, creating courts that represented the best legal practices in Europe. As royal authority grew during the 14th century and beyond, control over the Inquisition slipped out of papal hands and into those of kings. Instead of one Inquisition there were now many. Despite the prospect of abuse, monarchs like those in Spain and France generally did their best to make certain that their inquisitions remained both efficient and merciful. During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands.

Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened. Why then are people in general and the press in particular so surprised to discover that the Inquisition did not barbecue people by the millions? First of all, when most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition. After 1530, however, the Spanish Inquisition began to turn its attention to the new heresy of Lutheranism. It was the Protestant Reformation and the rivalries it spawned that would give birth to the myth.

By the mid 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Europe's Protestant areas, including the Netherlands, northern Germany, and England, may not have been as militarily mighty, but they did have a potent new weapon: the printing press. Although the Spanish defeated Protestants on the battlefield, they would lose the propaganda war. These were the years when the famous "Black Legend" of Spain was forged. Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil.

Protestant propaganda that took aim at the Spanish Inquisition drew liberally from the Black Legend. But it had other sources as well. From the beginning of the Reformation, Protestants had difficulty explaining the 15-century gap between Christ's institution of His Church and the founding of the Protestant churches. Catholics naturally pointed out this problem, accusing Protestants of having created a new church separate from that of Christ. Protestants countered that their church was the one created by Christ, but that it had been forced underground by the Catholic Church. Thus, just as the Roman Empire had persecuted Christians, so its successor, the Roman Catholic Church, continued to persecute them throughout the Middle Ages. Inconveniently, there were no Protestants in the Middle Ages, yet Protestant authors found them there anyway in the guise of various medieval heretics. In this light, the medieval Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to crush the hidden, true church. The Spanish Inquisition, still active and extremely efficient at keeping Protestants out of Spain, was for Protestant writers merely the latest version of this persecution. Mix liberally with the Black Legend and you have everything you need to produce tract after tract about the hideous and cruel Spanish Inquisition. And so they did.

In time, Spain's empire would fade away. Wealth and power shifted to the north, in particular to France and England. By the late 17th century new ideas of religious tolerance were bubbling across the coffeehouses and salons of Europe. Inquisitions, both Catholic and Protestant, withered. The Spanish stubbornly held on to theirs, and for that they were ridiculed. French philosophes like Voltaire saw in Spain a model of the Middle Ages: weak, barbaric, superstitious. The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance. A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.

Now a bit more of the real Inquisition has come back into view. The question remains, will anyone take notice?

— Thomas F. Madden is professor and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. He is the author most recently of Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice and editor of the forthcoming Crusades: The Illustrated History.

[RobbyS]

The saying is that in the long run we are all dead. Toynbee is no long fashionable, but if history tells us anything, it is that civilizations are born, thrive and then die. We today have a rather interconnected world and if we do play our cards right they were may indeed have that global civilization that Star Trek projected. But we also learn from history that we never know what cards we will be dealt next, and from history there never survives enough evidence to tell us what "really" happened to make a civilization collapse. The historical evidence is spotty. We know less about Third Century Rome than we do about First Century BC Rome. We know almost nothing about Phillip the Fair, a major French king. As much as we know about the Civil War, we know next to nothing about the dynamics of Congress, because we know next to nothing about the men who sat in that Congress. History is a vast jigsaw puzzle, which makes sense only if we move far enough away from it.

[RobbyS]

Madden is only trying to correct the "historical record." There is no doubt that the Spanish Conquest had many bad effects on the Indians. But just to put matters into perspective, if you meet a Mexican, he is very likely to have an Indian Face. The Spaniards intermarried with the Indians, so that the Mexican Revolutionaries boasted of having recreated an "Indian" state. Servitude and disease decimated the Mexican population, so that the Spanish census of 1600 recorded only 1 million people. Today their number exceeds100 million and the great majority are Indian or mixed-blood. We all know what happened in Anglo-America.

[RobbyS]

Joan was rehabilitaed because in the end the French won that war.

[Havoc]

Even within Christianity they have done so

No. I will repeat, there is much out there claiming to be Christianity which is in no way related other than on it's appearances. Let's use our brains for a second, shall we. If McDonalds were so successful that other outfits began emulating them and saying they were fast food joints, they would be fast food joints. What then if some of them started saying they were McDonalds and started doing all sort of things in the name of McDonalds which McDonalds didn't approve of.. Did McDonalds change - or did a bunch of disruptors acting in McDonalds' name present an image of change. Therein is the revealing of the lie and your misconception. Christianity has NOT changed. But a bunch of people with their own agendas have been working at Hijacking Christianity since it started - The new Testament tells us in the words of Paul that it was happening even then - and it hasn't stopped since then. Christianity hasn't changed a whit; but, the disruptors have had a field day making a mockery of it by their own actions. God is not mocked and all of them will have their day in court.. including Rome who has been at the head of them all for making a mockery of God's word.

Do others have different interpretations, sure. Nobody denies that. The pharisees had different interpretations too - they weren't Christians either. The judaizers were Christians who added the law and circumcision to the Gospel - just those two things.. They were Christians; but, because they added to the Gospel - the Christian message which now makes up our new testament - Paul said they are accursed. What does that make outfits who have added far more. It isn't rocket science; but because people treat God like Santa clause and religion like a social club, nobody really takes it seriously - afterall, it's just religion... You'll have your body for 70 years give or take and God willing. Your soul you'll have for eternity. That means we have to take belief a little more seriously than the decision of what color socks to wear today.

Rome has added so much to scripture that the volume of it written out and compared would far dwarf the Bible. Weigh that next to the law which is a small section of the first 2/3 of the bible and circumcision. Hmm. Accursed according to Paul, and thusly according to me. The Catholic people are my neighbors. I don't find that loving my neighbor includes lying to them to make them feel better about following lies. They deserve better than that and as it happens Christ requires it of me. It isn't much use to know the truth if you don't tell it. And part of that truth is that Christianity is pretty simple and straight forward. It is unchanging and so too is God. If you had a better perspective of it, you'd know that what you've said so far is so off base it isn't even funny.

[Havoc]

On this judging thing, didn't Christ authorize his disciples to judge the sinfulness of men? My recollection is that the authority was unconstrained.

Do you know scripture? Where on earth did you get this from? Wait, let me guess. You subscribe to the Catholic notion that Binding and loosing Gave the Apostles the right to stand in Mortal judgement over the sins of men after Christ had taught them to the contrary of this... That isn't in scripture.. any way shape or form. Furthermore, Binding and loosing per it's Judaic application (that's right, it is a Judaic term, not something drempt up in Chrisitianity) is a judicial term referring to the understanding of God's word. Beyond that, it is interpretive and only legislative to the extent of clarifying what is already there - not adding what is not. IE Rome may allow liberal judges to legislate from the bench; but, God does not. That was one of the big issues God had with the Pharisees and Saducees and he didn't come down here to die for us so he could correct it by letting it go on any further. He came down here to put a stop to that nonsense. It's not wise to edit God. When you speak or Do and God has not spoken or said to do, you're on Dangerous Ground - usually with a lion and donkey standing next to you!

[Havoc]

Right. Exactly right. Rome pronounced her a heretic and turned her over to be executed. And when Rome later felt the egg oozing down, political expediency required that the story change to hide the error. This is called playing both sides of the issue so you look good to two crowds while hoping nobody catches on.. Only Rome could out-Clinton Clinton. But then they were doing it long before Bill came along.

[Polybius]

Right. Exactly right. Rome pronounced her a heretic and turned her over to be executed. And when Rome later felt the egg oozing down, political expediency required that the story change to hide the error.

Joan was captured by the troops of the Duke of Burgundy who was waging war, in alliance with England, against the French King and the rest of France.

Joan was tried under the jurisdiction of Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, a partisan of the Burgundian party.

The Bishop of Beauvais' authority was invoked because Compiègne, where Joan was captured, lay in the Diocese of Beauvais. However, since Beauvais was in French hands, the trial was held at Rouen.

Could you document for us how England, the Duke of Burgundy waging war against the French King and the Burgundian partisan Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, merit the title of "Rome".

If the English, the rebellious Duke of Burgundy and his partisan Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, represented "Rome", what did the French King Charles VII and the rest of France that was loyal to the French King represent?

[OLD REGGIE]

And you are saying that the execution of heretics, as defined by the Church, could not be a good thing. Since the reason for the execution of heretics was to protect civil society, then I say it would depend on what danger the heretics presented to society. You think that heresy can never be a crime under any circumstances. I think this is a delusion.

How many "heretics" as defined by the "Church" were not guilty of any "crime" at all? How many "heretics" were mistakenly executed? Has the Pope found it necessary to apologize for those executions?

Yes, I am saying it was never a "good" thing for the "Church" to decide who would be executed for "heresy".

You think that heresy can never be a crime under any circumstances.

A "heretic" may be a criminal but the execution of a person for the "crime" of heresy is the product of a sick society.

Do you think it would be proper today for the RCC to declare who is a "heretic" and "dangerous to society"? Do you think it proper to execute these "heretics"?

[hosepipe]

A book Olin that details the subject. Written expressly for the purpose to derail revisionist propaganda.. Quite A Read this little tome no matter your affiliation.. John Foxe knew revisionist history would happen, evidently..

A Link to Foxe's Book of Christian Martyrs
http://www.reformed.org/books/fox/fox_martyrs.html

[edsheppa]

Yes, all of that is true but does not detract from my point. Particular civilizations fall but others rise. The historical evidence is not so spotty that we cannot see that progress has occurred. And it is not just technological but social too. Not only do we have law but the presumption that it applies to all equally. Rights are not just for the elite. The consent of the governed is expected. Slavery is generally abhorred.

No doubt your reply will list the social ills that bedevil us still. I view them as opportunities for improvement.

Probably we don't have more to say to each other without becoming tediously repetitive. Feel free to have the last word.

[GoLightly]

Pierre Cauchon was elevated to authority by Rome, not Burgandy & not England. Joan was convicted by of heresy by an ecclesiastical court, not a secular court.

If the English,

The Norman French (English) had more "French" holdings, through direct descendancy from their "French" ancestors than the other crowned head of France, Charles VII. Who was named as heir to the French throne by Charles VII's father?

the rebellious Duke of Burgundy and his partisan Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, represented "Rome", what did the French King Charles VII and the rest of France that was loyal to the French King represent?

Joan was examined in Portiers at the beginning everything & so it can be said that Rome was on the side of Charles VII too. At the trial reversing Joan's conviction, who/what was found at fault?

[Havoc]

I'll answer your question; but, with a caveat - Who determined that Joad was a heretic. Even the movies which the Catholics here about herald don't try to obscure as you just have, who's role that was. So, who deemed Joan a Heretic and turned her over to the civil authority for burning?

Right, that was the office of the Inquisition which happens to represent most directly - ROME. Rome found it in it's power to threaten people with excommunication followed by the charge of heresy for not putting an avowed heretic to death if so charged to do so; but, when it comes to someone Rome now wishes to say was not only innocent; but, rather a saint - Rome's power evaporates before our eyes and we are to believe they had none and could do nothing. Poppycock!
Rome was complicit in putting this woman to death and then raises to sainthood a woman they themselves had part in martyring. Incidentally, this is precisely why Christ removed from men the authority to stand in mortal judgement over the soul of another.. mortal judgement - cause you don't know what that person's heart holds nor what God is capable of doing with that person later if they live. What does scripture say about destroying the temple of the living God?

[Polybius]

I'll answer your question; but, with a caveat - Who determined that Joad was a heretic. Even the movies which the Catholics here about herald don't try to obscure as you just have, who's role that was. So, who deemed Joan a Heretic and turned her over to the civil authority for burning? Right, that was the office of the Inquisition which happens to represent most directly - ROME.

The actions Office of the Inquisition in the rebellious Duchy of Burgandy during a civil war with the King of France represents "Rome" just as the actions of the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court represent "Washington".

The verdicts of the Ninth Circuit Court are very frequently overturned by the Supreme Court in Washington.

Once the English were driven out of Roen and the transcripts of the trail became available, the presiding Inquisitor, Jean Bréhal, ruled that the original trial had been tainted by fraud, illegal procedures and politically motivated intimidation of witnesses and it's verdict was overturned.

[RobbyS]

How many "heretics" as defined by the "Church" were not guilty of any "crime" at all? How many "heretics" were mistakenly executed? Has the Pope found it necessary to apologize for those executions?

How many innocent persons today are wrongly executed?

Yes, I am saying it was never a "good" thing for the "Church" to decide who would be executed for "heresy".

The Church was deciding who was guilty of heresy and sentencing them.

You think that heresy can never be a crime under any circumstances.A "heretic" may be a criminal but the execution of a person for the "crime" of heresy is the product of a sick society.

Has it occured to you that heresy may be a symptom of such "sickness?" Heresy is not necessarily the same as dissent. Dissent stays with the bounds permitted by society, heresy does not, and has as its chief aim the transformation of social norms. Dangerous heretics are not content to hold their beliefs privately and promote schism. I am suggesting that heresy should be suppressed if it is likely to forment civil war.

Do you think it would be proper today for the RCC to declare who is a "heretic" and "dangerous to society"? Do you think it proper to execute these "heretics"?

It would not be proper today because we live in a very different society We observe, however, that even free speech and free exercise of religion in a civil society are limited, and that the limits are determined by the ideology of the elites of our society. Mormonism was literally proscribed by our government because it taught polygamy, and Utah was not accepted into the Union under the Mormons gave up that particular heresy. Polygamy was a crime and was defined as such by the Congress. But why was it considered to be wrong? Because the Christian churches--all of them--taught this. All we need do is to read the Reynolds case to see that your notion that the suppression of this heresy is not different in principle to the supression of Catharism. The difference is that the coersive power of the United States was strong enough to suppress this heresy without a "crusade "

[Polybius]

Polygamy was a crime and was defined as such by the Congress. But why was it considered to be wrong? Because the Christian churches--all of them--taught this.

Actually polygamy was unconstitutional.

It fell under the "cruel and unsual punishment" clause. ;-)

[OLD REGGIE]

The difference is that the coersive power of the United States was strong enough to suppress this heresy without a "crusade "

The difference is that the United States isn't controlled by a powerful, arrogant Church.

By your standards I am a heretic. Would you have me silenced?

[OLD REGGIE]

Once the English were driven out of Roen and the transcripts of the trail became available, the presiding Inquisitor, Jean Bréhal, ruled that the original trial had been tainted by fraud, illegal procedures and politically motivated intimidation of witnesses and it's verdict was overturned.

Did it take 25 years to drive the English out of Roen? Why do you bother with your empty excuses? The trial was presided over by The Bishop of Beauvis, Pierre Cauchon, hardly an Englishman. Speaking of "errors". Was the conviction of Pope Honorius for Heresy ever overturned?

[perform_to_strangers]

Thomas Aquinas had no great difficulty with the definition. "...and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death."

If Thomas Aquinas had understood "to exterminate" to mean "to kill," why would he bother to add "from the world by death?"

[Polybius]

Did it take 25 years to drive the English out of Roen? Why do you bother with your empty excuses? The trial was presided over by The Bishop of Beauvis, Pierre Cauchon, hardly an Englishman.

The lengthy re-trial process was initiated shortly after the English were driven out of Roen.

As to the fact that the Bishop of Beauvis, Pierre Cauchon, was "a Frenchman", you fail to note that Pierre Cauchon was a Burgundian political partisan of the Duke of Burgandy, that the Duke of Burgundy was waging civil war against the rest of France and the French King and that Joan was captured by Burgundian troops.

The fact that Pierre Cauchon was "hardly an Englishman" is as irrelevant as the fact that the Vichy French forces that killed 556 American soldiers and 300 British soldiers in North Africa during Operation Torch "were hardly Germans".

The Burgundians were the allies of the English in 1431 just as the Vichy French were the allies of the Germans in 1942.

The bottom lines are:

1. The Duke of Burgundy and the King of France were engaged in Civil War, an ecclesiastical trial was manipulated by local partisans for local political purposes and "Rome" did not have a dog in that fight.

2. Regrettably as it may be by today's standards, both the Catholics and the Protestants of that historical era had institutionalized the death penalty for heresy, Calvinist Geneva made current-day Saudi Arabia seem enlightened and, as late as 1692, Protestants on the American continent were conducting religious trials and executions.

However, today, only the Catholic religious intolerance of past centuries is criticized and exaggerated while Protestant religious intolerance is never mentioned unless, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, it is depicted as amusing entertainment.

[RobbyS]

The difference is that the United States isn't controlled by a powerful, arrogant Church. No, the United States is controlled by a "powerful, arrogant" Establishment which no longer includes any churchmen.