Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by 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.
I highlighted it for it's weight. And yes, exterminate even means kill in latin. And that is precisely what Rome was talking about. You'll note they didn't drive heretics out of their countries and provinces. On the contrary, even when some ran off, the Church tracked them down and slaughtered them - chasing them halfway across Europe to do so. And you intend to sit there and play word games about "oh we really just meant drive them out". Bunk! The drive of Lateran III and Lateran IV was to get the Death penalty assigned to heresy. It means precisely what it says IN CONTEXT sir.
"There isn't any myopia going on here. The protestants, in their defense (which you won't see much of from me), at least don't go on every board on the internet and to every paper trying to downplay and lie through their teeth about what they did."
Boy, are YOU out in the weeds! The entire protestant and secular community has misrepresented the historical truth on these matters for CENTURIES, as I've pointed out in my example, and as the original article posted here asserts as well. I'd call THAT "MYOPIA"!!
It is. When Havoc posts something in order to lead others into confusion, the Church, via its member (me) clarifys. Neat little system, isn't it?
SD
Exactly. And this and other 'articles' excusing, or playing down the inquisition are not facts; they are lies.
The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all.
Now we see the problem. He was propagating errors. In a monolithic state this is analogous to treason.
Things are different in a modern secular state like ours. We really should not try to apply our standards to people living in a different time.
SD
ROFL.. stop it, you're killing me. The Roman Catholic Church arm twisted these kings and nobles into prescribing the death penalty for heresy, and when it backfires and the civil authorities put Catholics to death, then it's the fault of the protestants.. I mean, yes they do bear some responsibility; but, the gun that turned on Catholics was wrought by Catholics. It's a bit like swinging an axe to decapitate someone you hate and then pointing and screaming in their directions when the crowds gather because you missed and hit yourself instead.
Believe me, I think we all sympathize with the wrongs done to both sides. But at the same time, some healthy perspective is required. Let's not forget, it was Roman Catholic Manuals in the hands of Protestants at the witch trials and the like. They followed blindly where Rome had led them. Any way you cut it, Rome is ultimately responsible for letting that evil Djin out of the bottle. If Rome had followed New Testament Scripture on this as they should have - this discussion would not be taking place.
If you want to argue with the dictionary, be my guest. Your hatred blinds you. As usual.
It's easy to compare scholars who have studied the issue with internet jockeys who traffic in outrage for polemical purposes. There's no honest comparison. Caught in your deception, you can only turn the finger on someone else, the object of your hatred.
SD
"...I mean, yes they do bear some responsibility; but,..."
Worse weasel words were never written!
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to the average person, who isn't likely to read a scholarly source. Easy prey for the polemicists.
I didn't say anything about intentions. I assert that the Catholic church in the context of all of history is something basically good; quite good, in fact. I don't get the bashing. Is it possible the bashers here are being revisionistically antiseptic about the role of heresy in every pre-modern religion? For example, it is foolish to curse the Pharisees for doing what religious leaders must - face down dangerous threats to their faith. It must be understood in context.
Furthermore, it's not as if people were being indiscriminately killed. To be convicted of heresy, you had to be publicly spreading the pernicious doctrines of the sect, not merely privately adhering to it. If you recanted, your life would be spared. The numbers actually killed were small.
Not quite. Royal houses claim descendancy from David. They reigned by the will of God (sometimes His will was determined on a battlefield) & it was acknowledge or confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. There was never anything "secular" about any monarchy, never.
At that time, the radical protestant Kings or Queens demanded COMPLETE OBEISANCE from their "subjects", including the Catholic members within their realms. If the Catholics under their charge complained about royal abuses, as the English and German Catholics did when their monarchs were involved in Machiavellian courtly and political intrigues, they were MERCILESSLY SLAUGHTERED.
"Radical" protestant Kings & Queens were doing the exact same thing as Roman Catholic Kings & Queens. They were continuing a long standing tradition.
To enlarge the royal purses of the monarchs in protestant countries, the property that belonged to the CATHOLIC COMMUNITY (not just the "Church", as you say) was confiscated and STOLEN to enrich themselves.
Protestants are Catholics, though they're not Roman Catholics. As I said, we are all one people.
Are you simply ignorant of history? Wycliffe was the first translation, and while he was not burned he was put on trial and one of his friends was burned.
Now we see the problem. He was propagating errors. In a monolithic state this is analogous to treason.
A remarkable assertion, since the same monarch that had Tyndale strangled and burned for "errors" authorized a translation that relied heavily on the work of...Tyndale.
Tell that to the people turned over to the monarchs & put to death, long before you em, cleared this matter up.
We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate.
Awful peculiar, don't you think, that if these excommunicated-for-a-year-heretics were supposed to be killed that this Canon goes on about how not to hire them if they are attornies, or how not to abide by their judgments if they are judges.
Strange, isn't it? Are we to presume that the dead often served as notary publics in the Middle Ages?
SD
I'm not arguing with the dictionary. You're playing with the dictionary trying to put a term that doesn't fit into the context to try and sway opinion. As an apologist for Rome with their track record, you're doing no more than I expect - lawyering trying to beg reason. The word use you're playing games with doesn't work, it doesn't fit the historical record or the context or much anything else other than the current handwringing trying to make Rome look less culpable that it really was. The Protestants are culpable for what they did and so is Rome.
I don't care about either at this point because it can't be changed. What I'm on about is the lying. And I don't care which of you does it. If Rome and Protestants are both lying, then, hey, You're both liars. But don't sit and handwring about it. Shape up and stop lying. Maybe one of the two groups might rediscover what a "witness" is.
Weasel words, no, not hardly. Co-conspirators both bear some responsibility in what they do. Neither bears it all alone. I'm ascribing the blame where it belongs - squarely on both groups. So where you get this garbage of calling it weasel words is beyond me. Guess you just can't handle the truth - that I could care less about.
Yes he is. But I don't think he wrote for Monty Python.
All of this is irrelevant. He produced an erroneous version and used it to spread heresy. Being "first" does not make you qualified.
A remarkable assertion, since the same monarch that had Tyndale strangled and burned for "errors" authorized a translation that relied heavily on the work of...Tyndale.
Monarchs don't "authorize" anything. They have no authority to authorize a translation of the Bible. That belongs to the Church.
SD
Wrong again. Your version doesn't fit into the context of the document, unless you believe the dead notarize documents.
SD
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.