The Inquisition: Facts and Fictions

“Let us pray that each one of us, looking to the Lord Jesus, meek and humble of heart, will recognize that even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Jubilee Request for Forgiveness, March 12, 2000

“The Inquisition resulted in the torture and murder of millions of Christians whose only crime was a rejection of Catholic heresy and a commitment to follow the Bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. John Paul II has not confessed the Inquisition; he has failed to label his fellow popes the murderers they were.” – Jerry Kaifetz

Among the many difficulties in addressing the issue of anti-Catholicism are the cultural assumptions, historical canards and conventional wisdom that fuel the prejudice. Many Americans, Catholics as well as non-Catholics, have an understanding of history, as well as a way of thinking, that carries the baggage of post-Reformation propaganda or 19th century Enlightenment prejudices. Myths created in anti-Catholic passions have become part of the cultural corpus and accepted as undeniable truths.1We all know, for example, that the astronomer Galileo was tortured and imprisoned for years by the inquisition. He then recanted his scientific theory on the rotation of the earth around the sun, but bravely muttered aloud as he left the trial chamber, Eppur si muove! (“And yet it does move”). The historical reality, however, is that Galileo was never tortured, lived in comfort at the Florentine embassy during his trial, and the defiant quote was a legend created nearly 125 years after his death.2

Common to these myths are an invented history meant to portray Catholicism as the enemy of free thought, an alien presence in a democratic society, and as a perverse form of medieval superstition that survives on the ignorance of believers and the Church’s own violent will to power. Just as these myths served a purpose in the Reformation and were perpetuated in the 18th century Enlightenment and the 19th century world of progress and scientism, they serve a purpose in today’s secularist climate. Though developed in a war of propaganda between Catholicism and the dissenting churches of the 16th century, the theological trappings of the myths have been stripped away in many cases. They are now simply historical assumptions used to undermine and dismiss Church positions, particularly in the public arena, without the necessity of analyzing or addressing those positions. They are common rhetorical tools useful because they are universally understood and accepted.

In our own time we are seeing the creation of such a myth in allegations of silence and collaboration with the Nazis of Pope Pius XII during World War II. Though the allegations contradict clear historical evidence, they are becoming conventional wisdom regurgitated by columnists and commentaries with no need for substantiation.3 Of the many historical myths about Catholics and Catholicism, however, perhaps the most pervasive are those centered on the inquisition in general and the Spanish Inquisition in particular. From the 16th through the early 20th Century, the legend of the Inquisition grew larger than its history. This legend of the inquisition persists today in the imagination, well after its debunking by historians.

A good summation of that legend as it persists today was in the May 20, 2000 edition of The Times, a regional newspaper in Northwest Indiana and suburban Chicago. Written by Jerry Kaifetz, the owner of a chemical manufacturing company with a doctorate from Bethany Theological Seminary in Alabama, it is a response to the papal Jubilee “Request for Forgiveness” in March 2000. Kaifetz wrote: “The pope has not confessed the bloody and horrible 600-years inquisition against humble Bible-believers, which was instigated by Pope Innocent III (1198-1213). Some of the devices and inventions used to torture the “heresy” out of those rejecting the Catholic Church’s authority included “The Iron Maiden,” “Hanging Cages,” “The Judas Cradle,” “Skinning the Cat,” “The Head Crusher,” “The Heretic’s Fork,” “The Barrel Pillory,” “The Rack,” “The Knee Splitter,” “The Breast Ripper,” and other devices too numerous to mention or too heinous to describe in any detail. The inquisitor was commissioned directly by the pope and acted directly on his behalf. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, jury and prosecutor. The accused was never represented. The Inquisition resulted in the torture and murder of millions of Christians whose only crime was a rejection of Catholic heresy and a commitment to follow the Bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. John Paul II has not confessed the Inquisition; he has failed to label his fellow popes the murderers they were.”4

Kaifetz, writing on the cusp of the New Millenium, neatly summarizes the falsehoods, exaggerations and myths of the inquisition established in the religious wars of the 16th Century. While he approaches the inquisition from the perspective of a more traditional form of religious anti-Catholicism, the image he presents would be shared by many today, including some Catholics.

What, in fact, were inquisitions? Generally defined, inquisitions were ecclesial investigations, meaning that investigations were conducted either directly by, or under the auspices of, the Church. The investigations were undertaken at certain times in certain regions under the authority of the local bishop and his designates, or under the auspices of papal-appointed legates, or representatives from Religious Orders delegated the task from the papacy. The purpose of the investigations was peculiar to the local circumstance. They usually involved a judicial process aimed to obtain the confession and reconciliation with the Church of those who held heretical views or engaged in activities contrary to Church teaching and belief. The goal was to secure a person’s repentance, and to maintain the unity of the Church. These investigations were conducted with the cooperation and involvement of the temporal authorities. If these investigations resulted in finding serious doctrinal heresy and an unwillingness to abjure from heresy, it was the responsibility of the secular authorities to undertake punishment. The uniqueness of the inquisitions was that the Church conducted the investigations, and that the Church worked closely with civil authorities. In Protestant states after the Reformation, the distinct role of the religious congregation did not necessarily exist, and the investigation, trial and punishment of dissenters were primarily the responsibility of the state.

The common assumptions about the inquisition – the myths of the inquisition – are neatly summarized in the Kaifetz opinion piece, and could be outlined as follows:

· The inquisition was a single, unified court system directly responsible to the pope and controlled solely by the papacy.

· The inquisition existed throughout Europe for nearly 700 years, founded in the 12th century and continued to the early 19th century. Prior to the Reformation, it focused on a “secret” and “hidden” church, similar to that of the Reformation churches.

· The inquisition was primarily aimed at the early Protestant reformers of the 16th century and the Spanish Inquisition alone killed and tortured hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Protestant reformers.

· Vicious and unique tortures were routinely used, particularly in the Spanish Inquisition.

· The Spanish Inquisition existed independent of Spanish royal authority and existed solely as an arm of the Church, as did all other inquisitions.

· The inquisition was a means for the Church to exercise its authority over science.

· Persecution of religious dissent was unique to the inquisition and to the Catholic Church in Europe.

These assumptions about the inquisition and how it operated are part of the cultural baggage of Western civilization. They are far more myth than history. Yet, it would be very wrong to whitewash the inquisition, or to attempt to explain away its historicity. In the words of the papal apology, Catholics should understand that there were events in the past where “men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth.” The inquisition existed and it remains an unsettling part of Catholic history. However, the caricature of the inquisition that most of us have come to know and that is often utilized in anti-Catholic polemics has little to do with the reality of the inquisition.

In its simplest summary, the Church after the death of the Apostles had a faith that “united scattered congregations: that Christ was the Son of God, that He would return to establish his Kingdom on earth, and that all who believed in him would at the Last Judgment be rewarded with eternal bliss.”5 However, very soon the Christian community needed to give better definition to its beliefs as conflicts and disputes arose. From very early (as noted in Scripture6) the Christian community was forced to confront how to deal with those people who persisted in teachings contrary to the Apostolic Faith. For the most part, the early Church settled on admonishment, avoidance and, if a person persisted in error, expulsion from the community. This also led the early Church to an increased understanding of the universal authority of the See of St. Peter at Rome as the defender of the “deposit of the faith.” As the Christian faith grew throughout the Roman Empire and Church authorities settled controversies over essential teachings, statements of faith were developed. These Creeds (statements of fundamental beliefs) came in response to various teachings that were seen by Christian leaders as fundamentally erroneous.

With the victory of Constantine in the second decade of the Fourth Century, followed by the conversion of most of the Roman Empire by the end of the century, Christianity became the faith of the Empire. While this ended the age of martyrdom under intermittent Roman persecution, it created its own difficulties. Most prominent was the relationship of the Church – particularly Church authority – to the Christian emperors. It was a problem that, in certain respects, would plague Church relationships with government until the dramatic changes of the late nineteenth century and early 20th centuries. Government wanted to control the Church within its borders, seeing the faith as inextricably linked to societal stability, identity, and as foundational to royal power. At the same time, the Church wanted to be seen as separate and above this “City of Man,” while also seeing in the secular arm the means to assure orthodox belief.

It was a troubled period of confusing – and at times obscure – doctrinal controversies after the legalization of Christianity and as the faith became the official religion of the Roman Empire by the end of the Fourth Century. Roman imperial power would insert itself into doctrinal controversies, at times with the support of Church leadership, at other times with the Church standing in opposition. With the disastrous effect of doctrinal heresies on both Church and social unity, however, there was a growing consensus that use of the “secular arm” was necessary, with even St. Augustine arguing in favor of it.7 With Christian emperors occupying the imperial throne, heretical views came to be seen as not only a violation of Christian unity, but as an act of treason against the State. This is essential to an understanding of how heresy came to be viewed, particularly in Western civilization. It was not a matter of arbitrary enforcement of ecclesial discipline, or doctrinal conformity. Heresy was seen as an evil that threatened the unity of the community, as well as threatening the salvation of souls. Heresy was not merely an individual act – it was an attack on the state itself. This would become an ingrained part of European thinking, inherited by royal authority and the Church ecclesiastical leadership, as well as by the 16th Century Protestant reformers.8 It was during this early period that both canon and civil law were developed dealing with heresy that would become the sources for addressing religious dissent in the Second Millenium.

After the breakdown of Roman imperial authority in the Fifth Century, heresy, perhaps a luxury of wealth and leisure, lessened within the more vital concern of the evangelization of non-Roman Western Europe. While theological disputes rose from the Sixth through the 10th Century, the Church struggled to establish independence from the interference of the Eastern em

They didn't mean to rip the skin from hundreds of thousands of naughty people, you know.

From the article:

Some of the devices and inventions used to torture the “heresy” out of those rejecting the Catholic Church’s authority included “The Iron Maiden,” “Hanging Cages,” “The Judas Cradle,” “Skinning the Cat,” “The Head Crusher,” “The Heretic’s Fork,” “The Barrel Pillory,” “The Rack,” “The Knee Splitter,” “The Breast Ripper,” and other devices too numerous to mention or too heinous to describe in any detail. The inquisitor was commissioned directly by the pope and acted directly on his behalf. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, jury and prosecutor. The accused was never represented. The Inquisition resulted in the torture and murder of millions of Christians whose only crime was a rejection of Catholic heresy and a commitment to follow the Bible as their sole authority for faith and practice. John Paul II has not confessed the Inquisition; he has failed to label his fellow popes the murderers they were.”4

Kaifetz, writing on the cusp of the New Millenium, neatly summarizes the falsehoods, exaggerations and myths of the inquisition established in the religious wars of the 16th Century. While he approaches the inquisition from the perspective of a more traditional form of religious anti-Catholicism, the image he presents would be shared by many today, including some Catholics.

Please, S.O., read the article. There may be hope for your edification yet.

From an old post by Royalist: '

THE INQUISITION
Castille is traditionally called "the Kingdom of the three religions", namely Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Islam: despite the Reconquista, a certain number of Muslims kept their property and the right to practise their religion. These mudejares became less and less numerous in the 15th century.
Judaism: Christian Spain was traditionally a welcome haven for the Jews. They came from Islamic countries, whence they had been chased out by "fundamentalist" waves of Almoravides and Almohades, and also from the Christian countries of north west Europe, which expelled them in large numbers, Edward I of England having expelled the Jews in 1290. Their numbers therefore increased, and under the reign of isabella and Ferdinand they had reached two hundred thousand, without counting the very large number of Jews who had converted to Chrisitianity. Whence, in Christianity there were two categories: the "old Christians", who belonged to ancient Christian families, and the conversos (also called marranes in a pejorative sense): Jews who had converted often through conviction, sometimes through social pressure, never by force. Were they, because of their race, regarded as second class Christians and socially discredited?
We can judge from the positions held by conversos under the reign of isabella and Ferdinand. Among the conversos were the Constable of Castile, the Treasurer of Aragon, the Grand Master of the Order of Calatrava (the Spanish equivalent of the Templars), to whom Henry IV had thought of giving his sister Isabella in marriage, the Bishop of Burgos formerly Rabbi Salomon Ha-Levi, the bishops of Segovia, Coria, Plasencia, Cuenca, etc.; finally Queen Isabella's own confessor and the Inquisitor General Torquemada himself. And there were many others who today would be called the "decision makers".
The danger was that some of the conversions were not genuine: the converts had either returned to their former ways or, having been baptised purely for self interest, had never left them. From the middle of the 14th century, there is abundant testimony of conversos spiritual directors preaching Judaism in the confessional, monks celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, bishops judaising to the point of not believing in the Holy Trinity or in Christ's Passion, etc. Blasphemy and sacrilege abounded.
In addition, the false conversos constituted a political danger. Their influence extended to the highest spheres of State; they controlled the municipalities of several castilian towns, where they maintained armed bands. The "old Christians" were less and less tolerant of their power, and their were frequent clashes, often bloody. Ferdinand and Isabella could not but be moved by so great a danger for the State and for the Catholic faith.
Besides which, the sincere conversos urged them to intervene, for they were worried by the threats to themselves caused by the treachery of their false brethren. The true conversos had to be protected from the anger of the old Christians, which was breaking out into massacres followed in turn by reprisals against themselves. Above all, the false conversos had to be stopped from spreading sacrilege and blasphemy. Near Toledo, for example, the Hieronymite Prior, Garcia Zapata, always pronounced words of blasphemy instead of the words of consecration at his daily Mass. Such revelations filled the Spanish old Christians with a holy anger. Their forebears had given their lives for the cause of Christ during the Reconquista. Had it been for nothing? Whence the setting up in 1478 of the Inquisition by Pope Sixtus IV at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella. Its aim was to flush out the judaising conversos, to lead them to be converted, or, if that were impossible, to chastise them with discrimination. After a big campaign of catechising the conversos, meant to give the judaisers one last chance, the Inquisition began to function.
Jean Dumont reminds us that the accused had recourse to lawyers; that if witnesses remained anonymous for rear of eventual reprisal, false witnesses were severely punished; that torture was hardly ever used. He shrewdly remarks that the old engravings figuring the tortures of the Inquisition portray gabled buildings, showing only too well that they were printed in Holland or along the banks of the Rhine by Protestant propaganda... As for the "butchers' victims", numbered at one hundred thousand by the said propaganda, modern historians more modestly put the number at four hundred for the twenty four years of Isabella's reign. Then came "irremissible" condemnation to prison (which meant for eight years!), then "perpetual" imprisonment (meaning for three years!). Furthermore, conditions in the inquisitorial prisons were so superior to those prevailing in the secular prisons, that many common law prisoners feigned heresy in order to be transferred... These are all truths that have been undeniably proved in learned works, but they remain unknown by the public at large. It is hoped that Jean Dumont's book will help to fill this gap.
Finally, after the most obdurate judaisers had been flushed out and chastised, Isabella thought she could show mercy. In 1495, she pardoned all the condemned conversos and anulled all the consequences of their condemnations against 5% of their fortune, which was not negligible. But this was possible only after the expulsion of the Jews.

(to be continued next post)

THE JEWISH QUESTION

I said that an important Jewish community had settled in Castile owing to the favorable conditions to be found there. Still in 1477, Isabella declared: "I take under my protection the Jews of the Jewries in general and each one of them in particular, their persons and their property: I guarantee them against all attack of any nature whatsoever." So why the apparent reversal of her policy?
On the one hand, it was because the presence of the Jews was less and less tolerated by the ordinary Christian people, who had been heavily taxed during the war against Portugal and were deeply in debt to Jewish usurers. Hostility developed from the year 1450, marked by pograms and a massive refusal to repay the debts due to them. The affair was soon brought before the Royal Council, who decided the matter with admirable justice: the Christians could not cancel their debts to the Jews; the Jews, on the other hand, were not entitled to demand interest on loans greater than that of other money lenders.
The hostility was appeased somewhat, but the real cause for the expulsion lies elsewhere. Ferdinand and Isabella enunciated it themselves in their expulsion decree of 1492: it is "the great harm that has come and is coming to the Christians from participation, conversation and communication with the Jews." The Jewish community had in fact become an active centre for proselytism. The judaising conversos, in particular, found constant support and encouragement among them to continue in their error. Thus, Ferdinand and Isabella acted as good Catholic sovereigns: for a long time, the Jews had been tolerated in Spain and had even enjoyed royal protection. It was hoped to convert them with gentleness, which was no illusory hope as the great number of conversos bear testimony. The high posts of resposibility reached by some of them after their conversion is proof that racism was unknown in the Spain of the Middle Ages. But when the Jews began to present a danger for the faith of the Christians, old and new, it was necessary to 'exterminare' them, that is to cast them out of the kingdom's frontiers.
The expulsion decree gave them four months to leave Spain. They could take with them their movable goods but not their reserves of gold and silver, for the exportation of those metals was forbidden to all Spaniards. On the other hand, they could deposit their reserves with the bank and recuperate the value overseas by means of letters of exchange. The sovereigns protected their interests with the greatest care, for many Jewish debtors hoped to be free of their debts as a result of their expulsion. Judges were installed with responsibility for quelling such abuse. Finally, the emigrants were protected during their exodus by a "letter of security". So sweet was their life in Spain that one hundred thousand Jews, that is about half, preferred to convert and stay. Facade conversions you will say. But they seem to have been sufficiently sincere for the problem of judaising conversos never arose again. In this Jewish affair, in which Spain and the Christian faith were really imperilled, Jean Dumont shows that Ferdinand and Isabella conducted themselves with wisdom, justice and charity, as befitting great Christian sovereigns.
THE RECONQUISTA

The last complaint against them, and not the least, is that of having completed the reconquista by conquering the Muslim kingdom of Grenada. At the end of the 15th century, this conquest was a vital strategic necessity. After the capture of Constantinople in 1453, the Muslims never ceased scoring successes in the Mediterranean. Christiandom was in retreat everywhere. In 1480, the Turks ransacked the Italian port of Otranto and provoked panic stricken fear throughout the Christian Mediterranean. The Muslim kingdom of Grenada then appeared to be a potential bridgehead for a renewed advance towards the west. It had to be brought down, and Ferdinand, whose political and military genius is shown here by Jean Dumont, strove victoriously to that end from 1482 to 1492. It is held against him today. At the time, he was famed throughout Christendom for having been the only sovereign capable of conquering Islam.
THE CATHOLIC KINGS
The preceding lines are sufficient demonstration, I think, of the greatness of Ferdinand and Isabella. They had defended the Church and the faith so well that in 1496, the Pope conferred on them the title of "Catholic Kings". But holiness? Since the suspension of Isabella's beatification process, twenty eight volumes of documents gathered by the postulator of her cause are now slumbering in the Vatican's cellars. But the few witnesses at our disposal are eloquent enough.
Isabella had an immense devotion for the Blessed Sacrament: in 1501, it was pointed out to her that in several parishes "the Blessed Sacrament was not treated with becoming solemnity and reverence." She immediately wrote to all the bishops of her kingdom to see that good order be restored. Furthermore, nearly one hundred years before the Council of Trent, she master-minded the necessary reform of the Church in her kingdom, aided by Cardinal Cisneros, tussling with popes if necessary, so much so that it was written of her: "No one like Isabella stood up to Rome."
Her piety was manifest in all sorts of ways. In 1475 (she was twenty four years old), her counselor wrote for her use "The Government of Princes". He recommended her "to put the tasks of government before pious practices, prayers, hair shirts, and various disciplines of mortification". Isabella was, however, very far from neglecting her duty of state: "How many long winter nights, says a chronicler, were employed until the small hours, by this great-hearted and wise woman, in holding successive Councils and governing many and great affairs." But above all it was her charity that impressed the witnesses. Her secretary wrote: "She gave alms in secret and with discernment." At the chancellory of Valladolid, she funded lawyers for the poor. In 1492, she redeemed, in order to free them, all the Moorish slaves taken in the reconquest of the kingdom of Grenada.
During the last months of her life, she had to endure a painful illness. She offered her suffering for Christendom and asked all her subjects to do the same. In her will she wrote: "In the faith, I am prepared for death, which I shall receive as a special and excellent gift from the Lord's hands." Admirable, incomparable Isabella! With all our heart, we subscribe to the judgment of Christopher Columbus: "She always led a life worthy of the Catholic faith, holy and full of zeal for everything concerning God's service. There are grounds for believing, therefore, that she is now in her holy glory."
One day, the Pope will have to decide to raise to the altars this queen who equaled Saint Louis in wisdom and charity, and Joan of Arc in heroism and piety.

The above was a commentary/summary of M. Jean Dumont's book, "The Incomparable Isabella the Catholic"

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.