I wish we got some credit for the heroic “religious” mostly Dominicans and Jesuits, but Franciscans as well who were vociferous in denouncing the exploitation of Los Indios in the New World and who argued victoriously (but without practical effect — which depended on the King and nobility) before the King of Spain for the rights of non-Christian peoples. Antonio de Montesinos threatened to deny the sacraments to the adventurers in the New World who enslaved and abused the indigenous peoples.
The forced conversions in Spain were the result of the secular King, presiding over an uncertain state, expelling all who weren’t Christian. The Spanish Inquisition had no authority over or concern for non-Catholics.
The concern was false conversos, largely. Even after the Reformation the local ruler got to control the religious affiliation of his subjects. So I think there’s good reason to acknowledge a real and important distinction between the State’s role in creating an oppressive atmosphere, especially when one recalls the anxiety later expressed by the Pope.
Of course we Catholics will say things like “not that bad” when we consider these days that any torture is abominable. The very phrase “gentle torture” wrung bitter laughter from the Lay Dominicans when we learned that our order restricted the ordeals to such limits.
In the context and expectations of one time, the gentle restraints, even the moral accomplishments and advances of an earlier time may seem barbaric.
Mad Dawg — this is profound. I love Antonio de Montesinos right now
I thank God for those who worked diligently to end the practice of forced conversions, "gentle" torture and so on.
Truly the blame for the great atrocities belongs with the political authorities. That was the point of Rummel's body of research.