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.

[edsheppa]

Oh yes, lest we forget, in addition trying to justify the Spanish Inquisition by yesterday's standards, he's also justify it by today's standards. It's neat rhetoric but he's wrong on both counts.

[GoLightly]

Edward I expelled the Jews from England, cuz they no longer had enough money to help support his military ambitions. Your hint was not necessary, cuz it's included in most things written about Edward I.

[dangus]

>> This means that anyone excommunicated from the Roman church whome a catholic in good standing chooses to murder is fair game and the charge of murder will not fall upon them.<<

Funny... That's not all how that reads to me. It says they must be doing so in defense of the Church.

>> It doesn't even bother to reach the extent of pronouncing them a heretic which is only done under Lateran IV after a year of thoughtful time to recant. <<

No actually, being excommunicated is far worse and far rarer than being termed a heretic... You're really talking out your butt, aren't you. The U.S. is 99% heretical, and there have only been a few excommunications in U.S. history. Methinks maybe you are confusing being denied communion with being excommunicated?

>>For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, try here<<

Oh, yeah... James Wylie... Now THERE'S an impartial, level-headed sort *eyeroll*

[dangus]

I don't find this rebuttal to SD anywhere... I se quabbling over whether to assign blame for Tinsdale on The Heretic King or not (as if Henry VIII is a model Catholic), but nothing to change the substance of his comments.

But as for later reference to killing seditionists and treasonists, please do relate what you find so unreasonable.

[dangus]

>>Basically Spain wasn't able to fight on three fronts at once (England, where they seriously lost to the English navy; the Netherlands, and fighting the Turks in the Mediterranean as well.<<

Yup. Catholics vs. the Protestants and Muslims. I know what side I'm on.

[dangus]

>> 1%?!? I don't think any modern madman was "successful" enough to achieve that rate. Never-mind, I have something more important to question.<<

You start with the presumption that there was no charge that could ever merit death then? Without the inquisition, the accused were usally killed. With the inquiisition, 99% of them are spared. That's pretty amazing actually.

>>Is the author trying to say life was more or less precious to those living at that time? <<

What he is saying is that the Inquisition was a remarkable leap forward in justice, which demonstrates a respect for life.

>> When did it stop being about the universal truth?<<

When Protestants decided that that they could have 15,478,386 opinions on any moral standard, and they were all okay, as long as they disagreed with Catholic tradition.

>> IMO, this is just as true now as it was then. <<

Well, your flat out wrong then. OUR society is built on religious pluralism and secualr standards of law, and loyalty. There are very few institutions which rely *directly* on religion in America.

[gitmo]

"The traditional majority"opinion is that of enemies of the Catholic Church. Could that not make it suspect?

I'm not aware of that many "enemies of the Catholic Church". But this is a new perspective that is contrary to the historical record. Since it is coming from a partisan, it is suspect.

[Snuffington]

Let's go back to the original article.

Next time you do that, read the whole thing. Because some of the objections you raise were already answered in it. This one for example:

1%?!? I don't think any modern madman was "successful" enough to achieve that rate.

You don't? Here you have people accused of a capital crime. You didn't appear in front of the Inquisition at random. You either got your local secular court or that of the Inquisition. What's the average rate of conviction and punishment for a capital crime in our own courts? In any other in the world? Feel free to look it up. Your horror about 1% of the accused not getting off seems a little naive.

Of course, that's only comparing it with modern times, which is a pretty slick trick, considering it dodges the central question. Did the Inquisition improve the situation of those accused, or harm it? If you were accused of heresy, were your chances of survival better or worse because of the Inquisition? The article makes it pretty clear your chances were dramitically better with the Inquisition involved than without it.

Taking your own advice, and going back to the article, you seem to have missed this: "Compared to other medieval secular courts, the Inquisition was positively enlightened."

Gonna pause here, cuz I have to comment on this before going further. Death was more common during medieval times. Is the author trying to say life was more or less precious to those living at that time? Are our beliefs different & less important to us without a healthy fear of an immanent death? Is that the meaning of religion? Religion is something we're just supposed to do at church?

This one is actually a perfectly valid question, but impossible for any single article to address. You need to understand the whole worldview of the middle ages to truly understand this. It's very different from the modern view. The article hints to elements of it, like:

"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."

Not quite enough to give you the full picture of course. But lest you think the author of the article is just making it up, do all the research you'd care to. This is not a controversial or recent discovery. Try reading "Autumn of the Middle Ages" by Johan Huizinga.

IMO, this is just as true now as it was then. Should I try to make the author of this piece part of my mere 1%?

Sure. Pick a court. Make your accusation. That's how these things worked, which is something you seem to have missed.

[valkyrieanne]

No time to go into detail now, but most of the battles you list are good examples of "winning the battle but losing the war."

[Polybius]

Edward I expelled the Jews from England, cuz they no longer had enough money to help support his military ambitions. Your hint was not necessary, cuz it's included in most things written about Edward I.

While hints may not be necessary for individuals versed in history, the typical American of 2004 does not know Agincourt from Antietam but does know that the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Spain persecuting Jews.

It is unfortunate that the complex history of Jewish tolerance and intolerance in Spain has been condensed in the American mind to a Mel Brooks song.

Jews lived in peace and tolerance in Roman Spain for centuries until the Visigothic invasians brought religious persecution not only to the Jews but also to the Catholic Church by the Visigoths who initially practiced Aryanism. After the Visogothic conversion to Catholicism, the Visigothic persecution of Catholics ended but the Visigothic persecution of Jews remained. It was no wonder that the Jews welcomed the Islamic invaders as liberators in 711 A.D.

Although the Islamic period of southern and central Spain is usually depicted as a model of Jewish toleration, that was only true in the initial wave of Islamic invasion. When the fanatical Almoravides invaded in 1086 and the even more fanatical Almohades invaded in 1146, religious toleration in Muslim Spain came to a screeching halt and thousands of Jews and Mozarabes (Christians living in Muslim territory)fled to the northern Spanish Christian Kingdoms where they were welcome.

By 1212, the Spanish Christian victory at Tolosa had broken the back of Muslim power. Cordoba fell in 1236, Valencia fell in 1238 and Seville fell in 1248. After all of Spain except the rump Muslim Kingdom of Granada had returned to Christian rule, Jews were held in high regard by the courts of both Fernando III (San Fernando) and his son Alfonso X (the Learned). There was hardly a noble house in Spain that had not intermarried with Jewish families.

Unfortunately, Jews became caught up in the three-way power struggle between the Crown, the nobles and the commoners during the reign of Peter the Cruel (1350-1369). As the aptly labeled Peter the Cruel could not trust his own people, he used only Muslim royal guards and Jewish tax collectors. Fairly or unfairly, this inflamed the resentment of the commoners against both Jews and Muslims who then not only associated Jews with the excesses and oppression of Peter the Cruel but also were jealous of Jewish prosperity and their close association with the Spanish nobility.

During the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanish Crown used this popular resentment against Jews to consolidate Royal power at the expense of the nobilty. The commoners and the towns that had jelously guarded their "fueros" (rights) for centuries, gladly sided with the Crown. However, once the Jews were expelled and the power of the nobility broken, the Crown eventually turned it's attention to then consolidating Royal power over the towns themsleves.

It is undoubtedly true that Spain would have been much better off if the power struggle between the Crown, the nobility and the commoners had continued on more equal terms as was the case in British history and if the Jews had never been expelled.

However, the fact remains that, up until 1492, Jews had found more tolerance in Spain than in almost any other country in Europe. In England, the Jews were not allowed to return until the time of Cromwell.

Unfortunately, the average American knows only that Jews were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition and knows nothing about the Jewish expulsion from England.

[OLD REGGIE]

You're hysterical as always. For those not prone to flights of fantasy and interested in facts, consider: exterminate

\Ex*ter"mi*nate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Exterminated; p. pr. & vb. n. Exterminating.] [L. exterminatus, p. p. of exterminare to abolish, destroy, drive out or away; ex out + terminus boundary, limit. See Term.] 1. To drive out or away; to expel.

They deposed, exterminated, and deprived him of communion. --Barrow.

(SD: exterminated and deprived of communion? That's pretty bad. We usually give communion to the dead.)

2. To destroy utterly; to cut off; to extirpate; to annihilate; to root out; as, to exterminate a colony, a tribe, or a nation; to exterminate error or vice.

To explode and exterminate rank atheism. --Bentley.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

Of course, to the Havoc-inclined, you are suppoed to remain ignorant of the meaning of words and believe that this Papal pronouncement is calling for the killing of all heretics, when it is instead calling for them to be removed from territories. As a source of division and conflict, seperation seemed only fitting. That is a discussion which can continue.

But put aside any notions that this means the Pope was whipping out a big can of Raid in order to kill. heretics. dead.

SD

You are spinning as always. To the SuperSpinnerDave inclined you are supposed to accept a benign definition of "exterminate.

Thomas Aquinas had no great difficulty with the definition.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. >For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Of course Aquinas wasn't in spin mode.

[RobbyS]

"The historical record", at least the English language historography was largely written by Whig and liberal historians. In the Latin world much of the "record"was written by anti-clericals like Voltaire. But as Henry Kamen points out, none of them had taken a look at the archives of the Spanish Inquisition, so by any reasonable standard can be called hearsay or second-hand report. It is a partisan or, certainly, a one-sided view. Why do you object to hearing from those who have actually looked at the records of the Roman Inquisition? Why aren't you suspicious of history that does not take these documents into account?

[OLD REGGIE]

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?

Rather, SpinningDave feels forced to twist and torture the language to fit his contrived definition.

Note there is one member of the Church of Dave.

[FITZ]

It's interesting --- kind of ironic that Israel is now seen in a similar way as Spain --- and only because they do what they must to survive.

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

Argue with Thomas Aquinas what is meant by "exterminate". At least he is honest enough to admit it's desired result is death!

You are too transparent Dave. When caught up in your slippery web you haul out the magic "hate" word. Try something new.

You are pitiful.

[OLD REGGIE]

Unfortunately, it's not so easy to the average person, who isn't likely to read a scholarly source. Easy prey for the polemicists.

This is the same scholarly source who claims the Crusades were purely defensive battles and the Muslims won so they should be happy.

What a joke.

[OLD REGGIE]

... The heresy had to be exterminated. In today's world the measures used in the 13th century would be seen as overly harsh, but this was a primitive time with primitive means.

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.

You and SuperSpin should get together on your understanding of "exterminate". Don't you understand you must be a Catholic Hater to equate "exterminate" with "kill"?

[RobbyS]

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death

Sounds to me like a good justification for the death penalty. Follow due process, but if the SOB is hardened to his crime, then kill him. Which goes back to a point of the article. The Inquisition introduced due process, and a high level of dueprocess into the prosecution of heretics. Of course, you can't admit that heresy could be a crime. This is a bit like liberals who could never admit that being a communist could be a crime. But I won't push the matter. In any case, the argument is made in the article that a person accused of heresy was more likley to receive what we would call a fair ttrial than a person accused of, say, theft. I think that is the chief claim of the article, that the Inquisition provided for a fair trial, at least in theory and often also in fact. A lawyer's trick: man accused of stealing a pig claims that his religious beliefs allowed him to do it. A matter of heresy. The case is taken over by the Church court. He adjures his heresy and gets off with a penance. This is the practical side of an ecclessiastical court being more lenient than a secular court. For this reason everyone one who could read and write claimed clerical status.

[Polybius]

"The traditional majority"opinion is that of enemies of the Catholic Church. Could that not make it suspect?......RobbyS

I'm not aware of that many "enemies of the Catholic Church".....gitmo

Anti-Catholicism was a dominant theme in English and American popular history since the days of Henry VIII. That anti-Catholicism persisted until well into the 20th Century.

If you do not know know how English popular history and then American popular history portrayed Catholicism in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries, then you need to read a little bit more of it.

18th Century English Children's Textbook

"Religious Freedom is Guaranteed" by Thomas Nast

“The American River Ganges,” Harper’s Weekly (30 September 1871) by Thomas Nast

[Havoc]

As for the rest of your post, I think you have no basis for knowing that there is an absolute standard that God has handed down

If there is anything I've ever seen that is heretical, it is what you just said. There is a basis and that is the problem. Christians actually believe God's word and accept it. Philosophers playing at religion don't believe God's word and resort to their moral and intellectually relative judgements of what might be best given their relative understanding of the notion of being "good" vs being "evil".

For the Christian, it is understood that we are not allowed to stand in God's reserved place of mortal judgement over another person due to that person's sin. We can call it sin - recognize it and refuse to participate in it; but, the moment we stand in God's shoes and usurp His role, we are in sin and guilty of the blood we spill and of the soul we may send to hell in the doing. There is not only a basis but an absolute basis and what you said is indicative of the problem.