Was the Spanish Inquisition as bad as it is commonly portrayed?

[T'ai Chi]

An interesting article exploring that:

http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=110

[ceo_esq]

Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/075227.htm), published by Yale UP, is widely considered to be the authoritative English-language scholarly study of the subject. Kamen persuasively argues that the answer to the poll question is "No".

[shemp]

Baloney! Here is a secret transcript of Spanish Inquisition proceedings, recently unearthed from the Vatican archives:

Graham Chapman:
Trouble at mill.

Carol Cleveland:
Oh no - what kind of trouble?

Chapman:
One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle.

Cleveland:
Pardon?

Chapman:
One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle.

Cleveland:
I don't understand what you're saying.

Chapman:
(slightly irritatedly and with
exaggeratedly clear accent)
One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treddle.

Cleveland:
Well what on earth does that mean?

Chapman:
I don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD)

(The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain (Palin) enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles (Jones) has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang (Gilliam) is just Cardinal Fang)

Ximinez:
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency....
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Our four... no...
Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...
are such elements as fear, surprise...
I'll come in again.

(Exit and exeunt)

Chapman:
I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD)

(The cardinals burst in)

Ximinez:
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
(To Cardinal Biggles)
I can't say it - you'll have to say it.

Biggles:
What?

Ximinez:
You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are...'

Biggles:
(rather horrified):
I couldn't do that...

(Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again)

Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

(JARRING CHORD)

(The cardinals enter)

Biggles:
Er... Nobody... um...

Ximinez:
Expects...

Biggles:
Expects... Nobody expects the... um...
the Spanish... um...

Ximinez:
Inquisition.

Biggles:
I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -

Ximinez:
Our chief weapons are...

Biggles:
Our chief weapons are... um... er...

Ximinez:
Surprise...

Biggles:
Surprise and...

Ximinez:
Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there.
Stop. Phew! Ah!... our chief weapons are surprise... blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.

Fang:
You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church.
'My old man said follow the...'

Biggles:
That's enough.
(To Cleveland)
Now, how do you plead?

Cleveland:
We're innocent.

Ximinez:
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Superimposed caption:
DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER

Biggles:
We'll soon change your mind about that!

Superimposed caption:
DIABOLICAL ACTING

Ximinez:
Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless -
(controls himself with a supreme effort)
Ooooh! Now, Cardinal - the rack!

(Biggles produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Ximinez looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger)

Ximinez:
You... Right! Tie her down.

(Fang and Biggles make a pathetic attempt to tie her on to the drying rack)

Ximinez:
Right! How do you plead?

Cleveland:
Innocent.

Ximinez:
Ha! Right! Cardinal, give the rack.
Oh dear... give the rack a turn.

(Biggles stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders)

Biggles:
I...

Ximinez:
(gritting his teeth)
I know, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.

Biggles:
I...

Ximinez:
It makes it all seem so stupid.

Biggles:
Shall I...?

Ximinez:
No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!

(Biggles turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack)

(Cut to them torturing a dear old lady,
Marjorie Wilde).

Ximinez:
Now, old woman - you are accused of heresy on three counts - heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action - four counts. Do you confess?

Wilde:
I don't understand what I'm accused of.

Ximinez:
Ha! Then we shall make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE SOFT CUSHIONS!

(JARRING CHORD)

(Biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions)

Biggles:
Here they are, lord.

Ximinez:
Now, old lady - you have one last chance.
Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly - two last chances.
And you shall be free - three last chances.
You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

Wilde:
I don't know what you're talking about.

Ximinez:
Right! If that's the way you want it - Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

(Biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture)

Ximinez:
Confess! Confess! Confess!

Biggles:
It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.

Ximinez:
Have you got all the stuffing up one end?

Biggles:
Yes, lord.

Ximinez:
(angrily hurling away the cushions)
Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

(JARRING CHORD)

(Zoom into Fang's horrified face)

Fang:
(terrified)
The...Comfy Chair?

(Biggles pushes in a really plush comfy chair)

Ximinez:
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

(They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair)

Ximinez:
(with a cruel leer)
Now - you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.
(aside, to Biggles)
Is that really all it is?

Biggles:
Yes, lord.

Ximinez:
I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess!

Biggles:
I confess!

Ximinez:
Not you!

[Giz]

From the article "Prof. Haliczer claims the Inquisition’s jails were superior to all other jails in Spain"

- Bring out the comfy chairs!
(Monty Python had obviously done their research!)


And, on a more serious note: "One must first realize why the Spanish Inquisition was founded. At the time (late 15th century), Spain was under attack by, believe it or not, Turkish Muslims set on their own jihad."
- It was my understanding that at that time (1492) Aragon and Castile completed the reconquista by conquering Grenada. The Muslims were at the time fighting defensively trying to hold the gains they won a few centuries ealrier. They were emphatically not engaged in a massive offensive into Christian territory aided and abbetted by a fifth column of James Bond like Muslim serfs pretending to be xian serfs.

What did happen is that given the relative religious tolerance of the moors the re-christianised areas were a hotbed of heresy which just had to be scotched (scorched) for the good of their souls, dontchaknow.


"This during a time when damaging shrubs in a common garden was an offence punishable by death in England. "
- We take gardening seriously, OK? (and I'd argue that it's better to punish someone for harming something real than snatch their only life away because they haven't genuflected correctly to some primitive superstitious socio-theological construct that there is no proof even exists!

[Zep]

The second version was actually quite good! Very funny, in fact!

[Nyarlathotep]

Was it any worse than any other "legal" proceeding of the day. Probably not. However I wouldn't put it on the "List of Acheivenments that Mankind ought to be Proud of" either. People were persecuted and some (not as many as people think, but some nonetheless) were tortured for holding a religious belief different than that of the majority. It still serves as a good example of a mistake that our ancestors made that we should learn from and try not to emulate.

The problem is that a lot of people just don't learn.......

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
An interesting article exploring that:

http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=110

Definately not as bad.

Wiccans have been studying the phenomenon of the "Burning Times" and concluded through primary research that claims of over 100,000 killed is not credible.

http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html

There was a report of a case of 400 being executed in one day. This case turned out to be a forgery.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


There was a report of a case of 400 being executed in one day. This case turned out to be a forgery.

I understood that the record breaking 800 (and 400) people at a time auto-da-fe were performed against the Cathar heresy by the Dominicans a couple of centuries before the Spanish inquisition was founded.

(And were thus against dualists rather than pagans)

Presumably this had been, inaccurately but understandably, attributed to the Spanish Inquisition at some time.

Nb not having burned 400 people to death simultaneously should hardly be grounds for considring them nice guys however. Something the revisionist apologists seem to be gunning for.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Giz


I understood that the record breaking 800 (and 400) people at a time auto-da-fe were performed against the Cathar heresy by the Dominicans a couple of centuries before the Spanish inquisition was founded.

(And were thus against dualists rather than pagans)

Presumably this had been, inaccurately but understandably, attributed to the Spanish Inquisition at some time.

Nb not having burned 400 people to death simultaneously should hardly be grounds for considring them nice guys however. Something the revisionist apologists seem to be gunning for.

They aren't considered nice guys. However, the body count indiciates closer to 40,000 - 60,000 were killed instead of the 500,000 - 9,000,000 alledged. The Inquisition is commonly portrayed as a blood thirsty intolerant group of murderers. This isn't the case. While the killings are abhorrent in the name of any philosophy, it is not as bad as originally portrayed.

[hammegk]

At least they missed any of our (heretic) direct ancestor(s)! What else could one want?

[Dancing David]

Excuse me, but it was political prison and torture for political reasons, practised by a church. What is so good about that? Ever.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


They aren't considered nice guys. However, the body count indiciates closer to 40,000 - 60,000 were killed instead of the 500,000 - 9,000,000 alledged. The Inquisition is commonly portrayed as a blood thirsty intolerant group of murderers. This isn't the case. While the killings are abhorrent in the name of any philosophy, it is not as bad as originally portrayed.

They may (or may not be) as bad as commonly portrayed. However, I would argue that "killings... in the name of any philosophy" do make you a "blood thirsty intolerant group of murderers" - by definition!

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Giz


They may (or may not be) as bad as commonly portrayed. However, I would argue that "killings... in the name of any philosophy" do make you a "blood thirsty intolerant group of murderers" - by definition!

Not in comparison to other societal norms and killing sprees in the name of politics and religion of that time period.

Actions of a society have to be compared to the actions of contemporary societies, not modern ones.

[uruk]

Come on guys! were not that bad. We only killed 40,000.:cs:

[RCNelson]

Originally posted by uruk
Come on guys! were not that bad. We only killed 40,000.:cs: WE???

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Excuse me, but it was political prison and torture for political reasons, practised by a church. What is so good about that? Ever. Ultimately, it was imprisonment and torture practiced by politicians, and not entirely for political reasons. The Spanish Inquisition was orchestrated by King Ferdinand of Spain, who stood to benefit greatly from the confiscation of the property of Jews and Muslims. The Church opposed the Inquisition in Spain, but regrettably knuckled under in the face of threats from Ferdinand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition (citing Kamen)

[Giz]

One other point, what links to Catholicism do these revisionist researchers have? Can we be confident that they aren't fitting the data to their prejudices?

When claims that challenge the orthodox view are made then said claims will need to be thoroughly backed up by non-partisan sources to be seen as credible. Similar claims of vastly inflated death tolls have also been made by Holocaust revisionists and their ilk.

[Gregor]

Woo hoo

The Catholic Church - now with 40% less evil!


From the apologist article:

"Is it justifiable to kill for the good of a society or an institution (for a church is an institution, divinely ordered or not)? Our own penal code says yes"

So, we ought to kill people for holding different beliefs than the orthodox church?

Great justification.

If one person was harmed simply for espousing a belief contrary to the Catholic Church, that's one too many.

[Michael Redman]

Was the Inquisition a worse crime against humanity than the church's current stance against birth control?

Maybe that's a topic for another poll.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Giz
One other point, what links to Catholicism do these revisionist researchers have? Can we be confident that they aren't fitting the data to their prejudices?Good question. Stephen Haliczek, one of the historians interviewed for the BBC documentary, writes a lot about European religious history, but it's not entirely clear whether he is Catholic. I suspect he might be, although some of his writing on non-Inquisition subjects is not entirely flattering to the Church. On the other hand, based on peer reviews of his many scholarly books, he does not seem to be perceived by his fellow historians as someone who fits data to prejudices.

Alphonsus Duran, whose material was also cited in the BBC documentary, is quite definitely tied to the Catholic Church: he is a clergyman.

I don't believe that any of the documentary's makers had explicit ties to the Church, but am not entirely certain of this.

Henry Kamen, whose works basically corroborate much of the documentary's thesis, has no ties to the Catholic Church - although, as a Jew, Kamen probably does have some personal interest in the matter (Jews suffered the brunt of the Spanish Inquisition's abuses). However, Kamen pins the fault principally on the Spanish Crown.

One should also bear in mind that our conventional understanding of the Spanish Inquisition can in large part be traced back to highly influential works written by anti-Spanish and pro-Protestant polemicists in the Inquisition's aftermath.
Originally posted by Michael Redman
Was the Inquisition a worse crime against humanity than the church's current stance against birth control?A bit off-topic, as you suggest - but in this day and age many people would object to equating a religious "stance" with a "crime". After all, that's precisely what the Inquisitors did, and we've hopefully learned something since then.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Ultimately, it was imprisonment and torture practiced by politicians, and not entirely for political reasons. The Spanish Inquisition was orchestrated by King Ferdinand of Spain, who stood to benefit greatly from the confiscation of the property of Jews and Muslims. The Church opposed the Inquisition in Spain, but regrettably knuckled under in the face of threats from Ferdinand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition (citing Kamen)

Thanks CEO ESQ!

I agree that there was a political use of the church, but then I view the church at that time as a sort of 'upper chamber' or Senate in the monoarchial system. It was a place for family members to go a nd weild influence without having to deal with the issues of inheritance (on the surface) , and so I feel that the church acted very much like the upper chamber of a parliment.

I would say that the church was very political and would agree with you.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Giz
One other point, what links to Catholicism do these revisionist researchers have? Can we be confident that they aren't fitting the data to their prejudices?

When claims that challenge the orthodox view are made then said claims will need to be thoroughly backed up by non-partisan sources to be seen as credible. Similar claims of vastly inflated death tolls have also been made by Holocaust revisionists and their ilk.

The article I linked to is by Jenny Gibbons. She is a Wiccan and is doing research on a piece of pagan history. So I would say she has no link to Catholicism. If anything, the pressure would be to increase the numbers instead of decrease them. I believe, however, that she is interested in the unadulterated truth rather than what a religion wants to hear.

Unlike the holocaust, the records concerning the killing of people by the Inquisition are woefully incomplete and the analysis is being done hundreds of years later rather than a few years later than the event.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
A bit off-topic, as you suggest - but in this day and age many people would object to equating a religious "stance" with a "crime". After all, that's precisely what the Inquisitors did, and we've hopefully learned something since then. Yes. We have learned that sometimes when an authority says they are fighting a crime, such as heresy or birth control, they are, in fact, really just justifying their own crimes, such as the inquisition or the promotion of overpopulation.