Truth about the Spanish inquisitions

[WarriorAngel]

Catholic Educator's Resource Center has some helpful articles on the subject:
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition by Ellen Rice
The Inquisition by Anne W. Carroll
The Spanish Inquisition: Fact Versus Fiction by Fr. Marvin R. O'Connell
The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition by Thomas F. Madden

 

[HonestTruth]

I quickly looked at one of those links and could see right away that it was flawed. Apologists try to minimize its brutality. But the Inquisition was brutal beyond modern day comprehension and there is sufficient evidence to prove it.

 

[judechild]

A dismissive without anything further isn't an effective response. The articles cited by WarriorAngel include an article from a Chair of History, another from a professor-emeritus of history, and another from a university past-president, so they are acedemically qualified to make their claims. Accedemics do not publish articles without support; they have reputations to bolster.

All that means, Honest Truth, is that you should follow the formula we learned in Kindergarden: show, then tell.

 

[intojoy]

I quickly looked at one of those links and could see right away that it was flawed. Apologists try to minimize its brutality. But the Inquisition was brutal beyond modern day comprehension and there is sufficient evidence to prove it.

Yea just watch the movie The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery no doubt the inquisitors were wicked to the bottom of their hearts and with all that was within them.

 

[HonestTruth]

A dismissive without anything further isn't an effective response. The articles cited by WarriorAngel include an article from a Chair of History, another from a professor-emeritus of history, and another from a university past-president, so they are acedemically qualified to make their claims. Accedemics do not publish articles without support; they have reputations to bolster.

All that means, Honest Truth, is that you should follow the formula we learned in Kindergarden: show, then tell.

That's the easiest thing in the world.

Here's one excellent study on the Inquisition by Cecil Roth who was one history's most renowned scholars:


A History of Marranos: Cecil Roth, Herman P. Solomon: 9780805204636: Amazon.com: Books



The Marranos--the New Christians. Beginning with a series of massacres that swept Christian Spain in 1391, thousands of Jews took refuge in conversion in order to escape persecution. Again, after expulsion of Jews from Spain, many Jews wishing to remain in their homeland, joined the ranks of these converts. All publicly professed Christianity, though many practiced Judaism in secret. These were called Marranos, and they soon became a special concern to the Spanish Inquisition. The origins and history of these secret Jews are explored in detail


Here's another:

History of the Devil: The Inquisition




Need more? I can present a great many more.

 

[HonestTruth]

Yea just watch the movie The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery no doubt the inquisitors were wicked to the bottom of their hearts and with all that was within them.

I started to read the book and put it down - can't remember why. But the book is definitely on my to-read list.

Will have to check for the movie as well.

 

[intojoy]

I started to read the book and put it down - can't remember why. But the book is definitely on my to-read list.

Will have to check for the movie as well.

Yes I was joking but its a good movie. A better read is "the anguish of the Jews" written by a catholic priest Edward Flannery.

 

[judechild]

Need more? I can present a great many more.

Sure I would. That's because I didn't say that I necessarily disagreed with you (nor am I saying that I agree with you). I was responding to your claim that the articles are flawed, without anything further to support that claim. I would need to read the book you cited in order to talk about it, but I haven't so I can't. Directing me to different sources only says what we already know: people have different ideas on the Spanish Inquisition. So, start with what you think is flawed in the arguments in the articles, then we'll start the party.

 

[HonestTruth]

I already said "Apologists try to minimize its brutality." The first article as an example indicates the Inquisition began one hundred years after the generally acknowledged origin of 1480 - "It began almost 100 years later". Not so. Still another problem is the claim that "What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. " This fails to include the thousands who died in slave ships that were used to forcibly transport Judios thousands of miles to the Caribbean, South America, and the most tormentous route of all, to the Philippines.
If you need further confirmation see wiki.

 

[mark46]

We might listen to what some of our recent popes have had to say on the subject.

 

[judechild]

I already said "Apologists try to minimize its brutality."

Yes, we are agreed that that is in fact what you said.

The first article as an example indicates the Inquisition began one hundred years after the generally acknowledged origin of 1480 - "It began almost 100 years later". Not so.

I'm afraid that you've misrepresented what the Rice article claimed. Rice writes ''The Inquisition began in 1480.'' In the next paragraph, she says ''the Inquisition Myth, which the Spaniards call 'The Black Legend' did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later.'' In your response, you've mistakenly removed the word "myth" when quoting from Rice's article; in fact, she does say that the Inquisition began in 1480, but then goes on to claim that the institution was demonized at a later date (Id est, 100 years after it began).

...This fails to include the thousands who died in slave ships that were ... most tormentous route of all, to the Philippines.

Okay. I'm interested. Now show.

If you need further confirmation see wiki.

If I wished to waste my time, I would read the Wikipedia article, but since there are many more rigorous sources available, I'll wait for you to show me yourself. You see, the Rice article is actually an review of a BBC documentary entitled ''The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition'' - and most would agree that that is a more rigorous source than an anonymous encyclopedia, so you'll have to do a little bit more work here.

 

[HonestTruth]

Yes, we are agreed that that is in fact what you said.



I'm afraid that you've misrepresented what the Rice article claimed. Rice writes ''The Inquisition began in 1480.'' In the next paragraph, she says ''the Inquisition Myth, which the Spaniards call 'The Black Legend' did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later.'' In your response, you've mistakenly removed the word "myth" when quoting from Rice's article; in fact, she does say that the Inquisition began in 1480, but then goes on to claim that the institution was demonized at a later date (Id est, 100 years after it began).

Okay. I'm interested. Now show.


If I wished to waste my time, I would read the Wikipedia article, but since there are many more rigorous sources available, I'll wait for you to show me yourself. You see, the Rice article is actually an review of a BBC documentary entitled ''The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition'' - and most would agree that that is a more rigorous source than an anonymous encyclopedia, so you'll have to do a little bit more work here.

Actually, I'm not here to pamper you or to be your grade school teacher. I will post one link showing how the Inquisition enslaved and transported Jews to various location such as this:


"Between 1450 and 1500, Portugese record detail the deportation and enslavement of more than 500,000 Moorish Jews to the Islands off the the Gulf of Guinea and Biafra. Many of these were children who had been stolen and separated from their parents."


The Ladino Moors: The Jews of Cape Verde, the Guinea Rivers and Gulf of Biafra – Jide Uwechia – Rasta Livewire


If you want more you will need to do your own research.

If you still persist in holocaust denial of that time period that's your business.

 

[judechild]

Actually, I'm not here to pamper you or to be your grade school teacher.

That insult would be a much sharper sting to my pride if only you hadn't read "The Inquisition began in 1480" and managed to think that it said "the Inquisition began one-hundred years after the generally accepted date of 1480." Since you did, though, I hope you'll understand what I mean when I say that I'm very glad you are not a grade-school teacher.

"Between 1450 and 1500, Portugese record detail the deportation and enslavement of more than 500,000 Moorish Jews to the Islands off the the Gulf of Guinea and Biafra. Many of these were children who had been stolen and separated from their parents."

This is a very interesting article, coming from a very interesting source. It comes from the same source, interestingly enough, that also has expertise in predicting the future - managing the singular act of predicting the resignation of Pope Benedict; and their historical credibility is no doubt sufficiently bolstered by their research into the true color of the Emperor Nero's skin so as to put them beyond reproach:
Pope Benedict finally resigns as predicted on March 14, 2010 by Rasta Livewire.com – Rasta Livewire

Emperor Nero, another Black Emperor of Rome – Rasta Livewire

I'm sorry, but if this is the best you have, it is my unfortunate duty to inform Your Worship that Warrior Angel's sourses are objectively superior. As for the strange comment about Holocaust denial, give me one place in my posts where I say any of your claims are wrong. I've called your sub-par sources into question, and I've been insisting that you do more work than typing "Spanish Inquisition Bad" into your favorite search engine and calling that research, but I haven't yet told you what I think about the subject.

Itaque, you've still failed to make your case. If proving that WarriorAngels sources are flawed is the ''easiest thing in the world'' then why are you reduced to putting Rastifarians-R-Us against the BBC and history professors?

 

[HonestTruth]

If you're still not convinced that's fine. History is clear enough that the atrocities did take place. Today people persist in holocaust denial about the Hitler atrocities as well so we can expect people to continue to deny these truths for centuries to come.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That's the easiest thing in the world.

Here's one excellent study on the Inquisition by Cecil Roth who was one history's most renowned scholars:


A History of Marranos: Cecil Roth, Herman P. Solomon: 9780805204636: Amazon.com: Books



The Marranos--the New Christians. Beginning with a series of massacres that swept Christian Spain in 1391, thousands of Jews took refuge in conversion in order to escape persecution. Again, after expulsion of Jews from Spain, many Jews wishing to remain in their homeland, joined the ranks of these converts. All publicly professed Christianity, though many practiced Judaism in secret. These were called Marranos, and they soon became a special concern to the Spanish Inquisition. The origins and history of these secret Jews are explored in detail


Here's another:

History of the Devil: The Inquisition




Need more? I can present a great many more.

The problem is, the book was published in 1987 and used information that was generally from British historical archives, which included the well-known, Black Legends. The Black-Legends were propaganda put out by the British during the wars with Catholic France and Spain.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II open the Vatican Archives on the Inquisitions to the world's historians. As a result, new information was revealed that showed the Spanish Inquisition to be far from the brutality previously believed.

Make no mistake about, by our standards today, they were brutal, but according to that time and culture, the Ecclesiastical Courts were the fairest that a person could be tried under.


Jim

 

[judechild]

If you're still not convinced that's fine. History is clear enough that the atrocities did take place.

Sorry, but you can't hide behind a ''well, if you don't automatically agree with me because... I said so - then you're just ignorant!''. The difference between myself and holocaust-deniers is broken into four points:

1). Holocaust-deniers actually make a claim about the Holocaust. The difference here is that I've made no claim about the Spanish Inquisition at all. You seem to think that you read something in my posts that I haven't said, but then, you also thought that you read that the Rice article said that the Inquisition started 100 years after the date which it did - so it's not too surprising.

2). Holocaust-deniers are inspired by usually nationalistic pride or antisemitism. But if I've made no claim, then my claim can't be inspired by either of those, because my claim does not exist.

3) The people who respond to the holocaust-deniers don't have to go to quack-sites.

4) Holocaust-deniers don't care much for acedemic-rigor. On this thread, though, I've simply been insisting that you respond to the claims in the articles cited by WarriorAngel; you responded by essentially saying that research is for grade-schoolers.

All in all, the holocaust-denial analogy is just another pointless piece of rhetoric that you seem to think excuses you from having to back up your claims at all. Since you've already cast doubt on your own reading-comprehension, and demonstrated that you can't tell a scholarly source from Rastafarians.com, you may want to be just a tad less intellectually-haughty.

Of course, you could go back to my first request from you, which is simply to show what you think is flawed in the articles in the OP. Either that, or be a little more clever in your insults toward me; they're too boring.

 

[Hetta]

the Ecclesiastical Courts were the fairest that a person could be tried under.

My problem is that no "ecclesiastical courts" should have ever existed. Nobody has the right to try another on the basis of faith. It was a disgusting period of history.

 

[Wolseley]

My problem is that no "ecclesiastical courts" should have ever existed. Nobody has the right to try another on the basis of faith. It was a disgusting period of history.

The Spanish Inquisition, though, was not an ecclesiastical court. It was a royal court instituted by the Spanish Crown, and its' excesses were condemned several times by the Holy See.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My problem is that no "ecclesiastical courts" should have ever existed. Nobody has the right to try another on the basis of faith. It was a disgusting period of history.

The Ecclesiastical Courts were for hearing cases of heresy being taught by Catholics. Only Catholics could be tried by the Ecclesiastical Courts. These courts were established to fight against various cults that had sprung up like the Albigensians, who claimed to have the correct interpretation of Scripture and came up with erroneous doctrines. Often Catholics followed these doctrines and tried to bring teach them as official Church doctrine.

This is all the Ecclesiastical Courts were established for. At the time of the Spanish Inquisition, they surpassed the state courts for fairness to the point that when the Spanish Inquisition was closed, people rioted in the streets for criminal cases would now be heard by the state courts alone.

The Ecclesiastical Courts mandated that the accused be represented by competent lawyers. The accused had a right to know all the charges brought against them, and to face the accusers in court. The accused also was allowed to have witnesses testify on their behalf.

The state court in 1500's Spain, had no such thing. As a result, people fought to have their criminal cases brought before the Ecclesiastical Courts and eventually that's what happened. When an accused was found guilty of their civil crime, they were sent back to the state, for punishment. This is why it was believed that the Church was hauling people before the Inquisition for various crimes, but it wasn't the court but the accused who sought to have their cases heard by the Church court.

The Jews who were brought before the Church Court, where those who claimed to be converts. In this time in France, being a Baptized Catholic bought social and economic benefits, and many falsely claimed to have converted to the Church, for this reason alone. The Inquisition sought to prove that they were in fact, Baptized Catholics.

We have to keep in mind what the culture was like in 1500's Spain. For instance, a man caught steeling a sheep, was sentenced by the state was to be disemboweled.

The Church did not execute anyone, only the state had this authority. Also, contrary to what we learned from British History Text, the level of torture used was no greater than that which cops used in the 1920's.

In fact, the prisoners at Guantanamo were tortured more severely, especially those prisoners who were sent to so-called Black Sites.

Were their abuses in the Spanish Inquisition ? Of course. Were the courts necessary ? Probably not, but we're judging with the hindsight of 500 years.

In all, historians now agree that no more than 2500 people were executed during the 356 years of the Spanish Inquisition and most were those who had their civil trials heard before the Church Court rather than the state court. In other words, they were found guilty of crimes against the state, not of heresy, which none were executed for.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Spanish Inquisition, though, was not an ecclesiastical court. It was a royal court instituted by the Spanish Crown, and its' excesses were condemned several times by the Holy See.

The Spanish Inquisition was an Ecclesiastical Court. It essentially ended up taking the place of the state court for many cases, because people requested their cases be heard before the Inquisition, rather than the state, where they got a fairer trial.


Jim