"The Inquisition". Is what you know truth or myth? -- Catholic Friends Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:05:30 02/13/08 Wed
Author: Joan
Author Host/IP: ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net / 68.0.253.131
Subject: "The Inquisition". Is what you know truth or myth?

What do you know about "The Inquisition"? If you have a list of facts handy, you will have to decide to which Inquisition each fact belongs. If you said that "The Inquisition" is a myth, you know more than most.

Ah, propoganda. You didn't think it was a modern invention, did you? :)

This article is years old, and yet many people still believe in the old myth. Why? The tracts that are still being published today. It's high time we (all Christians who choose to live like they've actually heard of the 10 commandments :) ) combat these lies.

Spread the truth!

"June 18, 2004, 10:26 a.m.
The Real Inquisition
Investigating the popular myth.

By Thomas F. Madden

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?"

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> And what of the Protestant Inquisitions? -- Joan, 10:28:50 02/13/08 Wed [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

Why are the murders at that hands of zealous Protestants (in the name of Christ) not mentioned? How many suffered social consequences that we wouldn't tolerate today, were banned, or were killed because they disagreed with the local brand of Protestantism, were Catholic, or because they were accused of being withces?

Unfortunately, times were what they were. These are cases of people acting as political/social/religious beings in the political/social/religious times in which they lived.

And of course the U.S. South, which was predominantly Protestant fought very hard to protect their states' rights, including the right to keep human beings in bondage.

I like this quote best, because it tells us that it's so easy to point backward instead of looking at ourselves. If we look back and see that things were wrong, and we're so willing to point fingers, saying that it was "they" who were evil, and that it was "we" who had it right, it should be just as easy to look in the mirror and take our lumps.

"After a 20th century unmatched for bloodshed, the world today is in no position to disparage early modern Europe."

I think not only of Hitler, Stallin, Milosovic, Hussein, and Pol Pot, but also of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If we're going to talk about the past and point out what was wrong, let's tell the history truthfully, and learn from it.

IMO, this is a good lesson in how myths are born, and how the propagandists use the ignorance of the masses to manipulate them.

Don't be manipulated!!

Joan

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

Re: What I know...is the truth.... -- Phil, 11:14:50 02/14/08 Thu [1] (71-223-7-96.phnx.qwest.net/71.223.7.96)

Joan, you're very gullible to fall for this pseudo-scholarship. The Church often engages in propaganda to lessen its role in sinister events in history.

How do they do it? One way: they attempt to minimize the role of the Church in these events by using bogus statistics. For example, if you say that only 1% of Americans do this and that...that still means you're talking abt 3mil people. They also did this during the abuse scandal, when they claimed that the vast maj'ty of priests were not involved in the scandal. That was not very persuasive to me, since there are a lot priests in the world.

One of the reasons the Church conducted the Inquisition was to keep people in line. The average guy on the street knew that if he engaged in any kind of opposition or disagreement with the Church he faced the Inquisition. Just the thought of being dragged b4 1 of these Inquisitions was enough to deter folks from attacking or disagreeing with the Church. Thus, they used fear to keep people in line. Totalitarian regimes utilize the same tactic.

The reality is: the Church did encourage and support the Crusades, the Inquistion did exist, the Borja Popes did some outrageous things...and on and on. To miminalize them with bogus numbers is disingenuous. By doing so, they're trying to convince you that it was 'no big deal', and since it was so insignificant, that it barely happened at all. They'll do the same thing in a few yrs time with the abuse scandal...when they address it at all. No doubt they'll blame the media for 'hyping it' too.

Joan, dont be tricked by revisionist history. It makes folks look like fools to educated and informed people. Case in point: when I was in Ire, there were several folks who believed that the US did NOT land a man on the moon; that it was some kind of simulation. The History Channel still runs clips of the 'mysterious circles' in farmers fields in Eng, even after a few farmers admitted that they had a few beers while they did it themselves in the dead of nite.

There is a lady in Ire who claims to have predicted 9/11...after the fact. Indirectly, this prophetess claims that we deserved it and insinuates that it came from God. I heard her say it herself on an interview on RTE. They caught her and the priest who represent her in all kinds of fibs and inaccuracies. Any1 who disagrees with, and crtisizes her, is 'persecuting' her and guilty of killing her husbund, who died of natural causes. Meanwhile, she continues to sell trinkets to Americans on her website as she slams us. She's a nut!

For balance: the media and other 'pundits' almost never mention the accomplishments of the Church. It has followed the Great Commission and brought the Word to billions of people throughout the world. It helps the poor and disadvantaged, and has generally helped to make just abt as many lives better for it. I s'pose to them, it is not news or worthy of reflection. I think we'd all argue that it is worth mentioning. Perhaps you'd be better off mentioning the life and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, and focus on that, rather than trying to change history.

Still, revisionist history and psuedo-scholarship is rampant. Dont be swayed by it.

As for the stuff abt the 'Prot'nt Inquisition', my Dad had a saying:

"Two wrongs dont make a right!" So many atrocities have been committed in the name of God, it would require several volumes to document and explain. If an action is wrong, it doesnt matter if its perpetrated by a Buddist, Muslim, Christian or Jew...its still wrong.

And yes, the Holocaust did happen, and it was 1 of, if not the worst thing, that ever happened in history. Just cuz a few nuts say it didnt happen or the nbrs were lower, does not change anything. Again, dont be swayed by this nonsense.

Take care, God Bless,

Phil from AZ

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Read Inquisition by Peters. Then get back to us. :) -- Joan, 15:23:12 02/14/08 Thu [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Just 1 book? -- Phil, 16:08:10 02/14/08 Thu [1] (71-223-7-96.phnx.qwest.net/71.223.7.96)

I have read numerous books on these subjects. I studied Euro Medieval History in college and have a degree in the history...along with Poli Sci and Social Sci. I have traveled extensively and lived in other Euro countries: Britain (where I studied), Germany, Ireland and briefly in Italy. Thus, I have an extensive background in these topics.

For example, I wrote a lengthy term ppr (nearly 50 pages) on The Fourth Crusade, the 1 where the Crusaders sacked Christian Constantinople 'en route' to the Holy Land. The Pope failed to ex-comm the leaders of this debacle, while he was having others burned at the stake for heresy. I cited archeology, docs, and even eye-witness accts of this sordid affair. So plz dont lecture me abt this when I'm the 1 with the pedigree.

Still, In the basis of fairness, I will attempt to get ahold of book and get back to you. What is the name of the book? And plz dont tell me it was wtn by a Church hack, commissioned to write it by the Vatican. I don't pay much attn to biased accts, wtn by those with a revisionist agenda.

Take care, God Bless,

Phil from cool AZ

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: Never mind, I found the book....thx... -- Phil, 21:46:07 02/14/08 Thu [1] (71-223-7-96.phnx.qwest.net/71.223.7.96)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Should we, then, be paying attention to you, -- Joan, 04:28:05 02/15/08 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

a disgruntled former Catholic with obvious "issues" with the Church? ;)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Phil's credentials vs Madden's -- Joan, 04:34:02 02/15/08 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

These are Madden's credentials.

Thomas F. Madden

Professor
Director, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Education

Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1993.
M.A., University of Illinois, 1990.
B.A., University of New Mexico, 1986.

Scholarly Publications

Books

The New Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).
Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).

Winner of the Medieval Academy of America's 2007 Haskins Medal
Winner of the Medieval Institute's 2005 Otto Gr�ndler Prize
A BBC History Magazine Book-of-the-Month

The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997). (Co-author).

A History Book Club Selection

Journal Articles

"The Enduring Myths of the Fourth Crusade," World History Bulletin 20 (2004): 11-14.

"The Chrysobull of Alexius I Comnenus to the Venetians: The Date and the Debate," Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002): 23-41.

"Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade," The International History Review 17 (1995): 726-43.

"Venice and Constantinople in 1171 and 1172: Enrico Dandolo's Attitude towards Byzantium," Mediterranean Historical Review 8 (1993): 166-85.

"Father of the Bride: Fathers, Daughters, and Dowries in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Venice," Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): 685-711. (Co-author).

"Vows and Contracts in the Fourth Crusade: The Treaty of Zara and the Attack on Constantinople in 1204," The International History Review 15 (1993): 441-68.

"The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1992): 72-93.

"The Serpent Column of Delphi in Constantinople: Placement, Purposes, and Mutilations," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16 (1992): 111-45.

"Some Further Arguments in Defense of the Venetians on the Fourth Crusade," Byzantion 62 (1992): 433-73. (Co-author).

Edited Volumes

Crusades: The Illustrated History (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).

A Book-of-the-Month Club Selection
A History Book Club Selection

The Crusades: The Essential Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).

Medieval and Renaissance Venice (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999). (Co-editor).

Essays in Edited Volumes

"Food and the Fourth Crusade: A New Approach to the 'Diversion Question,'" in Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, John H. Pryor, ed. (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), pp. 209-28.

"Venice, the Papacy, and the Crusades before 1204," in The Medieval Crusade, Susan J. Ridyard, ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004), pp. 85-95.

"Venice's Hostage Crisis: Diplomatic Efforts to Secure Peace with Byzantium between 1171 and 1184," in Medieval and Renaissance Venice (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), pp. 96-108.

These are yours, Phil.

"I studied Euro Medieval History" and " I wrote a lengthy term ppr (nearly 50 pages) on The Fourth Crusade".

A class or two, and a paper.

And you call Madden a hack?! lol

Joan

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> More on Madden -- Joan, 04:50:40 02/15/08 Fri [1] (ip68-0-253-131.ri.ri.cox.net/68.0.253.131)

Thomas F. Madden is Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University. A prolific author, he is also a respected media expert appearing in such venues as The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, NPR, and many more.

Dr. Madden's books include the best-selling New Concise History of the Crusades (2005) and the award-winning Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice (2003). He has also published extensively on the ancient and medieval Mediterranean and the history of Christianity.

Awards for his scholarship include the 2005 Otto Grundler Prize, awarded by the Medieval Institute, and the 2007 Haskins Medal, awarded by the Medieval Academy of America.

Dr. Madden served for eight years as Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He received his B.A. from the University of New Mexico and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Illinois with research specialties in Medieval Europe, Ancient Rome, and Islamic History.

Dr. Madden continues to write and lecture on a variety of historical topics. His current research involves an examination of ancient Roman imperialism in light of modern events.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]