Why was it so bad? (This is a continuation of this. What do you know about it?
Nobody expects it.
Their main weapon was surprise. Surprise and fear - their two main weapons were surprise and fear . . . and ruthless efficiency. Three! Their three main weapons were: Surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Wait, all right, amongst their weaponry were such tools as surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency . . . wait, let me start this post again.
"Confessssss! Confessssss! Alright, you leave me no choice. Give her — The COMFY CHAIR!!!
sailor, what are you referring to? Why was the inquisition so bad? Why was what exactly so bad?
The “Inquisition” itself was something typical of it’s time. Like the “Crusades”. Forcing beliefs and laws on others that already had their own beliefs and laws under penalties such as death or banishment and exile.
No! Not . . . the Comfy Chair!
contented sigh
I just love a good hijacking.
BTW sailor, I don’t suppose you tried doing a search on the Inquisition? Or maybe trek to the library and check around, I’m sure something that big made the papers or something. There might even be a book about it.
And just so you don’t think I’m a complete ass, I’ll help answer the OP.
Try this link and click on “sorting out Historical Horribles”.
Or there’s a page called Spanish Inquisition: Fact vs. Fiction that might help.
For a somewhat shorter read, there’s one last link for you.
I hope these help. Basically, Inquisitions were a quite common way to persecute those who didn’t believe in the same religion as the powers that be. The Spanish Inquisition seems to be the most famous.
You don’t think I’m a complete ass, do you? Cuz I want it known, I am nothing if not half-assed.
Since Python’s been done:
I was sitting in a temple. I was minding my own business.
I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass.
Then these papist persons plunge in
and they throw me in a dungeon,
and they shove a red-hot poker up my ass!
Is that considerate? Is that polite?
And not a tube of Preparation-H in sight!"
Let’s face it, you can’t Torquemada anything!
the key words here are “systematic torture & persecution”
that’s fairly bad, n’est-ce pas?
I should have know half this thread would be Monty Python. Now all I’m left with is Mel Brooks:
“The Inquistion…what a show.The Inquisition…here we go.”
But seriously. I’m not sure I understand the question. From your Dark Ages post you obviously know plenty about it already. Does it necessarily deserve it’s reputation as one of the pinnicles of all evil? Probably not. Did it do anything good? Well, it may have strengthened the concept of Spanish nationalism. Karen Armstrong has some very interesting things to say about it at the beginning of “The Battle for God”. Wish I had it handy…
Did it involve death and torture, and the persucution of innocent people? Yes. Is that wrong? Yep. Am I applying contemorary standards to if I say it’s evil? Probably. I happen to be contemporary.
you know about it. What do YOU think?
To all the clowns who posted, thanks, I appreciate it.
To everyone I would remind you this is a continuation of another thread and it would help to put things ins perspective if you had a quick view at the relevant part of that thread.
Soulsling, yes, I agree it was not untypical of its time and that is what I am trying to point out. Most people think it was a singular thing not representative of its time.
Bratman, thanks for the links which I will have a look at and others may find useful. I am not looking for information about the Inquisition though. I was attempting to open a discussion a bit deeper than the stereotypes along the lines of “they tortured and that was bad”.
The reason the whole thing came up is that I believe people who judge other ages based on totally superficial and often false information and the standards of our own times are just idiots. It is like if what we are doing today would be judged by the standards of two centuries from now, and on top of that their data was just a few snippets that were half wrong anyway.
When people learn their history from Mel Brooks and Monty Python, well, it may be fun… but it’s not the kind of history I am interested in. So, if you please, let us leave Monty Python and Mell Brooks aside for a moment and i would like to propose a more serious discussion of the Spanish Inquisition. If all you have to add is a bad joke, I think we have seen enough for now so please wait a while. If your view is limited to the simplistic “they tortured and therefore they were bad”, then I do not have much interest in hearing from you. If you have more than a superficial knowledge, then I would like to hear from you.
I would submit it was no worse than what was common in all of Europe in those days.
Some background: The inquisition was not “Spanish”. It was an institution of the RC Church and not subject to the authority of the local government. It existed where ever the Church was, not only in Spain. Furthermore, Spain as such did not exist at that time. It was a conglomerate of kingdoms with very different laws and jurisdictions.
More background: the Inquisition (properly known as the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith) only had jurisdiction over Christians. It never claimed or exercised jurisdiction over people of other faiths (Jews, Muslims, unconverted American Indians, etc). This may come as a surprise to may who believe the main passtime of Torquemada was burning Jews at the stake.
The Inquisition was concerned with preserving the purity of the Catholic doctrine and only dealt with Catholics who were suspected of heresy, including Jews and Muslims who were suspected of being false converts: ie. those that professed to be converted to catholicsm but were in reality still practicing and believing their previous religion.
I do not believe there is one single case of the inquisition processing any person who was not under its jurisdiction but I would like to hear it if you know any.
I guess my point is that the Spanish Inquisition is more a matter of myth than reality. It did not do most of the things people believe it did and it did not operate in the way most people believe it did. Namely, it was not part of the Spanish government. In fact, they often collided as they had separate and concurrent jurisdictions.
I guess another point I am trying to make is that to simplify history into King X or event Y was a good thing or was a bad thing is just plain silly.
Oh, well if that’s what you’re talking about, this thread is sounding less and less like a not-so-great-debate. As I alluded to earlier, I don’t think the Spanish Inquisition was all that different from what had been going on before, it was just more widely publicized (for lack of a better word). Plus, it didn’t die out until the 1800’s, so it was still fresh in many minds as “history” was being written. In the aftermath of the Enlightenment, this must have seemed even worse than before and was more than likely exaggerated for effect and as backlash against the Catholic Church as the Protestant religions grew.
In answer to the OP, it was wrong because innocent people died because they thought differently than the powers that be. The reports may not have been as accurate as we would like, but that people died is still the truth, and that is still bad
Is that enough seriousness? Can I go back to quoting Monty Python now?
PS, I like your post about us not being serious when your first answer to the Dark Ages thread you link to is that it was dark because Edison hadn’t invented the lightbulb. I may humbly suggest that next time you want to start a serious discussion on a topic, try not to have the OP be such a simplistic question and expect us to read through an entire thread filled with lengthy posts until we get to the part where you mention the current topic. A simple cut & paste would’ve done the trick and been far more effective than “Why was the Spanish Inquisition so bad?” which, to most people is like asking why the Holocaust was bad.
Bratman, thanks for your post. Yes, of course, I am not saying it is a good idea for people to kill each other for religious or ideological reasons, just that in those times they saw things differently everywhere, not just in Spain. Everywhere in Europe people were fighting over religion and there was more fighting and killing and persecuting in the rest of Europe than there was in Spain. It’s not like people in the rest of Europe had any more freedom to choose their religion. Spain managed to stay out of the religious wars that ravaged across Europe much better than England and France and other European countries.
So it was just a sign of the times. It was not good or bad, it is just history. The human race started out in the jungle as savages and over the centuries has made progress slowly. We are still part of that process and we cannot be judged except by our own standards. I discussed this in another thread and would not want to sidetrack this one but it would be easy for historians a couple hundred years from now to call us barbaric for having laws that to them will seem very barbaric. I think it is silly to condemn those people for being a product of their times. Heck, even today one sees so much religious intolerance. If some people today are willing to kill and die for an idea it seems we have not come that far.
Judged by the standards of their time, Spanish history of that period is no better and no worse than other European countries.
I do not believe it is comparable to the holocaust in any way. The holocaust was something totally in conflict with the standards of western civilization at that time. That is what makes it so wrong.
The holocaust, BTW, is also greatly a product of modern propaganda in the sense that there have been other holocausts even more recently (the soviet, chinese, cambodian, african) where greater numbers of people have been exterminated and yet they do not get the attention or condemnation of the German. Like the Spanish Inquisition, this is a case of selective history. I would like to see more awareness about the millions and millions who died in those other episodes which we prefer to ignore.
Regarding my link to the other thread, it links directly to my post about this topic, not to the beginning of the thread. I did think of pasting it here but I thought a link would save some bandwidth as the mods frown on crossposting. I guess I could have made a more clear explanation here but I posted in a hurry and expected most people to arrive at this thread coming from the other one.
Also, I did not mean to imply I resented any jokes, just that I was looking for some serious input rather than just jokes. I was just afraid this would turn into a discussion about Monty Python.
Not nearly as bad as the French Inquisition. At least the Spanish one was against non-xtians – I can kind of understand that.
jmullaney, can you support that? I believe you are mistaken. the inquisition was the same thing everywhere and only had jurisdiction over Christians. As I have stated before, the Spanish Inquisition did not persecute people of other faiths.
Yeah, now we’re savages in modern cities, not the jungle. we really have come a long way.
I think this started as a discussion about Monty Python. 
You need to word your posts and subject titles more carefully if you want to have a serious discussion.
Small piece of advice: IMHO is not generally the forum I’d choose if I were looking for a serious discussion. Were I a moderator, I’d kick this over to GD, so the folks over there can add a few dozen more of their own Monty Python jokes before getting down to the business of having an argument (one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten…).
You’re probably right that this would be taken more seriously in GD. The truth is I am never too sure where to post. Oh well, I’ll let the mods decide.
Maybe we should have a forum called “Dumb Debates”. I mean it’s not like we have anybody here demanding the return of the Spanish Inquisition. (Well, I hope not)
Well, the big 15th-16th C Inquisition took place largely in the Iberian penninsula (hence spanish?) against marrano and morisco apostasy, so since they were technically recent converts you are right, and was an intra-christian thing, but WAS largely in what-we-now-call-Spain (as for what went down in the lowlands in the 16th C with the Duke of Alva. . . lets not get into it). I don’t know if the wide assumption is that it was government-run, though. The concentration in Spain was purely a geographical happenstance (that’s where the heretics happened to be) and does not reflect on the character and integrity of the peoples of the iberian penninsula whatsoever. Yes, so there’s an old English bias. We are all angry at the ignorant masses for doing a disservice to our pet subjects (don’t get me started on Giorgio Vasari and the primacy of Italian Renaissance art, argh!!!)
In the 1250s during the earlier Inquisition against the Cathars (no, NOT in Spain) Innocent IV officially sanctioned torture, no? But the Cathars, again, were more or less Christian.
And now for mel brooks,
“Auto de fe, what’s da auto de fe?”
Sailor said:
This is a bit misleading. While the Inquisition was a Church institution, in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV (note: add to oxymoron list) granted Ferdinand and Isabella the right to appoint the inquisitors in their domains, and in 1483 those monarchs merged the inquisition into a single organization whose jurisdiction covered all their kingdoms. So it was subject to some extent to both Church and State and one entity did cover all the Kingdoms in Spain.
Furthermore, while the potential to establish an inquisition existed wherever the Church held sway, in fact it was not established in all Catholic territories.
This info based on the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Yes, all true. Note that the fact that the King could appoint the Inquisidors (and bishops, as they did) did not mean they were under the control or orders of the King (in the same sense that the President appoints a justice to the Supreme Court but this does not mean he can tell him what to do).
The Church in theory was independent. In practice of course it was always a question of balance of power. The Church needed the secular authorities or it would be powerless. And the secular authorities needed the moral backing of the Church. But they often clashed.
Charles, emperor of “Germany” and king of “Spain” was so fed up with the Pope he had his army invade and sack Rome. They both understood this was just part of doing business and no hard feelings
The secular authorities had no jurisdiction over Church property or religious persons who were all under the jurisdiction of the Church. This jurisdiction was understood very liberally. The secular police could not enter a church or other religious establishment to arrest anyone and it was common for fugitives to take refuge in a church. All religious persons, even with minor orders, were immune from government jurisdiction and subject to the jurisdiction of the church. This was taken to excess as in that soldiers could not be quartered in houses where any cleric lived.
Of course this was the theory and often things did not quite work that way. Many fugitives from justice escaped harsher punishments by taking refuge in a church until things quieted down. The Church defended their independence and jurisdiction fiercely.
Some examples: In some town all the families would have some member ordained of minor orders so as to be free of quartering soldiers. A company arrived and the captain decided he would have the last laugh. So he defined dwelling as the room of the house in which the cleric lived and housed his soldiers in the other rooms. Of course the town protested and the litigation lasted long after the soldiers were gone but in the meanwhile they had to put up with them because you did not mess with those armies who terrified as much the enemy as the “friendly” towns in which they were quartered.
The quartering of soldiers in private houses in those days was a major gripe of people, as we know.
Another example; When Antonio Perez, secretary of the king was going to be arrested in his home, he (not being unprepared) jumped out a back window and took refuge in the nearby church. The soldiers violated the immunity of the church and dragged him out. The Church immediately filed a protest demanding he be returned to them as he was illegally removed from their jurisdiction. The legal battle between Church and state went on for quite a while but the king had his man and did not let him go.
BTW, and continuing with the story of this man, Antonio Perez, he later escaped from Castile to Aragon and all efforts of the King to have him extradited back to Castile failed. This was not an absolute ruler but a king very much subject to the constraints of the laws of the kingdoms he ruled. The courts ruled he should be judged in Aragón and not in Castile but this would not do for the King so a scheme was devised. All state charges against AP were dropped and a formal accusation of heressy was presented before the Inquisition which did have jurisdiction in Aragon.
AP was taken to the Inquisition prison in Saragossa but the people rioted against what they saw as a sham and a scheme to get around their rights. In the end the riots escalated to where the viceroy was killed and AP was freed and escaped to France. The kingdoms preserved their rights jealously.
I always liked one of the formulas used by the nobles of Aragón to swear allegiance to the King. The king was considered “primus inter pares” and definitely subject to the law. the formula went something along these lines: “We, who are worth as much as you, and all united more than you, do swear allegiance to you as our King so long as you respect our laws, privileges and customs etc…”
There was a true balance of powers as everybody needed everybody else. The church needed the state, the sate needed the church and the nobles, etc. The king needed the Cortes (representatives of the three estates) as only they could approve the taxes the King needed to keep things going.
Often, then as today, legal maneouvers were used. Just like today mafiosi are accused of cheating on taxes because that’s the way to get them even if it is not really why we’re after them at that time the legal process was used and abused whichever way they could.
People under fear of prosecution by the state would be ordained of minor orders so they would have immunity. People would escape prosecutions on technicalities of the law (nothing new under the sun) and the state often used whatever means they had. For example, those doing contraband were not merely accused of cheating on taxes, no, they were accused through the inquisition on the pretext that it was a religious matter as they were trading with infidels.
It is all much more complex and interesting than it may seem at first sight.
BTW, I do admit I did not start the thread right and so most people really did not know at what I was aiming. Sorry about that.