The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight

An ecclesiastical inquisition in Europe was a court system adapted from Roman law. It was an institutional tribunal charged with protecting orthodox religious doctrine and church discipline. From 1414-1418 (Constance) and 1438 (Basle), the church was shaped by lawyers who were consulted for the councils. Canonists were needed for church order and to make crucial distinctions.

Jurists keep good records, clean records and abundant records. Curialists write neatly. Scribes are taught to be legible. Because of this legal infrastructure, we can today study the inquisitions, unlike some other institutions which are lost to us due to a lack of quality documentation. Fortuitously, inquisition material survived European wars. We should also use the plural and speak of "inquisitions" since there were a number of them in different times and places. We now use the capital letter "I" to refer to a specific historical inquisition, such as the Venetian or Spanish, or even the earliest one during the Albigensian era in southern France. For the Inquisition and its procedures in Italy during Galileo's time, we have John Tedeschi's The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (1991).

Due to the work of newer historians, such as Edward Peters in his Inquisition (1988), we use The Inquisition to speak of the mythology surrounding these institutions. Such mythology passed down to us as folklore, the result largely of successful Protestant anti-Roman propaganda, particularly coming from the Spanish Netherlands.

Read the entire article...

Comments

[Sandra Miesel]

Excellent recommendations. I'd also mention William Monter (FRONTIERS OF HERESY and RITUAL, MYTH AND MAGIC IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE) as well as Guido Ruggiero on the Venetian Inquisition (BINDING PASSIONS). The shining moment when a Spanish Inquisitor demonstrated the delusionary character of witchcraft is described in THE WITCHES' ADVOCATE by Gustav Hemmingsen.

[Anon]

I can't believe what I've read here. You are attempting to rewrite history. Heretics were executed. That is unforgivable, but your attempt to whitewash the Inquisition borders on recidivism.

[John Herreid]

I can't believe what I've read here.

I'm not sure what you read, as it seems you must have ignored the entirety of this article to arrive at the conclusion you have. Fr. Van Hove is pretty clear--he says:

Until recently, Protestant-inspired literature on the Inquisition tended to be hostile to the Catholic Church per se, while Catholic literature tended to be narrowly apologetic and justificatory. Always underlying the differing views were the "black legend" or the "white legend", both of which were legends and not history.

Doesn't sound like he's whitewashing anything.

[LJ]

Well anon, the point is that the history already had a re-write, driven by a bias that apparently still exists. John Paul II, as the article points out, made apology for the wrong that was done. The point, at least in part, of this work is to identify, without bias, what exactly was the extent of that wrong. Consider it a cold case file, and the historical investigators are looking for facts, not mythology, to the extent that the records show it.

For those who have a passionate hatred for the Catholic Church, and I've met some, the question becomes, is it more important to know the truth or hold on to the hatred?

[Robert Miller]

Inquisitions were a service of the Church to the public thing of the Catholic people -- the res publica christiana, or Christendom.
Moderns (including Catholic moderns), who think of faith as merely a matter of opinion, cannot understand this service of the inquisitions to truth. If a society, composed almost exclusively of Catholics, wants to know whether certain of its members are promoting ideas or beliefs subversive of the truth, where is it to look for guidance if not to the Church? Very likely, the inquisitions saved many lives and reputations.
Our attitude toward the inquisitions is a key barometer of our ecclesiological and missionary orientation. Catholic political thought ought to begin with the question: What if all (or the overwhelming majority) of our fellow citizens were Catholics? What kinds of expression of our faith would we make normative in public life? What kinds of precautions would we think reasonable to defend our families from losing the faith? (Or, to return to the heyday of the inquisitions, think how many generations of Catholics have been lost for failure of the inquisitions to secure effective jurisdiction over Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.)
If your civil order were an expression (however imperfect) of your imperfect faith, why would you want to lose it (witness the results of such loss most recently in secular Spain, Portugal and Ireland). The Church can live within a civil society that is not Catholic, but certainly no Catholic can argue that it would not be better if the overwhelming majority of its citizens were Catholics -- and Catholics who were serious about incarnating the faith in the civil realm.
Incarnating faith in the civil realm was the business of Christendom, and the inquisitions served the Catholic interest in preventing the corruption of that business.

[Stohn]

I think it's important to remember that the executions of the inquisitionS were done by the secular governments, not the Church. The Spanish Inquisition was ordered by King Ferdinand of Aragon (modern Spain). It is also important not to look at the inquisition from the lens of 21st Century America. During this time the most heinous crime was any crime against the orthodox faith, because it involved spiritual harm, which was considered much worse than physical harm. Sure, in 21st Century America, with our separation of Church and State and freedom to say whatever we please, it seems foreign and wrong, however during the late Middle Ages, the idea of separating faith from law was not even in the back of anyone's mind, and what was considered legally apprehensible was based off the Catholic faith, not a masonic constitution.

[Robert Miller]

Well said, Stohn.