![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following problems are ordered by their place in the article.
1) The Inquisition or rather Inquisitions (episcopal, papal, Spanish, etc.) investigated religious crime generally, including but not limited to: heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, witchcraft, adultery, etc. This article is using heresy as a catch-all phrase which is misleading and historically inaccurate. Inquisitors and ecclesiastical courts could also investigate and punish secular crimes committed against the church or clerics. In Spain and Spanish America "fueros" made ecclesiastical tribunals the courts of first instance for members of the clergy. The "Ancient Origins" section needs to be updated to include references to the inforcement of relgious crimes in general and not just heresy.
2) The dating for the episcopal inquisition is innaccurate. While church councils may have made given this power to bishops, the use of the episcopal inquisition was not limited to the 12th c. The first inquisition in Mexico for example was an episcopal inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was not extended to the colony until 1572. As the most important secular cleric in a diocese, the bishop held the power to invesitgate and punish religious crime.
3) There is a confusion between the papal inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. The papal inquisition operated under the direct authority of the pope. The Spanish Inquisition was a separate administrative unit which opperated within Spanish dominions as part of the patronato real. While the pope confirmed appointments to be Grand Inquisitor he did not actively run or interfere with the opperation of the Spanish Inquisition. The official patron of the Catholic Church in Spain was the king of Spain who controlled all major ecclesiastical appointments.
4) This page could use a more indepth look at inquistorial practice. While generally percieved as an example of corrupted and misguided persecution, the inquisition functioned almost identically to contemporary secular courts. Both court systems used torture, allowed heresay, and presumed guilt. The inquisition allowed for defense lawyers, the declaration of enemies (a protection against vindictive use of the system), and allowed defendents to respond to the offical accusation. 68.113.6.195 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not so to point #4. The Inquisition was conducted directly by the Church, in accordance with papal Bull, and the clergy did THEMSELVES administer the death penalty. The routine torture used by the inquisition was not customarily used in the secular courts. id like to see your references, as there are almost none visible. Sorry, Im not signed in, but this doesn't really describe the depth of what happened. Also, England NEVER had the inquision, as the Roman Church never had enough political clout in the land or with the people. -Lollipopfop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 ( talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The genocide and other horrible crimes committed by the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, via the Holy Inqusition, need to be included in this article. One of the major purposes of history is to prevent humans from repeating past mistakes. The Inquisition was one of the greatest "mistakes" perpetrated on humans in the history of Europe. The errors made by the Church within the context of the Inquisition are an exceedingly important part of the phenomenon and must be included here. Not to do so smacks of an attempt -- once again -- to cover up crimes committed repeatedly by the Church. 74.75.68.56 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was nonsense. Well done. -- SECisek 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is too POV. it dont say ANYTHING about Inquisition practices and dont show ANY number about people killed by it!!! I know its a shame to chatolicism, but its wrong to try to hide it. IF you people continue to revert any information about Inquisition practices, I ASSURE you we will have some edit wars here -- SSPecter
I agree with SSPecter. I can not find the numbers of people killed, or even a list of whom they targeted anywhere. The closest thing is an unreferenced comment saying that not many people were put to death if they were accused of heresy. Im sure that was a great comfort to the many who had everything taken from them or were mutilated. This article is a bit too lenient. I think it does in fact hide the scope and the evil intent behind the Inquisition. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lollipopfop (
talk •
contribs)
18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the title of this article should be changed to CATHOLIC INQUISITION, because by calling it just "Inquisition" it misleads people to think that ONLY Catholics held an inquisition, however, it is a well-known historical fact that the PROTESTANTS also had an inquisition of their own. Thus we have the Lutherans persecuting the anabaptists, Catholics and others, the Calvinists and Zwinglists as well in the territories they controlled. Even the anabaptists are known to have had their own inquisition when they got control of a town, as it happened in the town of Muenster in Germany. In Geneva, for instance, it is said that John Calvin himself burned more than 50 alledged heretics, including the famous physician Michael Servetus. In England, the church of England is blamed for having sent to the stake thousands of catholics and other religious groups. NOt to speak of all the alledged witches that were burned in New England, not by Catholics but by Puritans. Also, another article should be added that talks about the PROTESTANT INQUISITION (Maybe I will work on it).
Please vote if you agree with this title change. I will not do anything until I get at least five votes. Majority decides. Thanks. Ag2003, June 28, 2006
VOTE COUNT --> FOR: 0 AGAINST:1
I think the word "Christian" should be in inverted commas to show that it was not Christianity at all, but a mock version that became the Roman Catholic church. None of what the Inquisition did bears any resemblance to the teaching of Christ or the apostles, so it couldn't possibly be Christian, could it? I will try to find out but I was told that the present Pope was the head of the Inquisition prior to this appointment, so it would seem it does still exist as an office. I would vote for the proposal above, but don't know how to. September 4th 2006
I think that one of the most important things should be added to the article:
I do suppose it is relevant. Im not saying that it in any way proves that the Church has redeemed itself, if redemption from that kind of misuse of authority is even possible, but it is a historical fact. I also do not think the use of a term like "His Holiness" is appropriate, and we do not use terms like"His Honor" in the articles, typically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's important because it shows actual Roman Catholic Church view on inguisition.
I think that one of the most important things should be added to the article: His Holiness Pope John Paul II has officially apologized for mistakes of Inquisition. It's important because it shows actual Roman Catholic Church view on inguisition.
It doesn't mean they should be redeemed. It's irrelevant information, we must shed light on the wrongs and evils, it is far too easy for a modern pope to say he's "sorry". Please abstain from using His Holiness. Keltica
Point. I think he apologized for the "Holocaust", not the Inquisition. 124.104.141.201 06:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The pope did not apologize. He apologzied on behalf of the "sons and daughters of the church" in other words the laity, and their role in it. The heirarchy has never taken responsibility, what a joke. Of course it's always hard to apologize for something when your supposedly "infallible." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffaba ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A question to all you good Historians:
I have heard and read many times that the inquisition burned millions of witches. However, when I read up about this, I find that this is not exactly correct is it? First of all, it is not countless. According to one source I read a year ago, the number of witches burned in Spain as a result of the spanish inquisition was counted as: 2. (Jews and heretics in the thousands, anywhere I have read). I have read many other accounts, but not a single one that I deem reliable supports millions. Most witches seem to have been burned by other groups of people, from what I have read. Since I have heard and read this in many places, perhaps it might be worthwhile for someone to write a something to sort this out. Just to get the numbers straight, at least on witches. What do you say? Is it a good idea to set something straight here, if only just to contradict what seems to be held as "common knowledge" about the inquisition? Daniel Demaret
Kamen gives the figure of approximately 3000 executed by Spain during the 3 centuries the Inquisition existed. (Unsigned)
According to Brian P. Levack, The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe (second edition, 1995), approximately 110,000 people were tried for witchcraft and 60,000 executed over the course of several centuries. However, most of these were tried and executed in civil courts, not church courts; in fact you were far more likely to be acquitted in church courts, which followed established judicial procedure and restricted judicial torture far more than did the civil courts of the era. Rofbin Briggs, in Witches and Neighbors, puts the number at 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, and 40,000-50,000 executed, 20%-15% of which were men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.31.37 ( talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a part of the article that was really not about the inquisition and it is really not accurate and is contradicted in the Wikipedia itself. Part of this seems to be being generated by interpretations being promoted in popular fiction books that are filled with inacuracies. Historical facts do not support these interpretations. AllanOlson
Gosh I'd love to know what you're reading about this. DO tell me you're not writing off the top of your head. Let me suggest E.F. Peters on the Spanish Inquisition - a useful contemporary source. If you're reading ANYTHING written by a 19th century English speaker (especially if his name is Lea), you are toying with the Leyenda Negra. --MichaelTinkler
In fact, skimming back through earlier versions, someone had a pretty good version of the converso problem. I wonder why it disappeared? --MichaelTinkler
Which inquisition murdered Jan Hus? --AxelBoldt
this is worse than it used to be. "Resistance was usually futile." Tell it to the popes! The Arian situation was NOT solved by the Council of Nicaea. In fact, because of imperial patronage Arianism became the variety of Christianity most consistently supported by the government for the next 50 or so years. Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion - that was Theodosius I in the 380s. --MichaelTinkler
Removed from entry:
See my comments above. I tried revising it (e.g., changing 'established as state church' to 'legalized') but then I realized that it's too messy to rewrite. I'll try something on the entry. --MichaelTinkler
One could easily argue that the Council of Nicea was not the first council, that the first council would be the one mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles when they (in particular Peter and Paul) meet in Jerusalem with the rest of the Apostles and 'ancients' to discuss if aspiring Christians should have to go though Jewish rituals first. Acts 15:1-9 Guldenat 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to NPOV? Yes, the Inquistions to us are pretty scary, but could we please try to remember that, to the vast majority of people living at the time of the first two Inquisitions discussed in this article, heresy was a BAD thing. Heresy existed, and not because of some conspiracy by Authority. Heretics not only went to hell, but their very presence in society put others at risk. At least, that's how your average medieval Christian would see it. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. JHK
Most people in the USSR supported Stalin.
Exile 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Heresy is only a problem for religions that have centrally defined doctrines and dogma.
Dmerill, why do you think links to Amazon support the NPOV? I think one could easily make the opposite case. Personally, I try to stay away from ISBN's altogether, because they tend to encourage people to buy the books rather than to just go to their library. Libraries typically don't use ISBN's, which is good, because ISBN's distinguish between different editions, hard- and softcover etc., which are usually irrelevant distinctions. --AxelBoldt
I find the links very useful. With a single click, I can see the year the book was published, how long it is, some indication of the intended audience (popular vs. technical), and a list of reviews. This is usually more info than would be appropriate in the Wikipedia article itself, but it's nice to have such easy access to it.
A think the NPOV comment was referring to the fact that it links to all 3 of the largest booksellers, rather than just the 2 that aren't disliked by some people here. Personally, I'd like to see the software changed to be even more NPOV, and to look better. The ISBN should be a single link to a CGI script on wikipedia.com that then brings up a list of every bookseller we know of. Someday, it might even automatically bring up the ISBNs of other editions of the same book. I assume we'll have all this in the software eventually, so it's useful to use the ISBN notation in articles we write now. -- LC
As another general criticsm of ISBN's: suppose you want to refer to Plato's dialogs or Euclid's elements. What ISBN do you list? There are dozens of editions. There's a good reason that libraries use title and author. --AxelBoldt
"Jews or Muslims who did not become Christians were never subjected to the powers of the Inquisition." This is a tad misleading. The reason they were not subjected to the Spanish Inquisition is because they were expelled in 1492. Danny
There is a catch 22 on conversion. If a Jew did convert, but continued practicing as a Jew, he would then be subject to prosecution.
I think there may be a bit too much past tense. The Inquisition's torture chambers confessionals operated until 1870. The department itself continues today under a different name and confined to internal matters (and presumably with fewer stakes and faggots). see Peter de Rosa Vicars of Christ --
Kwantus
Those Muslims and Jews who were not expelled were converted to Christianity or killed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.69.10.2 (
talk)
07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The History part looks badly written. What does the Roman Emperor have to do with the Inquisition! David.Monniaux 16:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
removed this:
Which mainstream authors would that include? -- Stbalbach 01:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See Jack Chick and his sources. You may not agree with him, but he is the most widely-published living author in the world, clearly making him "mainstream." The sentence in the article clearly stated that this was only the opinion of "some anti-Catholic authors" which is an objective fact. It does not state conclusively that the Holocaust was an Inquisition, merely that some authors believe this, including some very, very popular and influential ones. You should not censor this viewpoint, even if you disagree with it. I'm adding it back. JTC 20:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
JTC, the problem is just because someone calls it an Inquisition doesnt mean is. See the discussion under Feudalism for example. By creating a header called "Other Inquisitions" you have implied that it was, in fact, an Inquisition. That is a POV. That is why it belongs under etymology, or some other header, that makes it clear the usage of the term is being used for political reasons, and not as a neutral historical description. -- Stbalbach 21:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
we are promised four inquisitions but we only get three... m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The following text was at the top of the History section, at the end of the introductory paragraph, where it was a complete non sequitur:
If this is true, it needs to be discussed at the logical place in the article. I'm also guessing that the decree had no effect, but that would need clarification as well.-- Bcrowell 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Can someon fix the second sentence of the "Origins" Section? There's a run-on sentence, and I don't know enough about the topic to make heads or tails of it and thus I cannot fix it. Mrendo 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have difficulties understanding this article because of the way that different Inquisitions are described. Clearly, the understanding for the authority to conduct an Inquisition is important in any article on the Inquisition. What were the differences between the 'Spanish Inquisition' and the 'Medieval Inquisition' and the 'Roman Inquisition' my understanding (this may be wrong) was that they were all exercised by papal authority through the Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition (later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Can we separate those from, for example, the religious persecution practiced by the regions of Germany after the Western Schism? L Hamm 02:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Would it be at all useful to bring up Marvin Harris' interpretation as to the causes of the inquisitions in Cows, Pigs, War, and Witches. Though this would deal with two separate phenomenon: the perceived threat of Satanism, and heresy. L Hamm 04:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Edited article to mitigate pro-christian bias. Article failed to mention violence of any sort in Inquisitions, and lay blame for the Inquisitions on the "heretics" themselves, rather than examining the historical context in which the RCC defined certain people as "heritics". Also claimed passage from christian bible as historical fact.
71.249.59.155 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)J. Porkpie
This article has been referenced by http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18384627-421,00.html
HardwareBob 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problem... as per the article, it would seem the institution was born in the late 1100s ... I've had, from sources I trust, though I've lost the book and can't quote, indications that a body dedicated to extirpation of heresies (and the earliest instances of heretics being burned at the stake), date back to the late Merovingian times (600 or so) ... and that French king Robert II the Pious had personal trouble with such a body and had to publicly recant and reaffirm his allegiance to the pope ... not quite as bad as the Walk to Canossa incident Emperor Henry IV of Germany suffered a century later... maybe the greatest instances of Inquisition activity and influence were those tied to the Albigensian crusade, and then the ethnic purification of the Spanish Renaissance times, but the institution itself is certainly not limited to those two periods. Does anybody have more information? -- Svartalf 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that this article continually reverts to a state in which the inquisitions are given a positive spin? Which Christians are so proud of this moment in their history that they feel it necesssary to make religious persecution a noble act? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.249.81.74 ( talk • contribs) .
In saying that there is a school of inquisition revisionism, the author of that particular quote is certainly correct. To say that it is similar to Holocaust revisionism seems to me woefully misinformed. Holocaust deniers are on the fringes of academia, and they offer little to no evidence to support their claims. Inquisition revisionists, and here Henry Kamen's name stands out, are usually well respected historians whose claims have more or less been generally accepted by scholarly consensus, based as they are on actual archival work, archival work which their predecessors simply did not and could not do. Do not be ashamed of the label revisionist, if what it means is that you have simply toppled an older incorrect and largely impressionistic view with a correct one that is based on evidence.
To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
repeated concerns have been voiced on both the Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition talk pages that these articles get “white-washed” every so often by self-declared supporters of the church (which church i’m not sure). one or two in particular will paste over or npov any text that doesn’t completely tiptoe around the Church’s role in the Inquisition. this site has never been (to my knowledge) affiliated, run or sponsored by any religious group or sect. so viewpoints other than official church doctrine should not constantly be posted over or npov’d. the only specific complaint ever voiced was the use of “murder” which, between both articles, had been used twice. both instances were taken out even though the word, as used, could easily have been argued to be objective. Jossi had made some very neutral changes on the Inquisition page and st. ballbuster couldn’t even live with that so I am reverting the Inquisition page back to Jossi’s very objective, carefully blended, most recent edit and taking the npov off of what is certainly an objective and informative Spanish Inquisition article even if it does suggest some Church accountability for what happened. 24.145.184.199 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Article is protected due to edit warring. Note that edit warring never achieve anything in Wikipedia, besides getting the article protected and editors, blocked. Please discuss a way forward and attempt to reach some kind of consensus. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP.
If you have specific questions about process or policy, please let me know and I will be glad to help. (and before anyone complains, please note that protection does not imply that the current version is the correct one. Admins are always accused of protecting the wrong version.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not unbiased. This was written by someone who has no interest in historical accuracy, but clearly just has a problem with the way the Inquisitors ran their trials. I could just as well re-frase this as:
You people always cry about people being biased for the Inquisition, but when people start writing how horrible EVERYTHING the office did do 500 years ago, no one edits it. For all those who just created their accounts, Wikipedia is for facts only, not OPINIONS, and the articles are supposed to be written in a NEUTRAL fashion. The upper text IS NOT NEUTRAL. Please fix this, thank you. Arctic-Editor 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The previous state religion of Rome to Christianity was not the "Cult of the Invincible Sun." It was not a cult, it was Pagan religion, and it was called Mythraism; just another biased historical inaccuracy.
Meandmypink 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on Inquisition, under the paragraph "Origin," has the following incorrect statement: "Following Nicea, Arius and his followers were persecuted and killed by the Romans."
Arius died a natural death. Here is a quote from the Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers.
Indeed, the Wikipedia article on Arius has the correct information:
And yet, the very day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius died suddenly. Socrates describes his death thus: It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
Please add the following under Derivative Works:
MamaGeek TALK CONTRIB 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In Portuguese Inquisition "The Portuguese Inquisition was established in Portugal in 1536 by the King of Portugal, João III, as a Portuguese analogue of the more famous Spanish Inquisition." is repetead twice.
Why is Goa mentioned as an Indian city? Thats not only insulting its incorrect, unless one wants to refer to the Portuguese named city of Goa, now Velha Goa. The whole region of Conquestas Velhas suffered here.
This paragraph
In Spain and Portugal, the auto da fes and pre-decided trials of accused heretics, often ended with men and women being burned alive. Spanish missionaries would later import the Inquisition to the New World, convicting and killing Central and South Americans who refused to convert to Catholicism from the early sixteenth century onward.
Seems both gratuitous and unnecessary, as the Spanish Inquisition is mentioned in the paragraph that follows. Rather than re-write it, I would suggest deleting it. Hobomojo 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I added this article to Category:Disengagement from religion, but it was removed without explanation. What is the objection? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
i heard that the inquisition still exists, is this true?
Yes and no. The Dominican friars are no longer heading an organization that can arrest, detain, interrogate, try, and sentence people for crimes against faith, doctrine, and the Church; so, in the strictest sense, there is no longer an Inquisition. However, the Roman Curia still includes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly headed by Pope Benedict XVI when he was only Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose duty is to see to the integrity of Catholic doctrine, and to repress any deviation from correct doctrine or outbreak of heresy, as well as to safeguard morality within the Church. On much more chancy footing are the rumors that the Inquisition used to serve as "executioner of low works" for the Church, handling what we would now call espionage, assassination and "black ops", a role that rumor now ascribes to Opus Dei. -- Svartalf 15:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If you saw PBS's Secret Files of The Inquisition, you may have been amazed to learn that the Inquisition continued until the 20th century. It then changed its name to the Congregation of something or another. Also, the Index of Prohibited Books was in effect until 1966. Napoleon brought 3,000 crates of Inquisition files to Paris, and conducted an expose'. However, when he was defeated, the church bought the files back, and returned to its old ways. They continued to have their own army and police force through most of the 19th century.
I removed the request for citation regarding the disestablishment of the inquisition in Spain and Mexico here and in the main article. Any general work, from Lea to Peters, has this information. What specifically drives the request for citation? Hobomojo 03:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the last paragraph in this section, which made some rather strong statements without providing any substantiation whatsoever for them. I would recommend not putting these statements back in until you have found the 4 or 5 citations you need. dcresti 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this lead section which has been reverted:
This is non-standard and problematic on a number of levels. For one, the Wikipedia:Lead section should not be a bulleted list, it should be in narrative format, ideally 3-paragraphs in length (per WP:Featured article rules). It should be a summary of the article contents. It should not contain anything that is not already in the main body of the article. Currently the article does no contain a "definition" section, but it needs one. The lead section would then contain a simple one-sentence summary definition of the Inquisition, which is currently what is there, plus a summary of the rest of the article (which is still needed). -- Stbalbach 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some language used in this article which is starting to get off the neurtral track a bit. The most obvious example is this from the "Goa Inquisition" section:
"If there is any legacy left by the portuguese, it is a region soaked with the blood of the innocent."
I've tagged the page until this is resolved. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, anyone want to change 'persecute' to 'prosecute'? It's mentioned twice here, and it sounds like a POV violation- weasel words. I'm going to go ahead and change it, because no one said anything. poopsix 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If one googles for "The inquisition", "The spanish inquisition" and "Inquisitions", one sees that the most commonly used is "The inquisition".
I am guessing that this means that most people looking in wikipedia will be looking for "the inquisition", which redirects to "Inquisition". But I suspect that anyone writing "The Inquisition" would not expect to get to that historical article, and they would easily get confused.
It would be better if there was a full disambiguation page called "The Inquisition", where we can list all the different uses of "The Inquisition", historical and fictional, so I aim to try that. DanielDemaret 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a box template for a "series on the Inquisition"? DanielDemaret 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added one word, with a huge meaning - "torture" - and I've provided more than enough refs to support the term. Yet I'm reverted and accused of POV and bias by Hobomojo, see here, here, and here. I've been accused of bias as shown here and I'm questioned about my research and the tone used, in my opinion, was not WP:Civil nor assuming good faith as the edit summaries here where I was accused of pushing a POV, biased, and was called a "gadfly" on my talk page, which is a personal attack by WP definitions. I have provided many sources, and I did not add any more content. I have placed fact tags (the 8 minor edits referred to on my talk page by user Hobomojo), which were also removed. This is a problem, when one editor dismisses another, and assumes bad faith. I did not write a section, just one word, and backed it with 3 reliable sources for adding the word "torture", here are the three;
I do not want to be involved in an edit war, as one of Hobomojo's edit summaries stated, "drop it", after he broke the WP:3RR rule. I have good faith, in that, we are here to provide a well sourced encyclopedia, and to provide a NPOV as well. I understand that sometimes things we read, hear and see may be disturbing, and want to deny it. But, this is an encyclopedia. I am disturbed by many things I read, but that does not mean I should deny truth, or evidence, such as in this article. We can learn from history. The Pope, himself, has recently apologized for these things, he did not deny the "horrors" either. Thanks for any feedback, either way. - Jeeny Talk 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this revolves around the three references Jeeny has mentioned and whether or not they support torture as a means to convert Muslims and Jews to Catholicism. The issue is rather narrow, not that torture was used because that seems stipulated, but whether it was directed against Muslims and Jews for the purpose of conversion. Assuming my assessment is correct, do you, Jeeny have a citation that specifically addresses that question? As I read the references they seem focused on inter-catholicism practices. If you can offer specific, non-trivial sources I think all can be satisfied. Apart from such, I fail to see how the material can be included. Just my thoughts. JodyB talk 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
These readings are from a course I had taken a while back. - Jeeny Talk 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
When talking about the Spanish Inquisition , no mention is made of the good it did . When the Spanish communist took over Spain ,the first thing that they did was kill priest & nuns , lay Catholic & burn Catholic Churches . Which resulted in civil war. The Spanish Inquisition kept Spain Catholic for 700 years . The worst that can happen to any nation is to lose it's Catholic Faith . THe rest of the other evil follow . Germany did not have an Inquisition , and it lead to to civil war that lasted 30 year . Also WWI & WWII would never had resulted if it had remained 100 % Catholics . France did not have the Inquisition and history resulted in about 100 years civil war with Protestants with France . The French Revolution resulted also because there was no French Inquisition . The results of the French Revolution was removal of the heads of many priest & nuns , looting of Catholic Churches and mass murder of the citizens . And finally France making war on it's neighbors by Napoleon . It was a French Masonic government that pushed for WWI against Prussian Protestant Germany , when the war could have ended . The result of WWI was the death of many Catholics on both sides . If Russia had the Inquisition , Lenin , would have been arrested , sent to jail and many horrors would have been prevented from the plumage of communism .THe number of those killed by the communist China are in the millions . If China was Catholic , Mao would have been arrested on the spot . If America was a Catholic nation with an Inquisition , there would not be 40 million dead babies due to abortion . because no true Catholic nation has abortion . Christ the King must rule , where he does not rule , evil does . This is what history shows.
Must say, interesting view of history. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a little strange. I'm not well versed on any good that came from the inquisition, but certainly asserting that a country keeping it's catholic identity (through means of torture, no less) is a good thing is serious POV. Also interesting how most posts of this kind go completely unsigned. So courageous to go around prosletyzing (sp?) religious beliefs but too cowardly to take credit for the words. Not to mention the absurdity of what you're implying - the only way to prevent atrocity is through torture? As if the only way to prevent wars from happening is to have an Inquisition? Wow, I can't believe I just used valuable time to respond to that. Guldenat 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone should check the recent edits. They are a bit too long to check quickly. m.e. 09:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And what on earth does this passage mean? (in Inquisition tribunals)
In the 12th century (Episcopal inquisition), to counter Catharism widespread, heresy persecution became more frequent. Church Councils (composed of bishops and archbishops) where charged of judging inquisitions.
I suggest finding the old version of the passage and just pasting it back in. Jacob Haller 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that using Galileo as the "poster boy" (lead in picture) for the inquisition is, at this time in history, POV. He was used for years. It has come time to give that up. There are plenty of better cases. Even Joan of Arc maybe. See Catholic.net for an explanation. I'm sure there are more scholarly treatises out there that would confirm this. Galileo was really quite late in the time frame and almost an exception to the rule. There were "other factors." Student7 ( talk) 13:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
why do we use "(capitalized I)" in the first sentence? It makes no sense to me. Could someone explain the idea of that? Otherwise it should be deleted. -- Monk ( talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following unreferenced part from the article: "used by Catholic and Protestant Churches", but a question disturbed me. Reading the many articles of Inquisition here on wikipedia, I noticed it all focus on Roman Catholic Church's inquisition, there are almost none Protestant or other churches' inquisitions. Why is that? What about persecution of other Churches against heresy? Even if it wasn't using inquisition procedure, shouldn't we link here? Note I am not complaining, I am just raising the subject. SSPecter Talk| E-Mail ◆ 21:14, 23 February 2008 ( UTC).
I deleted the whole paragraph, because of wrong topic + misinformations: 1) Numbers are from witch trials (civil+religious courts) not inquisition (religious) trials in total, should be in [4]. It is plainly wrong to talk about 59 woman in spain (wherever that number comes from, not from the sources), while the spanish inquisition is estimated at 5000 executions total nowadays. 2) Germany was not only protestant, most witch trials were in the south (catholic counter-reformation) as can be read in [5], —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.234.57 ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
... was automatically undeleted, and since I don't have a login and am not willig to open an account out of anonymity, I won't change it further... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.228.22 ( talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
point taken, about the IP address... The problem I have about this part is much more general: This article is about the inquisition and an overview linking to specific countries, but the last paragraph is about witchtrials. Even contradicting the articles about witchhunts in wikipedia (apart from outside sources: The mentioned sources do not give these numbers). Essentially, I did not refer to wikipedia for linking, but to show where that information should be incorporated, would it be not for the simple fact, that it is opposite from what is in the appropriate pages on witch hunts&trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.242.188 ( talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Stating the portuguese Inquisition, Book-censorship proved to have a strong influence in Portuguese cultural evolution, keeping the country uninformed and culturally backward, this is a funny statement since the Inquisition was practiced in many European Countries and only in Portugal the Inquisition 'kept the country uninformed and culturally backward'?
-- Jfarinhote ( talk) 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to make a comparison to determine who killed more? This article is about the Inquisition. Those facts should be used in a newly created article, for example, "Victims of witch-hunts". And how can I handle, as a reader, those contrasting figures found here and in Witch-hunts? 116.118.3.151 ( talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. But I hardly found any relations between your explanation and the point of our discussion. I'm not sure about something coming to my mind, but I think you’re trying to seek for another one to share with the Roman Church the burden of sinful mistakes they did in the past, and you found the Protestant reformers and their followers the most appropriate ones. I've wondered if it is compatible with this article?
116.118.9.9 (
talk)
06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section in question says:
This suggests that the chief focus of the Inquisition was witchcraft, and that earlier historians had misrepresented the Inquisition as being a particularly cruel or powerful witch-hunt. It suggests that the Inquisition was in reality a much milder witch-hunt than the Protestant ones.
But the Inquisition was not a witch craze, and is not represented as such by historians. The focus of the Inquisition was not witchcraft but rather heresy and apostasy -- the practice of Protestant or Orthodox Christianity, and the covert practice of Judaism and Islam by claimed converts to Catholicism.
An intellectually honest comparison would be to compare the Inquisition's persecution of Protestants and Orthodox with the persecution of Catholics in Protestant and Orthodox lands; and to compare the persecution of Jews under the (especially Spanish and Portuguese) Inquisitions with the persecution of Jews under e.g. Martin Luther.
As it stands, this section perpetuates a straw-man fallacy, and should not stand as such. -- FOo ( talk) 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My point was specifically that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the Inquisition was not so bad because it did not kill as many accused witches as Protestant countries did.
FOo has my consesus. The comparison, in my opinion, is arguably partial and not in line with the content of the article. May someone delete it if there’ll be no objections? 116.118.2.163 ( talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Foo is indeed right that the Inquisition was not originally designed to prosecute witchcraft, and it right in his criticism if the point is to say that the comparison exonerates the institution or suggests that Catholics were somehow more tolerant or enlightened than Protestants. Catholics in Germany and France killed thousands of accused witches as well. However, that does not mean that the findings posted are irrelevant because the inquisition did gradually extend its jurisdiction over witchcraft in Southern Europe and many scholars of the question believe that the inquisition itself was a crucial factor in limiting the witch craze in Iberia and Italy. This is in and of itself an astonishing sociological phenemonon and speaks to a fuller(and admittedly more positive)understanding of the inquisition's role in early modern Catholic Europe. Perhaps the section needs to be rewritten less polemically though.
Read and incorpore this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/inquisition2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.240.75 ( talk) 06:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"Sanctum Officium" means "Holy Office." Holy Office is mentioned in this article. But, the misspelled "Sanctum Offcium" re–directs to this "Inquisition" article. I am unable to fix the misspelled "Sanctum Offcium" that appears in the Wikipedia Index. Lestrade ( talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
It may be wise to leave out Motley's claim of attempted genocide unless it can be confirmed from more recent and less biased historians like Geyl and Wedgwood. But as it stands the article omit the mist violent of any of the persecutions carried by any of the inquisitions, against protestants in the Spanish Netherlands between 1520 and 1568 when the Dutch War of Independence broke out - partly as a result. William the Silent claimed at the time that 50,000 men an d women had been executed since the accession of Philip II. Many more had died under Charles V and Granvelle. The 1555 decree banning the reading of heretical books and even private religious discussion on pain of death makes horrifying reading. (Ref here: http://books.google.es/books?id=DQR_QUzrq8gC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=Netherlands+Philip+II+persecution&source=web&ots=vxca1arYJc&sig=a9aw60wDiE_zeJE-EdwPryrWbXo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA116,M1)
But which inquisition was it that Charles V had introduced into the Seventeen provinces? I don't think it was ever formally part of the Spanish Inquisition. Hhelp wanted from a Dutch or Belgian historian! -- JamesWim ( talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
First and above all, the number of 50000 condemned to death is an exegeration. W. Monter, Heresy executions in the Reformation Europe, in: Ole Peter Grell, Robert W. Scribner, Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 49-55 indicates that the number of executions for heresy in the Netherlands in 16th century amounted to about 1000. Additionaly, 1100 persons were executed by Duke Alba and his "Council of Troubles" between 1567-1574. Although Charles V (not a Pope!) in 1522 established the tribunal of inquisition for Netherlands, the crime of heresy was punished mainly by secular authorities, with little or no participation of ecclesiastical courts. Out of over 500 executions in the reign of Charles V, only one fifth can be atributed to the Flemish Inquisitors. Moreover, the inquisition in Netherlands acted according to the secular, not canonical rules and unlike the Spanish or Papal Inquisitions, it condemned to death even those heretics who repented. I'm not sure whether this institution should be considered as modification of the Ecclesiastical Inquisition, or as entirely separate institution created by Charles V in Netherlands.
CarlosPn 17:35 3 Nov 2008 CET
Quote: "In 2000 Pope John Paul II called for an "Inquisition Symposium" and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. Their findings called into question certain long-held beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of "witchcraft" died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and four in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them.[11][12] Some 26,000 persons condemned as witches died in Germany.[13]"
Isn't this whole section a little misleading? 1. which inquisition is this supposed to be questioning? 2. Are they honestly saying only near 100 people were killed by inqusitions in such lenghty periods? It's widely known among historians that heresy was a crime punishable by death (and largely enforced) in those periods. It's ridiculous to claim only 100 or so people were killed during wide scale investigations to route out such heresy. 3. Why does it only pick out the 'apparent' death tolls in three countries then seem compare those three to the death count of every single protestant country? It's an unbalancced comparison. 4. Isn't it a little naive to present "Roman Catholic" records as a reliable source? Maybe this section could be renamed "Catholic Records of the inqusitions" or something, and be expanded on. 5. The above comparison just seems like a cheap jab at protestantism rather than anything of historical value.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.70.109.123 (
talk)
22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the disputed section text, which I've removed from the article until/unless it can be made (1) coherent and relevent and (2) can cite the actual conclusions from the simposium volume published in 2004.
![]() |
In 2000 Pope John Paul II called for an "Inquisition Symposium" and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. Their findings called into question certain long-held beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of "witchcraft" died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and four in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them. [1] [2] Some 26,000 persons condemned as witches died in Germany. [3]
Rsheptak ( talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The witch-hunts waxed and waned for nearly three centuries, with great variations in time and space. 'The rate of witch hunting varied dramatically throughout Europe, ranging from a high of 26,000 deaths in Germany to a low of 4 in Ireland.' (Gibbons, Recent Developments.)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following problems are ordered by their place in the article.
1) The Inquisition or rather Inquisitions (episcopal, papal, Spanish, etc.) investigated religious crime generally, including but not limited to: heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, witchcraft, adultery, etc. This article is using heresy as a catch-all phrase which is misleading and historically inaccurate. Inquisitors and ecclesiastical courts could also investigate and punish secular crimes committed against the church or clerics. In Spain and Spanish America "fueros" made ecclesiastical tribunals the courts of first instance for members of the clergy. The "Ancient Origins" section needs to be updated to include references to the inforcement of relgious crimes in general and not just heresy.
2) The dating for the episcopal inquisition is innaccurate. While church councils may have made given this power to bishops, the use of the episcopal inquisition was not limited to the 12th c. The first inquisition in Mexico for example was an episcopal inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was not extended to the colony until 1572. As the most important secular cleric in a diocese, the bishop held the power to invesitgate and punish religious crime.
3) There is a confusion between the papal inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. The papal inquisition operated under the direct authority of the pope. The Spanish Inquisition was a separate administrative unit which opperated within Spanish dominions as part of the patronato real. While the pope confirmed appointments to be Grand Inquisitor he did not actively run or interfere with the opperation of the Spanish Inquisition. The official patron of the Catholic Church in Spain was the king of Spain who controlled all major ecclesiastical appointments.
4) This page could use a more indepth look at inquistorial practice. While generally percieved as an example of corrupted and misguided persecution, the inquisition functioned almost identically to contemporary secular courts. Both court systems used torture, allowed heresay, and presumed guilt. The inquisition allowed for defense lawyers, the declaration of enemies (a protection against vindictive use of the system), and allowed defendents to respond to the offical accusation. 68.113.6.195 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not so to point #4. The Inquisition was conducted directly by the Church, in accordance with papal Bull, and the clergy did THEMSELVES administer the death penalty. The routine torture used by the inquisition was not customarily used in the secular courts. id like to see your references, as there are almost none visible. Sorry, Im not signed in, but this doesn't really describe the depth of what happened. Also, England NEVER had the inquision, as the Roman Church never had enough political clout in the land or with the people. -Lollipopfop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 ( talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The genocide and other horrible crimes committed by the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, via the Holy Inqusition, need to be included in this article. One of the major purposes of history is to prevent humans from repeating past mistakes. The Inquisition was one of the greatest "mistakes" perpetrated on humans in the history of Europe. The errors made by the Church within the context of the Inquisition are an exceedingly important part of the phenomenon and must be included here. Not to do so smacks of an attempt -- once again -- to cover up crimes committed repeatedly by the Church. 74.75.68.56 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was nonsense. Well done. -- SECisek 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is too POV. it dont say ANYTHING about Inquisition practices and dont show ANY number about people killed by it!!! I know its a shame to chatolicism, but its wrong to try to hide it. IF you people continue to revert any information about Inquisition practices, I ASSURE you we will have some edit wars here -- SSPecter
I agree with SSPecter. I can not find the numbers of people killed, or even a list of whom they targeted anywhere. The closest thing is an unreferenced comment saying that not many people were put to death if they were accused of heresy. Im sure that was a great comfort to the many who had everything taken from them or were mutilated. This article is a bit too lenient. I think it does in fact hide the scope and the evil intent behind the Inquisition. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lollipopfop (
talk •
contribs)
18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the title of this article should be changed to CATHOLIC INQUISITION, because by calling it just "Inquisition" it misleads people to think that ONLY Catholics held an inquisition, however, it is a well-known historical fact that the PROTESTANTS also had an inquisition of their own. Thus we have the Lutherans persecuting the anabaptists, Catholics and others, the Calvinists and Zwinglists as well in the territories they controlled. Even the anabaptists are known to have had their own inquisition when they got control of a town, as it happened in the town of Muenster in Germany. In Geneva, for instance, it is said that John Calvin himself burned more than 50 alledged heretics, including the famous physician Michael Servetus. In England, the church of England is blamed for having sent to the stake thousands of catholics and other religious groups. NOt to speak of all the alledged witches that were burned in New England, not by Catholics but by Puritans. Also, another article should be added that talks about the PROTESTANT INQUISITION (Maybe I will work on it).
Please vote if you agree with this title change. I will not do anything until I get at least five votes. Majority decides. Thanks. Ag2003, June 28, 2006
VOTE COUNT --> FOR: 0 AGAINST:1
I think the word "Christian" should be in inverted commas to show that it was not Christianity at all, but a mock version that became the Roman Catholic church. None of what the Inquisition did bears any resemblance to the teaching of Christ or the apostles, so it couldn't possibly be Christian, could it? I will try to find out but I was told that the present Pope was the head of the Inquisition prior to this appointment, so it would seem it does still exist as an office. I would vote for the proposal above, but don't know how to. September 4th 2006
I think that one of the most important things should be added to the article:
I do suppose it is relevant. Im not saying that it in any way proves that the Church has redeemed itself, if redemption from that kind of misuse of authority is even possible, but it is a historical fact. I also do not think the use of a term like "His Holiness" is appropriate, and we do not use terms like"His Honor" in the articles, typically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It's important because it shows actual Roman Catholic Church view on inguisition.
I think that one of the most important things should be added to the article: His Holiness Pope John Paul II has officially apologized for mistakes of Inquisition. It's important because it shows actual Roman Catholic Church view on inguisition.
It doesn't mean they should be redeemed. It's irrelevant information, we must shed light on the wrongs and evils, it is far too easy for a modern pope to say he's "sorry". Please abstain from using His Holiness. Keltica
Point. I think he apologized for the "Holocaust", not the Inquisition. 124.104.141.201 06:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The pope did not apologize. He apologzied on behalf of the "sons and daughters of the church" in other words the laity, and their role in it. The heirarchy has never taken responsibility, what a joke. Of course it's always hard to apologize for something when your supposedly "infallible." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffaba ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A question to all you good Historians:
I have heard and read many times that the inquisition burned millions of witches. However, when I read up about this, I find that this is not exactly correct is it? First of all, it is not countless. According to one source I read a year ago, the number of witches burned in Spain as a result of the spanish inquisition was counted as: 2. (Jews and heretics in the thousands, anywhere I have read). I have read many other accounts, but not a single one that I deem reliable supports millions. Most witches seem to have been burned by other groups of people, from what I have read. Since I have heard and read this in many places, perhaps it might be worthwhile for someone to write a something to sort this out. Just to get the numbers straight, at least on witches. What do you say? Is it a good idea to set something straight here, if only just to contradict what seems to be held as "common knowledge" about the inquisition? Daniel Demaret
Kamen gives the figure of approximately 3000 executed by Spain during the 3 centuries the Inquisition existed. (Unsigned)
According to Brian P. Levack, The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe (second edition, 1995), approximately 110,000 people were tried for witchcraft and 60,000 executed over the course of several centuries. However, most of these were tried and executed in civil courts, not church courts; in fact you were far more likely to be acquitted in church courts, which followed established judicial procedure and restricted judicial torture far more than did the civil courts of the era. Rofbin Briggs, in Witches and Neighbors, puts the number at 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, and 40,000-50,000 executed, 20%-15% of which were men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.31.37 ( talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed a part of the article that was really not about the inquisition and it is really not accurate and is contradicted in the Wikipedia itself. Part of this seems to be being generated by interpretations being promoted in popular fiction books that are filled with inacuracies. Historical facts do not support these interpretations. AllanOlson
Gosh I'd love to know what you're reading about this. DO tell me you're not writing off the top of your head. Let me suggest E.F. Peters on the Spanish Inquisition - a useful contemporary source. If you're reading ANYTHING written by a 19th century English speaker (especially if his name is Lea), you are toying with the Leyenda Negra. --MichaelTinkler
In fact, skimming back through earlier versions, someone had a pretty good version of the converso problem. I wonder why it disappeared? --MichaelTinkler
Which inquisition murdered Jan Hus? --AxelBoldt
this is worse than it used to be. "Resistance was usually futile." Tell it to the popes! The Arian situation was NOT solved by the Council of Nicaea. In fact, because of imperial patronage Arianism became the variety of Christianity most consistently supported by the government for the next 50 or so years. Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion - that was Theodosius I in the 380s. --MichaelTinkler
Removed from entry:
See my comments above. I tried revising it (e.g., changing 'established as state church' to 'legalized') but then I realized that it's too messy to rewrite. I'll try something on the entry. --MichaelTinkler
One could easily argue that the Council of Nicea was not the first council, that the first council would be the one mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles when they (in particular Peter and Paul) meet in Jerusalem with the rest of the Apostles and 'ancients' to discuss if aspiring Christians should have to go though Jewish rituals first. Acts 15:1-9 Guldenat 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to NPOV? Yes, the Inquistions to us are pretty scary, but could we please try to remember that, to the vast majority of people living at the time of the first two Inquisitions discussed in this article, heresy was a BAD thing. Heresy existed, and not because of some conspiracy by Authority. Heretics not only went to hell, but their very presence in society put others at risk. At least, that's how your average medieval Christian would see it. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. JHK
Most people in the USSR supported Stalin.
Exile 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Heresy is only a problem for religions that have centrally defined doctrines and dogma.
Dmerill, why do you think links to Amazon support the NPOV? I think one could easily make the opposite case. Personally, I try to stay away from ISBN's altogether, because they tend to encourage people to buy the books rather than to just go to their library. Libraries typically don't use ISBN's, which is good, because ISBN's distinguish between different editions, hard- and softcover etc., which are usually irrelevant distinctions. --AxelBoldt
I find the links very useful. With a single click, I can see the year the book was published, how long it is, some indication of the intended audience (popular vs. technical), and a list of reviews. This is usually more info than would be appropriate in the Wikipedia article itself, but it's nice to have such easy access to it.
A think the NPOV comment was referring to the fact that it links to all 3 of the largest booksellers, rather than just the 2 that aren't disliked by some people here. Personally, I'd like to see the software changed to be even more NPOV, and to look better. The ISBN should be a single link to a CGI script on wikipedia.com that then brings up a list of every bookseller we know of. Someday, it might even automatically bring up the ISBNs of other editions of the same book. I assume we'll have all this in the software eventually, so it's useful to use the ISBN notation in articles we write now. -- LC
As another general criticsm of ISBN's: suppose you want to refer to Plato's dialogs or Euclid's elements. What ISBN do you list? There are dozens of editions. There's a good reason that libraries use title and author. --AxelBoldt
"Jews or Muslims who did not become Christians were never subjected to the powers of the Inquisition." This is a tad misleading. The reason they were not subjected to the Spanish Inquisition is because they were expelled in 1492. Danny
There is a catch 22 on conversion. If a Jew did convert, but continued practicing as a Jew, he would then be subject to prosecution.
I think there may be a bit too much past tense. The Inquisition's torture chambers confessionals operated until 1870. The department itself continues today under a different name and confined to internal matters (and presumably with fewer stakes and faggots). see Peter de Rosa Vicars of Christ --
Kwantus
Those Muslims and Jews who were not expelled were converted to Christianity or killed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.69.10.2 (
talk)
07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The History part looks badly written. What does the Roman Emperor have to do with the Inquisition! David.Monniaux 16:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
removed this:
Which mainstream authors would that include? -- Stbalbach 01:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See Jack Chick and his sources. You may not agree with him, but he is the most widely-published living author in the world, clearly making him "mainstream." The sentence in the article clearly stated that this was only the opinion of "some anti-Catholic authors" which is an objective fact. It does not state conclusively that the Holocaust was an Inquisition, merely that some authors believe this, including some very, very popular and influential ones. You should not censor this viewpoint, even if you disagree with it. I'm adding it back. JTC 20:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
JTC, the problem is just because someone calls it an Inquisition doesnt mean is. See the discussion under Feudalism for example. By creating a header called "Other Inquisitions" you have implied that it was, in fact, an Inquisition. That is a POV. That is why it belongs under etymology, or some other header, that makes it clear the usage of the term is being used for political reasons, and not as a neutral historical description. -- Stbalbach 21:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
we are promised four inquisitions but we only get three... m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The following text was at the top of the History section, at the end of the introductory paragraph, where it was a complete non sequitur:
If this is true, it needs to be discussed at the logical place in the article. I'm also guessing that the decree had no effect, but that would need clarification as well.-- Bcrowell 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Can someon fix the second sentence of the "Origins" Section? There's a run-on sentence, and I don't know enough about the topic to make heads or tails of it and thus I cannot fix it. Mrendo 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have difficulties understanding this article because of the way that different Inquisitions are described. Clearly, the understanding for the authority to conduct an Inquisition is important in any article on the Inquisition. What were the differences between the 'Spanish Inquisition' and the 'Medieval Inquisition' and the 'Roman Inquisition' my understanding (this may be wrong) was that they were all exercised by papal authority through the Congregation for the Roman and Universal Inquisition (later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Can we separate those from, for example, the religious persecution practiced by the regions of Germany after the Western Schism? L Hamm 02:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Would it be at all useful to bring up Marvin Harris' interpretation as to the causes of the inquisitions in Cows, Pigs, War, and Witches. Though this would deal with two separate phenomenon: the perceived threat of Satanism, and heresy. L Hamm 04:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Edited article to mitigate pro-christian bias. Article failed to mention violence of any sort in Inquisitions, and lay blame for the Inquisitions on the "heretics" themselves, rather than examining the historical context in which the RCC defined certain people as "heritics". Also claimed passage from christian bible as historical fact.
71.249.59.155 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)J. Porkpie
This article has been referenced by http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18384627-421,00.html
HardwareBob 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got a problem... as per the article, it would seem the institution was born in the late 1100s ... I've had, from sources I trust, though I've lost the book and can't quote, indications that a body dedicated to extirpation of heresies (and the earliest instances of heretics being burned at the stake), date back to the late Merovingian times (600 or so) ... and that French king Robert II the Pious had personal trouble with such a body and had to publicly recant and reaffirm his allegiance to the pope ... not quite as bad as the Walk to Canossa incident Emperor Henry IV of Germany suffered a century later... maybe the greatest instances of Inquisition activity and influence were those tied to the Albigensian crusade, and then the ethnic purification of the Spanish Renaissance times, but the institution itself is certainly not limited to those two periods. Does anybody have more information? -- Svartalf 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that this article continually reverts to a state in which the inquisitions are given a positive spin? Which Christians are so proud of this moment in their history that they feel it necesssary to make religious persecution a noble act? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.249.81.74 ( talk • contribs) .
In saying that there is a school of inquisition revisionism, the author of that particular quote is certainly correct. To say that it is similar to Holocaust revisionism seems to me woefully misinformed. Holocaust deniers are on the fringes of academia, and they offer little to no evidence to support their claims. Inquisition revisionists, and here Henry Kamen's name stands out, are usually well respected historians whose claims have more or less been generally accepted by scholarly consensus, based as they are on actual archival work, archival work which their predecessors simply did not and could not do. Do not be ashamed of the label revisionist, if what it means is that you have simply toppled an older incorrect and largely impressionistic view with a correct one that is based on evidence.
To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
repeated concerns have been voiced on both the Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition talk pages that these articles get “white-washed” every so often by self-declared supporters of the church (which church i’m not sure). one or two in particular will paste over or npov any text that doesn’t completely tiptoe around the Church’s role in the Inquisition. this site has never been (to my knowledge) affiliated, run or sponsored by any religious group or sect. so viewpoints other than official church doctrine should not constantly be posted over or npov’d. the only specific complaint ever voiced was the use of “murder” which, between both articles, had been used twice. both instances were taken out even though the word, as used, could easily have been argued to be objective. Jossi had made some very neutral changes on the Inquisition page and st. ballbuster couldn’t even live with that so I am reverting the Inquisition page back to Jossi’s very objective, carefully blended, most recent edit and taking the npov off of what is certainly an objective and informative Spanish Inquisition article even if it does suggest some Church accountability for what happened. 24.145.184.199 05:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Article is protected due to edit warring. Note that edit warring never achieve anything in Wikipedia, besides getting the article protected and editors, blocked. Please discuss a way forward and attempt to reach some kind of consensus. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request at WP:RFPP.
If you have specific questions about process or policy, please let me know and I will be glad to help. (and before anyone complains, please note that protection does not imply that the current version is the correct one. Admins are always accused of protecting the wrong version.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not unbiased. This was written by someone who has no interest in historical accuracy, but clearly just has a problem with the way the Inquisitors ran their trials. I could just as well re-frase this as:
You people always cry about people being biased for the Inquisition, but when people start writing how horrible EVERYTHING the office did do 500 years ago, no one edits it. For all those who just created their accounts, Wikipedia is for facts only, not OPINIONS, and the articles are supposed to be written in a NEUTRAL fashion. The upper text IS NOT NEUTRAL. Please fix this, thank you. Arctic-Editor 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The previous state religion of Rome to Christianity was not the "Cult of the Invincible Sun." It was not a cult, it was Pagan religion, and it was called Mythraism; just another biased historical inaccuracy.
Meandmypink 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on Inquisition, under the paragraph "Origin," has the following incorrect statement: "Following Nicea, Arius and his followers were persecuted and killed by the Romans."
Arius died a natural death. Here is a quote from the Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers.
Indeed, the Wikipedia article on Arius has the correct information:
And yet, the very day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius died suddenly. Socrates describes his death thus: It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
Please add the following under Derivative Works:
MamaGeek TALK CONTRIB 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In Portuguese Inquisition "The Portuguese Inquisition was established in Portugal in 1536 by the King of Portugal, João III, as a Portuguese analogue of the more famous Spanish Inquisition." is repetead twice.
Why is Goa mentioned as an Indian city? Thats not only insulting its incorrect, unless one wants to refer to the Portuguese named city of Goa, now Velha Goa. The whole region of Conquestas Velhas suffered here.
This paragraph
In Spain and Portugal, the auto da fes and pre-decided trials of accused heretics, often ended with men and women being burned alive. Spanish missionaries would later import the Inquisition to the New World, convicting and killing Central and South Americans who refused to convert to Catholicism from the early sixteenth century onward.
Seems both gratuitous and unnecessary, as the Spanish Inquisition is mentioned in the paragraph that follows. Rather than re-write it, I would suggest deleting it. Hobomojo 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I added this article to Category:Disengagement from religion, but it was removed without explanation. What is the objection? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
i heard that the inquisition still exists, is this true?
Yes and no. The Dominican friars are no longer heading an organization that can arrest, detain, interrogate, try, and sentence people for crimes against faith, doctrine, and the Church; so, in the strictest sense, there is no longer an Inquisition. However, the Roman Curia still includes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly headed by Pope Benedict XVI when he was only Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose duty is to see to the integrity of Catholic doctrine, and to repress any deviation from correct doctrine or outbreak of heresy, as well as to safeguard morality within the Church. On much more chancy footing are the rumors that the Inquisition used to serve as "executioner of low works" for the Church, handling what we would now call espionage, assassination and "black ops", a role that rumor now ascribes to Opus Dei. -- Svartalf 15:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If you saw PBS's Secret Files of The Inquisition, you may have been amazed to learn that the Inquisition continued until the 20th century. It then changed its name to the Congregation of something or another. Also, the Index of Prohibited Books was in effect until 1966. Napoleon brought 3,000 crates of Inquisition files to Paris, and conducted an expose'. However, when he was defeated, the church bought the files back, and returned to its old ways. They continued to have their own army and police force through most of the 19th century.
I removed the request for citation regarding the disestablishment of the inquisition in Spain and Mexico here and in the main article. Any general work, from Lea to Peters, has this information. What specifically drives the request for citation? Hobomojo 03:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the last paragraph in this section, which made some rather strong statements without providing any substantiation whatsoever for them. I would recommend not putting these statements back in until you have found the 4 or 5 citations you need. dcresti 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this lead section which has been reverted:
This is non-standard and problematic on a number of levels. For one, the Wikipedia:Lead section should not be a bulleted list, it should be in narrative format, ideally 3-paragraphs in length (per WP:Featured article rules). It should be a summary of the article contents. It should not contain anything that is not already in the main body of the article. Currently the article does no contain a "definition" section, but it needs one. The lead section would then contain a simple one-sentence summary definition of the Inquisition, which is currently what is there, plus a summary of the rest of the article (which is still needed). -- Stbalbach 14:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some language used in this article which is starting to get off the neurtral track a bit. The most obvious example is this from the "Goa Inquisition" section:
"If there is any legacy left by the portuguese, it is a region soaked with the blood of the innocent."
I've tagged the page until this is resolved. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, anyone want to change 'persecute' to 'prosecute'? It's mentioned twice here, and it sounds like a POV violation- weasel words. I'm going to go ahead and change it, because no one said anything. poopsix 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If one googles for "The inquisition", "The spanish inquisition" and "Inquisitions", one sees that the most commonly used is "The inquisition".
I am guessing that this means that most people looking in wikipedia will be looking for "the inquisition", which redirects to "Inquisition". But I suspect that anyone writing "The Inquisition" would not expect to get to that historical article, and they would easily get confused.
It would be better if there was a full disambiguation page called "The Inquisition", where we can list all the different uses of "The Inquisition", historical and fictional, so I aim to try that. DanielDemaret 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a box template for a "series on the Inquisition"? DanielDemaret 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added one word, with a huge meaning - "torture" - and I've provided more than enough refs to support the term. Yet I'm reverted and accused of POV and bias by Hobomojo, see here, here, and here. I've been accused of bias as shown here and I'm questioned about my research and the tone used, in my opinion, was not WP:Civil nor assuming good faith as the edit summaries here where I was accused of pushing a POV, biased, and was called a "gadfly" on my talk page, which is a personal attack by WP definitions. I have provided many sources, and I did not add any more content. I have placed fact tags (the 8 minor edits referred to on my talk page by user Hobomojo), which were also removed. This is a problem, when one editor dismisses another, and assumes bad faith. I did not write a section, just one word, and backed it with 3 reliable sources for adding the word "torture", here are the three;
I do not want to be involved in an edit war, as one of Hobomojo's edit summaries stated, "drop it", after he broke the WP:3RR rule. I have good faith, in that, we are here to provide a well sourced encyclopedia, and to provide a NPOV as well. I understand that sometimes things we read, hear and see may be disturbing, and want to deny it. But, this is an encyclopedia. I am disturbed by many things I read, but that does not mean I should deny truth, or evidence, such as in this article. We can learn from history. The Pope, himself, has recently apologized for these things, he did not deny the "horrors" either. Thanks for any feedback, either way. - Jeeny Talk 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this revolves around the three references Jeeny has mentioned and whether or not they support torture as a means to convert Muslims and Jews to Catholicism. The issue is rather narrow, not that torture was used because that seems stipulated, but whether it was directed against Muslims and Jews for the purpose of conversion. Assuming my assessment is correct, do you, Jeeny have a citation that specifically addresses that question? As I read the references they seem focused on inter-catholicism practices. If you can offer specific, non-trivial sources I think all can be satisfied. Apart from such, I fail to see how the material can be included. Just my thoughts. JodyB talk 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
These readings are from a course I had taken a while back. - Jeeny Talk 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
When talking about the Spanish Inquisition , no mention is made of the good it did . When the Spanish communist took over Spain ,the first thing that they did was kill priest & nuns , lay Catholic & burn Catholic Churches . Which resulted in civil war. The Spanish Inquisition kept Spain Catholic for 700 years . The worst that can happen to any nation is to lose it's Catholic Faith . THe rest of the other evil follow . Germany did not have an Inquisition , and it lead to to civil war that lasted 30 year . Also WWI & WWII would never had resulted if it had remained 100 % Catholics . France did not have the Inquisition and history resulted in about 100 years civil war with Protestants with France . The French Revolution resulted also because there was no French Inquisition . The results of the French Revolution was removal of the heads of many priest & nuns , looting of Catholic Churches and mass murder of the citizens . And finally France making war on it's neighbors by Napoleon . It was a French Masonic government that pushed for WWI against Prussian Protestant Germany , when the war could have ended . The result of WWI was the death of many Catholics on both sides . If Russia had the Inquisition , Lenin , would have been arrested , sent to jail and many horrors would have been prevented from the plumage of communism .THe number of those killed by the communist China are in the millions . If China was Catholic , Mao would have been arrested on the spot . If America was a Catholic nation with an Inquisition , there would not be 40 million dead babies due to abortion . because no true Catholic nation has abortion . Christ the King must rule , where he does not rule , evil does . This is what history shows.
Must say, interesting view of history. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a little strange. I'm not well versed on any good that came from the inquisition, but certainly asserting that a country keeping it's catholic identity (through means of torture, no less) is a good thing is serious POV. Also interesting how most posts of this kind go completely unsigned. So courageous to go around prosletyzing (sp?) religious beliefs but too cowardly to take credit for the words. Not to mention the absurdity of what you're implying - the only way to prevent atrocity is through torture? As if the only way to prevent wars from happening is to have an Inquisition? Wow, I can't believe I just used valuable time to respond to that. Guldenat 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone should check the recent edits. They are a bit too long to check quickly. m.e. 09:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And what on earth does this passage mean? (in Inquisition tribunals)
In the 12th century (Episcopal inquisition), to counter Catharism widespread, heresy persecution became more frequent. Church Councils (composed of bishops and archbishops) where charged of judging inquisitions.
I suggest finding the old version of the passage and just pasting it back in. Jacob Haller 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that using Galileo as the "poster boy" (lead in picture) for the inquisition is, at this time in history, POV. He was used for years. It has come time to give that up. There are plenty of better cases. Even Joan of Arc maybe. See Catholic.net for an explanation. I'm sure there are more scholarly treatises out there that would confirm this. Galileo was really quite late in the time frame and almost an exception to the rule. There were "other factors." Student7 ( talk) 13:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
why do we use "(capitalized I)" in the first sentence? It makes no sense to me. Could someone explain the idea of that? Otherwise it should be deleted. -- Monk ( talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following unreferenced part from the article: "used by Catholic and Protestant Churches", but a question disturbed me. Reading the many articles of Inquisition here on wikipedia, I noticed it all focus on Roman Catholic Church's inquisition, there are almost none Protestant or other churches' inquisitions. Why is that? What about persecution of other Churches against heresy? Even if it wasn't using inquisition procedure, shouldn't we link here? Note I am not complaining, I am just raising the subject. SSPecter Talk| E-Mail ◆ 21:14, 23 February 2008 ( UTC).
I deleted the whole paragraph, because of wrong topic + misinformations: 1) Numbers are from witch trials (civil+religious courts) not inquisition (religious) trials in total, should be in [4]. It is plainly wrong to talk about 59 woman in spain (wherever that number comes from, not from the sources), while the spanish inquisition is estimated at 5000 executions total nowadays. 2) Germany was not only protestant, most witch trials were in the south (catholic counter-reformation) as can be read in [5], —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.234.57 ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
... was automatically undeleted, and since I don't have a login and am not willig to open an account out of anonymity, I won't change it further... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.228.22 ( talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
point taken, about the IP address... The problem I have about this part is much more general: This article is about the inquisition and an overview linking to specific countries, but the last paragraph is about witchtrials. Even contradicting the articles about witchhunts in wikipedia (apart from outside sources: The mentioned sources do not give these numbers). Essentially, I did not refer to wikipedia for linking, but to show where that information should be incorporated, would it be not for the simple fact, that it is opposite from what is in the appropriate pages on witch hunts&trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.242.188 ( talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Stating the portuguese Inquisition, Book-censorship proved to have a strong influence in Portuguese cultural evolution, keeping the country uninformed and culturally backward, this is a funny statement since the Inquisition was practiced in many European Countries and only in Portugal the Inquisition 'kept the country uninformed and culturally backward'?
-- Jfarinhote ( talk) 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to make a comparison to determine who killed more? This article is about the Inquisition. Those facts should be used in a newly created article, for example, "Victims of witch-hunts". And how can I handle, as a reader, those contrasting figures found here and in Witch-hunts? 116.118.3.151 ( talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. But I hardly found any relations between your explanation and the point of our discussion. I'm not sure about something coming to my mind, but I think you’re trying to seek for another one to share with the Roman Church the burden of sinful mistakes they did in the past, and you found the Protestant reformers and their followers the most appropriate ones. I've wondered if it is compatible with this article?
116.118.9.9 (
talk)
06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The section in question says:
This suggests that the chief focus of the Inquisition was witchcraft, and that earlier historians had misrepresented the Inquisition as being a particularly cruel or powerful witch-hunt. It suggests that the Inquisition was in reality a much milder witch-hunt than the Protestant ones.
But the Inquisition was not a witch craze, and is not represented as such by historians. The focus of the Inquisition was not witchcraft but rather heresy and apostasy -- the practice of Protestant or Orthodox Christianity, and the covert practice of Judaism and Islam by claimed converts to Catholicism.
An intellectually honest comparison would be to compare the Inquisition's persecution of Protestants and Orthodox with the persecution of Catholics in Protestant and Orthodox lands; and to compare the persecution of Jews under the (especially Spanish and Portuguese) Inquisitions with the persecution of Jews under e.g. Martin Luther.
As it stands, this section perpetuates a straw-man fallacy, and should not stand as such. -- FOo ( talk) 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My point was specifically that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the Inquisition was not so bad because it did not kill as many accused witches as Protestant countries did.
FOo has my consesus. The comparison, in my opinion, is arguably partial and not in line with the content of the article. May someone delete it if there’ll be no objections? 116.118.2.163 ( talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Foo is indeed right that the Inquisition was not originally designed to prosecute witchcraft, and it right in his criticism if the point is to say that the comparison exonerates the institution or suggests that Catholics were somehow more tolerant or enlightened than Protestants. Catholics in Germany and France killed thousands of accused witches as well. However, that does not mean that the findings posted are irrelevant because the inquisition did gradually extend its jurisdiction over witchcraft in Southern Europe and many scholars of the question believe that the inquisition itself was a crucial factor in limiting the witch craze in Iberia and Italy. This is in and of itself an astonishing sociological phenemonon and speaks to a fuller(and admittedly more positive)understanding of the inquisition's role in early modern Catholic Europe. Perhaps the section needs to be rewritten less polemically though.
Read and incorpore this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/inquisition2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.240.75 ( talk) 06:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"Sanctum Officium" means "Holy Office." Holy Office is mentioned in this article. But, the misspelled "Sanctum Offcium" re–directs to this "Inquisition" article. I am unable to fix the misspelled "Sanctum Offcium" that appears in the Wikipedia Index. Lestrade ( talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
It may be wise to leave out Motley's claim of attempted genocide unless it can be confirmed from more recent and less biased historians like Geyl and Wedgwood. But as it stands the article omit the mist violent of any of the persecutions carried by any of the inquisitions, against protestants in the Spanish Netherlands between 1520 and 1568 when the Dutch War of Independence broke out - partly as a result. William the Silent claimed at the time that 50,000 men an d women had been executed since the accession of Philip II. Many more had died under Charles V and Granvelle. The 1555 decree banning the reading of heretical books and even private religious discussion on pain of death makes horrifying reading. (Ref here: http://books.google.es/books?id=DQR_QUzrq8gC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=Netherlands+Philip+II+persecution&source=web&ots=vxca1arYJc&sig=a9aw60wDiE_zeJE-EdwPryrWbXo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA116,M1)
But which inquisition was it that Charles V had introduced into the Seventeen provinces? I don't think it was ever formally part of the Spanish Inquisition. Hhelp wanted from a Dutch or Belgian historian! -- JamesWim ( talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
First and above all, the number of 50000 condemned to death is an exegeration. W. Monter, Heresy executions in the Reformation Europe, in: Ole Peter Grell, Robert W. Scribner, Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 49-55 indicates that the number of executions for heresy in the Netherlands in 16th century amounted to about 1000. Additionaly, 1100 persons were executed by Duke Alba and his "Council of Troubles" between 1567-1574. Although Charles V (not a Pope!) in 1522 established the tribunal of inquisition for Netherlands, the crime of heresy was punished mainly by secular authorities, with little or no participation of ecclesiastical courts. Out of over 500 executions in the reign of Charles V, only one fifth can be atributed to the Flemish Inquisitors. Moreover, the inquisition in Netherlands acted according to the secular, not canonical rules and unlike the Spanish or Papal Inquisitions, it condemned to death even those heretics who repented. I'm not sure whether this institution should be considered as modification of the Ecclesiastical Inquisition, or as entirely separate institution created by Charles V in Netherlands.
CarlosPn 17:35 3 Nov 2008 CET
Quote: "In 2000 Pope John Paul II called for an "Inquisition Symposium" and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. Their findings called into question certain long-held beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of "witchcraft" died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and four in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them.[11][12] Some 26,000 persons condemned as witches died in Germany.[13]"
Isn't this whole section a little misleading? 1. which inquisition is this supposed to be questioning? 2. Are they honestly saying only near 100 people were killed by inqusitions in such lenghty periods? It's widely known among historians that heresy was a crime punishable by death (and largely enforced) in those periods. It's ridiculous to claim only 100 or so people were killed during wide scale investigations to route out such heresy. 3. Why does it only pick out the 'apparent' death tolls in three countries then seem compare those three to the death count of every single protestant country? It's an unbalancced comparison. 4. Isn't it a little naive to present "Roman Catholic" records as a reliable source? Maybe this section could be renamed "Catholic Records of the inqusitions" or something, and be expanded on. 5. The above comparison just seems like a cheap jab at protestantism rather than anything of historical value.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.70.109.123 (
talk)
22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the disputed section text, which I've removed from the article until/unless it can be made (1) coherent and relevent and (2) can cite the actual conclusions from the simposium volume published in 2004.
![]() |
In 2000 Pope John Paul II called for an "Inquisition Symposium" and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. Their findings called into question certain long-held beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of "witchcraft" died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and four in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women and burned 50,000 of them. [1] [2] Some 26,000 persons condemned as witches died in Germany. [3]
Rsheptak ( talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The witch-hunts waxed and waned for nearly three centuries, with great variations in time and space. 'The rate of witch hunting varied dramatically throughout Europe, ranging from a high of 26,000 deaths in Germany to a low of 4 in Ireland.' (Gibbons, Recent Developments.)