Talk:Inquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inquisition article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Major Problems 2 Lack of informations 3 Title Change 4 Apology 5 a question 6 part of article removed 7 Jan Hus 8 resistance 9 early definition of Christianity 10 NPOV 11 Amazon links 12 immunity of non-Christians 13 past tense 14 Roman Emperor? 15 Holocaust 16 Etymology 17 whatever happened to the Portuguese Inquisition? 18 non sequitur 19 Bad Grammar 20 Inquisition as Historical Event or as Office 21 The Canon Episcopi and the Malleus Maleficarum 22 Edit for NPOV 23 Linked from external source 24 Birth of the Inquisition 25 Whitewash? 26 WP:3RR 27 Not a Church-run Site 28 Protected 29 Bias for or against? 30 Mythraism 31 Death of Arius 32 Derivative Works 33 Portugese / Goa 34 Second paragraph 35 Category 36 Does the inquisition still exist?!?!?!? 37 A question of foresight 38 Spanish Inquisition and disestablishment 39 Lead section 40 NPOV (again) 41 Inquisition tribunals and institutions

[edit] Major Problems

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)

Thanks for your excellent comments. This is not an all encompassing article, mainly because it is a high-level overview, with more detail contained within the individual articles (including the heresy article and elsewhere), in which a lot of your concerns are more properly handled. That is just how things have evolved with many editors over time and the fragmented nature of Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to answer your arguments:
1) "Heresy" as a broad sense (the sense which is used by "Inquisition of heretic wickedness") is any deviation to Catholic teachings. it include: blasphemy, bigamy, witchcraft, adultery, etc. But... yeah... this article need a section explaining what is "christian heresy".
2) You should not think that inquisition (acts) where practiced only during Inquisition movements. The Inquisitors (created during papal Inquisition) existed continuously until century XIX.
3) there is not much difference in the working structure between papal inquisition and spanish inquisition. The differences are that, at that time, Inquisitors where more organized, and the king managed the spanish inquisition. However, the Inquisitors was still from the church (even though choosen by the king) and the Pope still had his authority, approving it. And the practices where the same
4) I agree, but if you read each Inquisition movement individual articles, you will see each Inquisition practices are fairly explained there. But, yeah. I think this article should have a resume of it.
Sspecter 10:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of informations

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

This is a general, summary article with pointers to main articles that discuss the issues you raise. No one is trying to hide anything, just keep the article from becoming bloated and redundant.Hobomojo 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could put a link to another article about inquisition practices, or put a section about it. But i noticed we need a better specialists here. Also there is another problem: as far as I know, there is a chatolic church's institution called Inquisition, wich deals about "heretic" matter. But this article only teach about the "expurgation" events done by this institution. That Institution is more important than the events itself. We could use some hand here. --SSPecter

This is all already covered in other articles. -- Stbalbach 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No its not. The article say nothing about the Inquisition as institution. Im changing it back. And if you think it is just POV you should change it to NPOV, and not reverting it all. --SSPecter

SSPecter, you seem to fail to recognize that there is more than one article on Wikipedia about the Inquisition. This article is a very high-level general summary whose purpose is to re-direct readers to the appropriate location with Main article links. In effect you are attempting a POV split by re-writing what has already been written elsewhere (better). In addition your text has a lot of problems. For one, it is POV because it sets out to disparage the Catholic Church and Inquisition in a negative light. Secondly it is very poorly written, it reads like something someone in high school might write. Finally it is un-sourced and un-academic. Your comments so far have been confrontational, stubborn and disregarding the work and efforts of others to create a series and system of dealing with this highly controversial and difficult subject. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach: There is many articles of Inquisition indeed, but NONE OF THEM cite the Inquisition as institution. So you're lying by saying it was already covered elsewhere. I feel it is very important to cite it here, as this institution was who organized the Chatolic Inquisition movements. So it is relevant to this article. If you want, I will create a brand new article for it, and put a link from here. Moreover, this article wrongly make the reader think Chatolic Inquisition was only 4 unrelated events. And it avoid saying everywere about Inquisition practices (not just about torture, but about Inquisitor trials), wich is essential to understand Inquisition. This is why i said it is POV towards Inquisition. As for unsourced and bad written, I would personally prefer some English teacher writing about it, but we cant have everything. Thats why I asked for text revisions. You must agree its very rare a perfectly good, referenced and good written wiki section being created in 1 day. Well, I will analyse the text you cut off and put it back revised if i think it is worth it. --SSPecter

Huh? You need to be more clear what your definition of "institution" is because the inquisitions have been controlled and run out of various and different places depending on what time period and place. There is no single "inquisition institution" across all time and place. This is a history article. Which inquisition do you mean, the Roman? The Papal? The Inquisitorial system in general? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? It really sounds like you don't have good grasp of the history of the inquisition and its many varieties. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confunding the Inquisition movements with Inquisitions as institution of the Chatolic Church. There is a few incarnations of inquisitions institutions in Chatolic Church, each one conected with (based in, or directly related) the previous one. These institutions are usually called "Holy Office", "Sanctum Officium" or Inquisition. Today it is named "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", wich is not an "Inquisition" anymore. These institutions together acted continually judging heresy through time. Note the inquisition "movements" could last for centuries, wich show how loosely of specific events they are. Joan of Arc, for example, was executed by Inquisition autorities in 1431, decades before Spanish Inquisition and much later Papal Inquisition (wich shows continuity). And NOTE when i call "Inquisition" I usually write "inquisition movements" or "inquisition institution". It is to separate one concept of another. By the way, your last revertion reverted your own last revision. very odd :P --SSPecter

I would have to take issue with your assertion of "Inquisition Institutions"; if I take your meaning correctly, you are saying that all manifestations of the Inquisition worked under the direct authority and consonant with the will of Rome. This is clearly not the case. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, and its New World counter parts, had a great deal of independence from Rome, and some notable conflicts. (Ferdinand's re-establishing the Inquisition in Aragon over Papal dissent, for example). Likewise, the establishment of the Holy Office in Mexico came as a result of conflicts between Mexico's previous Episcopal Inquisition and the Holy Office (not to mention the Crown) in Spain (Overly harsh treatment of indiginous converts). So to say that each manifestation of the Inquisition is based in or directly related to the previous one is not accurate. It is even less accurate to see every manifestation of the Inquisition as emminating from Rome. Hobomojo 01:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Even in Spanish inquisition, although (partially) controlled by the King, it was aproved by the church and employed by Inquisitors (from the church). The structure was similar to the previous inquisitions (named Inquisitors using local authorities to put a tribunal). The only difference was that government authorities exerted more control over it (and Inquisition being more structured). Almmost all Ferdinand's control was aproved by the Pope. And the "conflict" in question was only a criticism from the Pope against the Inquisition, wich after that he turned back and even named the "iron hand" Tomás de Torquemada as Inquisitor. --SSPecter

SSPecter: Why don't you explain your argument and your issues to me on my Talk page, in Portuguese, que eu falo tambem. I don't think we'll end up agreeing, but it seems otherwise very difficult to understand your complaints. Hobomojo 15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

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

when someone says "inquisition" they usually mean Catholic. You could create inquisition (disambigution) to lead to other inquisitions if you want, but according to the article naming rules, inquisition should point to the most common meaning. -- Stbalbach 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

And since when is the Church a "mock version" of Christianity? As for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger having been head of the inquisition : he indeed headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the Papacy of John Paul II, which congregation is the twice renamed heir to what used to be the Inquisition. Of course, The Church no longer tries people for heresy, the Congregation's scope is now solely restricted to determining correct doctrine for profession by clergy.--Svartalf 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I think that one of the most important things should be added to the article:

Pope John Paul II has officially apologized for mistakes of Inquisition.

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

[edit] a question

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

• yes, the Spanish Inquisition, but how many witches were killed by the papal inquisition? m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Contrary to simply made-up propaganda, NO witches were killed by any "papal Inquisition". The Inquisitions concluded that "witches" as such SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST and thus the Church could not prosecute nor punish them.Dogface 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kamen gives the figure of approximately 3000 executed by Spain during the 3 centuries the Inquisition existed. (Unsigned)

The above number (3000) probably refers to the total death toll. AFAIK, the number of witches burned in Spain during the Inquisition was very low indeed (less than 10). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] part of article removed

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

[edit] Jan Hus

Which inquisition murdered Jan Hus? --AxelBoldt

not an inquisition at all, but the Council of Constance. The Conciliar movement wasn't all it was cracked up to be by 19th century historians. --MichaelTinkler

[edit] resistance

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

• Unfortunately, a great deal of Protestant propaganda keeps claiming that Emperor Constantine I "invented" the unified Church. These propagandists likewise continue to perpetuate tired old mistakes like claiming that Rome ruled everything from the time of Nicea I onwards. In the 19th century, ignorance of the entirety of Eastern Christianity could be taken for granted. Thus, it was easy to fool a credulous and uneducated audience into swallowing these whoppers. Unfortunately, some people still believe these things today. We also still have a Flat Earth Society.Dogface 15:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] early definition of Christianity

Removed from entry:

In the first two centuries after Jesus Christ, many sects with wildly differing beliefs could call themselves Christian, and no one could authoritatively contradict them. However, after Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity and the various local administrations were subordinated to the hierarchy centered in Rome, arguments could be resolved by Church Councils. The first such council, which had the most extensive effects, was the Council of Nicea, which formulated the Nicean Creed in 325. Those whose beliefs or practices deviated sufficiently from the orthodoxy of that Creed and other rulings of the councils could now be made "brought back to the fold" by the shepherd of the Church. Resistance was usually futile.

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

[edit] NPOV

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

You might as well say that Stalin was right to arrest, exile and execute thousands of people because (a) some people undoubtedly were plotting against him (b)

Most people in the USSR supported Stalin.

Exile 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Stalin, some 640,000 people were executed from 1921 to 1953, a rate of about 19,500 per day. This is comparatively bloodthirsty when viewed against some 5,000 people being killed, in 300 years, by the Spanish Inquisition. GBC 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV when christians are making this article dont say anything about inquisition practices!!! --SSPecter

---

Heresy is only a problem for religions that have centrally defined doctrines and dogma.

I removed this, because the article is about the Inquistions. This should be in an article about heresy. --Stephen Gilbert

[edit] Amazon links

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 would also encourage people to go to their library, but "encouraging" anything is by definition non-npov, isn't it? I'd be most happy to see us start listing the Dewey decimal catalog number as well so we aren't encouraging either way. And LC, below, is right on target. It's the specific, stated intention of removing Amazon that was most non-npov. And adding a wider selection of sources would be very, very welcome, but singling out anyone, however, vile I consider their business practices, is not npov. Sometimes it's hard to stand by a principle like npov when you'd rather say "fuck Amazon", but I'm trying to do that. --Dmerrill

The software is non-NPOV in that it singles out some booksellers over others and over libraries. Intentionally removing a non-NPOV feature can hardly be called non-NPOV. Without the ISBN links, the article is clearly more neutral than with them. --AxelBoldt

I agree, as things stand it is not completely npov. As I understand it, when something is npov due to only having partial, one-side information, the solution is to round it out rather than delete what's there. That is, imho, what we need to do here. --Dmerrill

---

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

Agreed. I'd propose listing all currently available ISBNs, although that will require a change to the software. Perhaps the ISBN link redirects to a page which lists all the alternate ISBNs. Let people include any edition they recommend. Once again, when something is npov due to having only partial information, the solution is to round it out rather than delete what's there. --Dmerrill

---

[edit] immunity of non-Christians

"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

Well, from 1481-whenever they were each expelled (again, let's not overstate the efficiency of pre-modern governments) they were not subject so long as they were not converted. "Spain" is, of course, something of a misnomer in the 15th century, too. MichaelTinkler

It's not misleading at all in the context of, say, the early 14th century crown of Valencia, where the Holy Office existed, and the Jews and Muslims had not been expelled.--Bcrowell 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] past tense

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

• Shouldn't the article start "The Inquisition is a permanent institution...", given that the CDF still exists? ~~

[edit] Roman Emperor?

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)

• Absolutely nothing, but some Protestant propaganda traditions try to make the connection.Dogface 15:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

removed this:

Also, some anti-Catholic authors consider the Nazi Holocaust to have been an Inquisition undertaken by Hitler (who was born Catholic and never left the Church) against the Jews at the behest of the Pope.

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)

[edit] Etymology

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)

[edit] whatever happened to the Portuguese Inquisition?

we are promised four inquisitions but we only get three... m.e. 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] non sequitur

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:

For example we can observe the condemnation of the entire population of the Netherlands to death by the Holy Office in 1568. "On February 16, 1568 a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were acquitted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition and ordered it to be carried out into instant execution without regard to age, sex, and children. This is the most concise death warrant that had ever been framed. Three million people - men, women and children - were sentenced to the scaffold".. from The Rise of the Dutch Republic , by John Lathrop Motley, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 2, par. 12, p. 2.

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)

I have tried to find documentation to verify this claim, which I have heard in several places, and been unable to do so. I have also looked into Motley a bit, and he is widely regarded as being heavily influenced by his own Whig view of history and his anti-Catholic stance in 'Dutch Republic' (e.g., his references to the pope as the "Roman tyrant"). He is not regarded as reliable by historians. Cf. Robert Wheaton, "Motley and the Dutch Historians," New England Quarterly 35 (2007), 318-336, who states that "special pleading, outrageous bias, and an uncritical use of sources are all apparent to the casual reader". I suspect that there may be some misrepresentation on Motley's part. - Alan 66.31.47.139 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Grammar

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)

[edit] Inquisition as Historical Event or as Office

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)

[edit] The Canon Episcopi and the Malleus Maleficarum

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)

[edit] Edit for NPOV

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

[edit] Linked from external source

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)

[edit] Birth of the Inquisition

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)

[edit] Whitewash?

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) .

No I don't get that impression. It's a history article, written from the perspective of how things were at the time. -- Stbalbach 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got that impression too. Sorry, but i think there are too meany christians willing to defend the image of Catholic church agains the "propaganda" --DavidAlexandrov 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a school of Inquisition revisionism, similar to Holocaust revisionisim, and its student(s) appear(s) to have constructed this page, which is very biased in favor of the Church's pov. Not only is their info wrong, but there's a whole separate page for Inquisition revisionists "the inquisition myth" where they've already posted the revisionist version of the inquisition - you'd think they could leave this page to folks interested in the accepted history of the Inquisition. 24.145.184.199 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Inquisition" (2006) and it's pretty much the same as our current article in tone and content. Neutral, sticks to the facts, un-polemic. It seems like anything that didn't call the Catholic church "terrorists" and "murderers" would be less than acceptable for you. Please read some professional encyclopedias to see how mainstream articles on this subject are written. --Stbalbach 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral in it. This article is a shame. It dont say not a single thing about Inquisition practices or some statistic numbers of it. And dont say anything about the "Inquisition" order of the church. These things make the reader think it where just a few unconected events without importance. How can you guys say it is "neutral"? --sspecter

[edit] WP:3RR

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)

[edit] Not a Church-run Site

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)

Again both in this article and Spanish Inquisition you've called me "St. Ballbuster" -- very funny, but also very insulting and somewhat disturbing. You have not made a friend (BTW i'm not Catholic and Stbalbach doesn't mean "St." but your anti-Catholic bias shows through clearly). You cant live with any changes to your article. You reverted not only POV edits but perfectly neutral edits that restored material lost in the shuffle (country codes, external links, etc..). --Stbalbach 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

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)

You may also want to look at Spanish Inquisition which is just as lethal edit war right now. I suggested to the anon that we translate the Spanish Wikipedia version which is a featured article as a neutral resolution, but they didn't seem interested in that as a solution. --Stbalbach 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i haven't read it but would be curious to do so. if it comes exclusively from church sources, i would likely question its integrity.24.145.184.199 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition (in Spanish) - featured article... Spanish Inquisition (English machine translation) - featured article -- Stbalbach 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW the google translator only works for the first part of the article, the rest has to be broken into smaller pieces for the translator to work but I think it shows enough that this is not a catholic version. --Stbalbach 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias for or against?

"The phony trials and auto da fes were supposedly Christian events and still collectively stand out as one of justice's greatest historical mockeries."

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:

The amazing trials and auto da fes were claimed to be Christian events and still collectively stand out as one of histories most discussed events."

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)

[edit] Mythraism

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)

[edit] Death of Arius

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.

[edit] Derivative Works

Please add the following under Derivative Works:

• Man of La Mancha is a Broadway musical which tells the story of the classic novel Don Quixote as a play within a play, performed by prisoners as they await a hearing with the Spanish Inquisition.

MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. BTW, please do not use templates in your sig. Ashibaka tock 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

changed template sig to subst, thanks for the heads-up MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Ashibaka tock 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugese / Goa

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.

[edit] Second paragraph

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)

So no one seems to have objected to removing the second paragraph. It doesn't fit stylistically, and it is factually incorrect. Stylistically, the article speaks of four movements, so to highlight one of them is in appropriate. Adding three other brief paragraphs seems to defeat the purpose of the introductory bullet. Factually, it is incorrect. The trials were not pre-decided, and (though the forced-conversion was bloody) the Inquisition was not used as part of conversion efforts. In fact, it only had jurisdiction over baptized Christians. And, ironically, the Holy Office was instituted in Mexico, in part, because the episcopal Inquisition was being overly harsh on native Mexicans. So, I'm taking it out.Hobomojo 04:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

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)

[edit] Does the inquisition still exist?!?!?!?

i heard that the inquisition still exists, is this true?

No, it is not true. This rumor is usually passed around by Catholic-bashers. It comes from the fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is still in existence, which at one time was involved with the Inquisition. But there is no Inquisition today. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not sure how you can say "yes". There is no inquisition. To say that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the same as the inquisition is incorrect. One could drawn analogies, and some do for their own ends and reasons, but it is not an inquisition. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As an organisation, the Congregation is the direct heir to the old Inquisition, and has some of the same responsibilities, though its powers and the scope of its action have been drastically reduced since the Church lost the ability to impose its laws in secularized states and on laity not willingly submitting to Canon law.--Svartalf 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"As an organization, the ____(fill in blank: German government) is a direct heir to the ___ (fill in blank: Nazi regime), and has some of the same responsibilities, though its powers and scope of its actions have been drastically reduced since the ___ (fill in blank: Nazis lost WWII)."

IOW, it's a weak argument that is meaningless and is often used by people who have some gripe against the Catholic church (BTW I'm not drawing any parallels to Nazis and Catholics, just pointing out the ridiculous analogy of comparing the Congregation to the Inquisition). You could do the same analogy for any historically despotic organization that still exists with similar functions (any despotic government, secret service, etc..). It's not what they did that matters, it's how they did it. -- Stbalbach 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The new German government is completely different than Nazi government. However, the congregation is still the same. Although the means to achieve it changed through time it still has the same objectives. I think the questions here is what really defines "Inquisition", and what congregation of Faith really do. Saying Congregation of doctrine of faith don't have any inquiring methods because "Roman Catholic Church don't do it anymore" is a weak argument. You must know what this congregation really do to say that. In the same way, you can't tell if it is still inquisition, unless you know its practices. However, it do are inherited from Roman inquisition, and is related to it. SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}.

[edit] A question of foresight

Did anybody expect this page? I for one would posit that noone expected this page.

[edit] Spanish Inquisition and disestablishment

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)

[edit] Lead section

Regarding this lead section which has been reverted:

The term inquisition (from the latin: inquisitio) is the act of inquiring. In law, it means inquiring into a matter, investigating.

In Catholic Church, Inquisition (capitalized I) is broadly used, to refer many things related to judgment of heresy (heresy against the Catholic Church). It can mean:

• A ecclesiastical tribunal or institution from the Roman Catholic Church for combating or suppressing heresy.
• A number of historical expurgation movements against heresy, orchestrated by the Roman Catholic Church.
• The trial conduced against a heretic.

This article is about the Catholic Inquisition movements against heresy.

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)

Stbalbach: As I stated before, this article wrongly make a reader think "Inquisition" just mean some historical movements. And the lead article as it is wrongly states: "... aimed at securing religious and doctrinal unity through the conversion ..." The aim of Inquisition is expurgate heresy, not "doctrinal unity" (maybe doctrinal unity would be the Pope's aim for creating Inquisition, but not Inquisition itself). Also, I really doubt that the expression "Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis Sanctum Officium" was created by the church to refer just "Inquisition" as "movements". The way it is is not good. I think you should move your ass and help me creating the lead section as you want it. And stop just reverting it. *sad* *resigning* Well, I see what I can do about the points you raised. But note Lead section its not just a sumary about the article. It can have about controversies. --SSPecteR

SSPecter, before we end up with an edit war, let's try to work things out here on the talk page. I read your note on my talk page, (obrigado, mas não sou brasiliero, solamente de alma), and have some issues with what you are proposing. First, the way you are concieving of "Inquisition" seems to me to be disconnected from time and place, and as such seems little different than "Religious Intolorance" except for the fact that it was a Catholic instution. That kind of definitional slippage creates the false impression that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on religious intolorance, which is not the case. The questions that historians explore are what specific local circumstances (conjunctures) brought about specific local events, institutions, etc. Religious intolerance pops up all the time, and there were episodes of Catholic intolerance that did not provoke an Inquisition. Viewing the Inquisition (or Inquisitions) through the lens of religious intolerance is only one way to understand the institution(s) however.

(cont) A strong case can be made that the Spanish Inquisition was equally about consolidating the political power of the recently joined monarchy (thus the issue with Ferdinand and the Inquisition in Aragon). Likewise, the establishment of the New World Inquisitions can be seen as a move to centralize political and religious power in the Spanish monarchy, bringing local prelates to heel just as had been done with the encomenderos. On the other hand, why was there no Holy Office instituted in Brazil? There was in Portugal. Jews had been expelled there too... and many went to Brazil. Philip II of Spain "acquired" Portugal, and thus Brazil in 1580. If the Inquisition was about religious intolerance or consolidation of political power (or just plain greed given the sugar, gold and diamonds of Brazil), one would think that Brazil would have had a Holy Office but quick. So why not? Obviously, there's more to the question. (And yes, I know, there was activity of the Portuguese Inquisition in Brazil, I'm saying not a permanently constituted Holy Office as in Mexico and Peru.)

(cont) In other words, this large, looming "Inquisition Institution" strikes me as a boogie man being tossed about as others do the Free Masons, the Trilateral Commission or "the Liberal Media" (though I think Skull and Bones and the Bohemian Grove are scary cabals.....just kidding). The real question is what local and specific conjunctures did or did not produce inquisitions? What form did they take and why? How and why did they change over time? Putting the emphasis you do on an "Inquisition Institution" flattens out the most important questions: Under what conditions did religious intolerance produce an inquisition movement? How does your perspective attempt to answer that question?Hobomojo 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well your message is too long to discuss here. I would love to debate with you. But here is not the place to write a book :). So I will try to be quick. The church did had Inquisition in times beyond the "Inquisition movements" scope. The difference is that, in the movements, which can be better described as expurgation movements, systematic Inquisitions where made through a region. For example, the Inquisitors continued existing through time between century XIII to XIX. The same apply to the "Inquisition" congregation, which exists from century XVI until today. Inquisition, as the people believes (and this article was supporting) is a big fruit salad of meanings. This is why I believe that separating concepts (the institution of the movement of the act) is essential to better understand what it really is. Mixing it will just make people more confused as it already is. I'm sorry if doing that disturb you, or go against your beliefs, but the truth isn't supposed to be changed so that some people rest better. And I don't think it imply at all Catholic Church "had a monopoly on religious intolerance". Other religions usually tend to be intolerant (as conflicting ideas are considered as heresy), even if today they are tolerant. I could cite some examples, but it will just raise more debate. And its not the point to list other examples of religion intolerance here. --SSPecteR

(cont) To finalize, notice that Inquisition has a much wider meaning than "torching heretics" (although the torture practices cannot be discarded from the historic events). It mean judging heresy, suppress heresy, not necessarily through torture and sacrifice (can be in a pacific way. In fact, not all Inquisitors was sadistic-masochistic torture-lovers :) ). The "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", for example, have its same objectives as it had through Roman Inquisition (under other name), but changed the means to reach it to more pacific way. (which can arguably say it is a kind of Inquisition). I would gladly explain this wider meaning in the article, but I still don't have specific data to do it. For example, I don't really understand how The "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" inside works, besides the fact it is the same congregation as it was before. So I cant really say how really far this congregation is from its version in Roman Inquisition. It would be nice if someone post something toward it. --SSPecteR

I understand what you are saying, and no, it doesn't disturb me except for the fact that I don't see your approach as a particularly useful way to understand a complex issue. I'll restate my main question/problem: How does your approach help us to understand under what conditions various inquisition movements became more/less intense? How do you see local ("national", though that's a bit anachronistic) political/economic/social/cultural factors influencing the character of the various movements, if at all? Hobomojo 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Homojo: Note I'm just adding some info to the article. Beside the lead section, I left all the sections (which where already in the article) untouched. So I don't think I understand what you mean when you say I'm creating another approach to it. The section about Inquisition movements is still there. What I added don't go about (political/economic/social/cultural factors of) the Inquisition as movements, it is because (as Stbalbach restless pointed) there are already many articles about each movements, in details (and is nicely linked in this article). Everything which I added is to complement the Inquisition meaning. It was vague and partially correct the info in the previous lead section, so I felt need to change it. --SSPecteR, 8 november 2006

(cont) One thing I think its important to add in this article (but I haven't the knowledge to do it) is to explain the the association between Inquisition and violence (torture, death sentence, segregation, etc) through time (in the meaning of the word and in the Inquisition practices). I think it is very important as it would explain how far the violence was used, how intense it was (in quantity of Inquisitions), how these practices diminished through time, and why people today still associate Inquisition with violence. It could show better the evolution of the Church's position about "new thinkings" and religions, and its association with historical events (Enlightenment Ages, Protestantism, etc). I don't know if such section is possible (as there are many strong POV about it) but I believe that some few NPOV info could be put about it. --SSPecteR, 8 november 2006

[edit] NPOV (again)

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)

Someone newly added that section about 2 hours before you added the POV tag. The best thing to do is just edit the article and remove the offending text. -- Stbalbach 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition tribunals and institutions

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)