Talk:Inquisition/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

England had it's Star Chamber though the article does not cover in detail what they did. And Catholic priests, and their supporters, were routinely hunted down and killed for "treason" or whatever they felt like at the time.

I think the records of the Inquisition were better kept. We still have records (by the English, incidentally) of Joan of Arc's trial for heresy. While they may not have had the Inquisition, a "proper" trial could be set up when political circumstances warranted. Her case was somewhat classic, since the inquisitors did try to talk her out of her "visions" fearing heresy. Then the secular arm took over. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is one on torture - introduced into Sweden: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/25.3/pihlajamaki.html

Ironically, the hints (not a subscriber to JSTOR or law journals) I get from google, is that the Inquisition was prelude, a basis for future progress for law. This is not standard propaganda, but we need to be beyond that for an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of informations

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)

Uhh...the Holy Inquisition was Catholic only, in fact persecuted Protestants and other heretical Christians. I deleted a paragraph that erroneously linked all deaths of Native Americans after the arrival of the Europeans to the Spanish Inquisition. (SRS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.158.76 (talk) 1 December 2007

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

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)

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) 

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)

Apology

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)

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

Guess we should abstain from referring to judges as 'Your Honor' as well. Guldenat 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"your honor" is the formal way to address a judge. The problem is that where all people DO obey a country's constitution and it's laws, not all people obey a single religion, and thus should not be forced to respect that religion's formalities.

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)

1) The church (and the pope) does not claim infallibility for the pope in most matters, certainly not these. 2) The pope was not alive during the Inquisition nor was he present at the Holocaust. 3) The Italian/Vatican protected Jews during WWII. There has been a lot of publicity about this. 4) While we no longer agree with the Inquisition, it was often legal at the time. Some aspects were illegal even then, which are pointed out in the article, I think. 5) If he said "sons and daughters of the church", he meant everyone as individuals including priests, bishops and cardinals. That is, each person, believe it or not, is responsible for doing the right thing. It is not "up to" some other group somewhere else to see that each person does the right thing. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
    • Ok, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so: to suggest that the Church could not have persecuted/prosecuted witches because there weren't any is fallacious. I'm not sure what the questioner means by "papal" inquisition, though I would assume they mean the one that began somewhere between 1184-1230 CE. I am not aware of any "official" conclusion arrived at during the Late Middle Ages/Early Modern Period in the Catholic Church that said witches did not exist. In point of fact, the churches and most of the people of the period very much believed that witches did exist and caused very real harm. Most reputable sources suggest that 100,000 people were accused and 50,000 were executed, with anywhere from 75%-95% of the accused and the executed being female.Astraldaeva (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2008 (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)

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 suspect that the current method of "due process" came out of ecclesiastical courts since most of them were really trying to arrive at "the truth." Courts set up by your local secular thugs of the time may not have really cared. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)
• I suggest to all who are interested in the history of the Catholic Church McBrien's two-part set Catholicism, published in 1980.Astraldaeva (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• No, because that would also NOT be a NPOV.Astraldaeva (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (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

It is crazy not to put to death people who can kill and maim you from a distance by muttering incantations or whatever. We believe that this view is mistaken nowdays and we don't do it anymore. But since they did believe it, they would have been stupid to do otherwise. The problem we have with the Salem witch trials is lousy trial procedures, not mistaken capability. The trial procedures of Europe were usually better. And yes, every one of the witches killed were innocent. BTW they killed people for burglary, picking pockets, etc. People imprisoned for debt often died there. So did everyone else that didn't have someone on the outside supporting them since the prisons didn't supply food! That's the sort of thing that makes them medieval. Without medievalism, we wouldn't be where we are today. That is what history is all about. It's not about pointing fingers! Student7 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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

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

I 'm going to have to disagree with the claim that libraries typically don't use ISBNs. They actually do use them a lot, because accuracy in describing an item is very important in a library record. Take a look at this [Worldcat] record, the ISBN is pretty near the top. Also, in regards to your reference to Plato and Euclid below, ISBNs are extremely important for anything that is translated. You can have big differences in one translation to another and it is good to know which one is being referred to. Even if the text is not translated, you still need to know who published the text and who the editor was. Once again, this is where an ISBN number can matter. They are very accurate and worthwhile tools if you know how to use them. G8briel (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

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)

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.

• That isn't a catch 22 from a theological perspective. In converting the jew becomes a christian, and in reverting to previous practice they commit the sin of heresy. No catch. Morally or Psycologically maybe there is a catch 22 being as conversion was required in order to stay in their homes and avoid expulsion. Nonetheless within the legal logic of the catholic church there was no catch.Airflorida (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had come up with something new, but I see that it is covered. Came across this interesting "semi-scholarly" document, echoing the above, the more interesting because it was produced by Jewish sources. Student7 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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? ~~

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)

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)

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)

• Can such a viewpoint be considered neutral? Highly doubtful.Astraldaeva (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as Jack Chick goes, we need and can have references here that are in peer reviewed publications. Scholarly, in other words. Jack Chick may a usable reference for some articles, but not this one. National Enquirer has a big circulation, too. But Wikipedia won't use it for its article on extraterrestrials. (Maybe I should look that up first!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

whatever happened to the Portuguese Inquisition?

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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

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)

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)

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

Stbalbach, you make a valid point. It would seem that whenever an article does not stand directly against the Catholic Church, it is deemed 'reinvisionist' and POV. I find people's eagerness to incriminate the Catholic Church disturbing (not saying the inquisition was right in it's actions, btw) The article to me would appear to be very un-biased, and it's sources are well cited, which is kind of the point of objective work. Guldenat 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does indeed defend the crimes committed by the church. It should be revised... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.208.1 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason the article is here is the same for every historical article. It is part of western history. If we hadn't been there, we couldn't be here. What is past is 100% prologue.

It is clear that contemporary moralizing should be omitted in favor of applying morality of the times. There was no Bill of Rights or Habeus Corpus then. We only have them because of episodes like this (and many other episodes and events which intervened). Editing the article with understanding is a way for editors to learn as well, besides presenting material in a NPOV manner. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)}.

No one denies that the two are 'related', but by the same token so are the languages French and Latin, but because of their close relation no one would say that French IS Latin (this is in regards to the post that because The Congregation is the 'direct Heir of the Inquisition' has any bearing on whether or not it IS the Inquisition. The fact the phrase 'direct heir' is used implies that the two entities are different. The father is not the son, so to speak.) The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith is related to the Inquisition isasmuch it has to do with heresy, however the Inquisition was the series of trials and such, while The Congregation holds no trials, no death sentences, etc. Perhaps one could argue the Congregation was a tool of the Inquisition, but it is certainly NOT the inquisition. And simply because the two entities have similar or even the same roles, that doesn't mean the two are interchangeable, especially since it is admitted that the methods of the two have been wholly different. And to say that Opus Dei carries out "black ops" is to give some sort of credence to the purely fictional work "The DaVinci Code". Guldenat 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guldenat: French is derived from Latin. but the Congregation of Doctrine of faith is the Congregation of Universal Inquisition reformed. Doing a family analogy, French and Latin would be like son and father, and the congregations of inquisition and faith would be a bad father turned to a good father. It is not the same thing. Also, it is very naive (or blind) to think the congregation was a "tool of Inquisition". What "Inquisition" is to you??? The "Congregation of Roman and Universal Inquisition" WAS the inquisition! It was the head of Roman Inquisition! It's source! What do you mean by "tool of Inquisition"??? The series of trials you talked about was made hierarchically by inquisition tribunals. The Congregation was simply the top of this hierarchy. However, I am not implying that the -now called- Congregation of Faith still do the same practices today. But that do not mean it isn't related to Inquisition neither.SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)}.

I never said they weren't related, in fact I said " No one denies that the two are 'related'". I am saying they are NOT the same now. For the same reasons you said the government of Nazi Germany was completely different then Germany's current government, so I say the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is completely different from the Congregation of Roman and Universal Inquisition. And I would say that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is derived from the The Congregation of Roman and Universal Inquisition ( Derived: formed or developed from something else; not original) It's methods and purpose are wholly different (and generally when you give something a new name, a new identity comes with it.) During The Inquisition ( when I refer to the Inquisition, I refer to the actions and the time period ) the Congregation's purpose was to refute heresy by a variety of means. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's purpose is to instruct the faithful in matters of doctrine ( hence the name ). Once again I reiterate, I KNOW the two are related, but they are not the same, ergo the Inquisition no longer exists. Guldenat 16:01, 2 May 2007 (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.

Spanish Inquisition

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)

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

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)

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)

Disambiguation page

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)

Feedback request

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;

• Not in MY name! A collection of quotes on the past, present, and future of the practice of torture
• The Inquisition: Looking into the Human Soul
• Conversos and The Spanish Inquisition By David M. Gitlitz, University of Rhode Island

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)

I am opening an RFC to get more widespread feedback on this subject. ··coelacan 05:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question here is whether torture was used to convert Jews and Muslims at the time of the Spanish Inquisition, correct? ··coelacan 05:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that it was used at all in the Inquisition. There is a separate article for the Spanish Inquisition which I did not add the term....yet. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not "did the Inquisitition use torture" or not, the issue is did the Inquitition use torture to "force" conversion. Yes, the Inqisition used torture but not as a means to gain converts.Hobomojo 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC response

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)

Thanks for your response, Jody, and suggestion for more specific sources. I'm working on it. :) I don't have websites to point to yet. But have some material, but do not know how to properly cite them without rewriting part of the article as I'm trying to avoid that. But, I may have to, or leave it alone. Here are some of my sources but are debatable:

• The Guardians of Purity: the Inquisition Reading: "Heresy and Inquisition", Medieval Iberia. Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources, ed. O. R. Constable, Philadelphia 1997, 330-337

• The Jews of Muslim Spain. by Ashtor Eliyahu, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1973-1984

• The Rise and Fall of the Party-Kings. Politics and Society in Islamic Spain 1002-1086, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985

These readings are from a course I had taken a while back. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you pull some pertinent quotes from those sources, to give us an idea of what they say? ··coelacan 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give quotes, but they will not support my argument, as they are inferred and it would be my POV. Because, the "secret files" were not released until 1998 (in one of the links I provided via PBS), and only for a limited time, to scholars only. The Inquisitors wrote down every single detail, but they were "secrets" and to be kept hidden. Why can I not use the PBS special as a source, as they had access to these "secret files"? It's hard to do, otherwise, without sounding as though I'm trying to push an agenda or doing OR because they were meant to be kept "secret". In the above readings there are no direct quotes that refer to "Muslims and Jews being tortured to convert", specifically. because they did not have direct access to the "secrets" at that time and were worded in such a way to avoid that, is my guess. But, they are there, in the secret files, overwhelmingly so. (PBS online) I may give up though, but I'll try to find some quotes that others can make their own minds up on whether they apply. It will be awhile, as I'll have to read them again. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen the show, but what I can see from the information online at pbs.org does not support the use of the word "torture". Here's what I found: "In 1391 there were terrible riots sweeping across southern Spain. People were offered the choice of converting or being killed. Some 20,000 converted under those circumstances. They had no intention of becoming Catholic. They were not educated in Catholicism and they went on living their Jewish lives as they wanted. ... Some people converted because they had swords to their throats and they had a choice of converting or dying."[1] Conversion at swordpoint is just that; it's not necessarily torture unless there is further pain inflicted beyond the pain of death. ··coelacan 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that it may or may not, be a result of the Inquisition itself. The idea of riots suggests to me something not necessarily controlled by the Inquisition. If they had access to the "secret" files (which would be a primary source) and then recorded what they discovered in the special or a publication, you could certainly use it if you source it. It would be a secondary source and that is acceptable (assuming its not trivial). In my south Alabama vernacular, you've got a tough row to hoe if you can't find the sources in some reliable place. I do appreciate your desire to avoid POV. Thanks JodyB _talk 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the show, and I'm still watching it. It's on again late nights here, repeats - on PBS. There is something online though, on the site that must say what I watched, saw the reenactment, and heard. I'll find something, I hope. Or not. :) Thanks so much. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're speaking of the recent closure of the Vatican Library [2], as far as I know, access to the Archives is still available, including access to the Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the the Faith (i.e. the "secret files", see [3] Hobomojo 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Inquisition, at least in Spain, was about producing an "orthodox" catholicism, not conversion as such, though events described as conversions did occur infrequently. Torture in this context was about getting people to reveal their unorthodox beliefs. Rsheptak 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's my POV, that taking a child away from his/her parents in order to convert the child and to "coerce" parents to stop practicing their faith (even though to do so, would, as they believed, damn them to Hell, and/or be forever separated from their God) or never see your child again, as torture. :( I'm still not convince that it did not occur in other ways, such as they used to reveal crimes, etc., but I do not have the sources to back it up...yet. - Jeeny ^Talk 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful to keep separate the question of the use of torture by the Inquisition and the question of coercive/violent methods used in forced conversion. It is known that the Inquisition developed and refined methods of torture to extract confessions from those accused of heresy. Strictly, heretics could only be those who professed to be Catholics, not those who openly identified with another faith. In a further development, many people who had converted under some degree of duress were then accused of "backsliding" into heresy and could thus be subject to torture. But that is not exactly the same as torture to ensure conversion. It may seem a minor point, but it is important in understanding how the Inquisitors proceeded and how their actions were presented and understood. Itsmejudith 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth

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.

Your arguments are all clearly POV and delusional. SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)}.

You can know someone by the company they keep... m.e. 09:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your arguments are not only POV, but highly uneducated, most of the "priest killing" came by anarchists, not exactly the communists. Also there was no "taking over" in the goverment as the second republic was elected democraticly (and it wasnt "communists" who were in charge). You also show a high degree of ignorance in stating that (in your own words) "The Spanish Inquisition kept Spain Catholic for 700 years", how is that exactly worth the lives of hundreds of innocent people?. You mix everything into one single bag, let this be revolutions (for which you have the overly simplistic "readers digest" version for each and every single one of them), social movements, power shifts or religion in general.200.83.56.253 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

Galileo as "Poster Boy" for Inquisition

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 POV??? The picture is from a Inquisition, isn't it? If you find a better picture depicting inquisition, feel free to change it. But DO NOT change it because it show the Inquisition condemning a innocent person. Removing it through your arguments would be highly POV. By the way, would you prefer pictures of people being burned or tortured? Then I wonder why are you considering a picture of a tribunal as POV against inquisitions... Also, about the link you provided, John Paul II saying "Oops! Our fault. Sorry" don't excuse the Inquisition from condemning Galileo. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{11:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)}.

extensive exchange

In historical matters, it is usually important to make people understand the thinking of the time. When we consider "badness" or "goodness" we wander off-topic. By the thinking of the Middle Ages, we are all flabby-minded idiots. But that would be because they don't understand our way of thinking. When someone steps outside the morality of the times, like Alcibiades or Jesus Christ then it helps the contrast.

But it was Galileo who stepped outside the times, not the Church. If he had stuck to explaining the cosmos, he would have been okay. When he decided to take on the church, they could not ignore the thumb in their eye. And it was the Spanish who probably pushed a weak pope into action. The pope had specifically supported Galileo. So his case was pretty far from typical. Just used by Protestants for hundreds of years afterwards as "typical." That is different from really being historically typical from an encyclopedic point of view.

Go ahead and read The Dialogue (the book which is the reason Galileo was condemned), and try to find any quote in the book offending the Pope or the Church. Do that, and you will understand you just posted bullshit. The book only also cover the Church's view because he was forced to, by the Inquisition (by the Pope, before he was Pope and before publishing the book). Galileo wished to only "explain the cosmos", as you complained, and tried his best to do that in the book. Not that it really matters to the picture, anyway. The picture just represent the fact Galileo was judged by The Inquisition (without taking sides), and should not be taken out from the article or considered as POV.SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

As far as the pope's apology goes, the pope was and is not responsible for the church or even another pope at another age and times. People were apparently saying that the modern church condemned Galileo and thought the Inquisition was a wonderful thing. He went on record as saying that wasn't true. The modern church does not agree with that. He also apologized for the Fourth Crusade (I think) sacking Constantinople, for which the Orthodox still condemn Rome! Actually this was the Venetians bright idea - on their way overland they figured why not sack Constantinople? - it's closer! Using the fine sensibilities of the Middle Ages. So Rome wasn't involved at all. But anyway, he "apologized" for whatever that was worth. I don't know what you mean about "not excusing it." Apologizing is done for the benefit of the person (or institution) apologizing and in this case, for the record of people who try to distort it (an axe to grind). Who's around with sufficient standing to "accept" or "reject" the apology? For a contrite apology and amends, acceptance is morally unecessary and irrelevant. And since the pope didn't do it in the first place....Student7 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Catholic's Church under John Paul II did not supported Inquisition (against Galileo), just as you stated. But current "modern church" under Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) is a little more condescendent about it. As a cardinal, Ratzinger openly condemned Galileo for heresy, enough to raise strong protests from Italian university against him, this year. As a Pope, Ratzinger avoid the issue, but for what he spoken as a cardinal (and his position in the 'Holy Office'), it is clear he support the Inquisition's decision (at least for Galileo). So the "modern church" is now perpetually silent about the issue, and don't expect any "mea culpa" speech from Benedict XVI, as we had from Pope John Paul II. By the way, it is funny how you separate the Popes rules between times, yet you quickly mix John Paul's ruling with Benedict XVI's ruling and call both as "modern church". About the John Paul apologising not "excusing" Inquisition acts, I meant the apologising don't not make Galileo's trial less awful. And, you are wrong: acts from any organization is the fault of this organization. Time don't matter. In this case the Church is, and should be, responsible for Inquisition's acts, even if it so strongly condemn Inquisition acts today. If it happened before, what stop it from happening again in the future? (for example, if a very bad Pope secede Ratzinger and secularism lose strength worldwide) SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{07:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}.

Less awful. Again, I think you are presuming a modern criminal justice system like the United States has today with the Bill of Rights. You are trying to see the past through modern eyes. This is a mistake. We cannot be where we are today if we weren't where we were yesterday. That is the only meaning of history. The Church followed the rules during the trial. Galileo admitted that he did not. He was told what he could print (or advocate). He chose to disobey this rule. Therefore he was punished. A court of 2308 might think a ticket for jaywalking or imprisonment for DUI was "medieval" and backwards. That doesn't mean that it is for us, though! The church played by the rules. Student7 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

1st you say the current Church do not account with past deeds of this same Church. Now you are suggesting that it is not fair seeing past mistakes as mistakes (like judging a scientist because he taught the truth to people of the Earth not being the center of the Universe) just because, in your words, "we cannot be where we are today if we weren't where we were yesterday", of, in other words, the past is past. A wrong event in the past do not excuse it from being wrong, just because it happened in past. If that was so, the Romans where completely right and fair on throwing Christians to lions and slowly killing them (including Jesus) in crosses, just because, to Roman society and Roman laws, and to people at the time, it was completely acceptable and common. And Genghis Khan would be right when he invaded many countries and decimated countless cities. That is a very weird thing to state from someone who believe in ultimate right and wrong (as you, as Christian, probably do). And you are wrong if you are suggesting Galileo was not allowed to print his book (what you said is contradictory -That he "was told what he could print", but "disobeyed the rule" by printing it-, so I am not sure if you said that). We had a inquisition's permission to print the book. Even if we hadn't it (which he had), even then it is still unreasonable and plain wrong to the inquisition forbid a scientist to teach science, don't matter the time or place. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)}.

Let me take another example. We say that the people in Salem shouldn't have burned the witches because there are no such things as witches. This is a fallacy of some sort. People don't know everything ever. We have more questions today than answers. Aquinas is supposed to be the last human being who knew "everything." The people in Salem thought that there were people who could kill at a distance. They would have been crazy had they knowingly allowed people to walk around who could do that in malevolent fashion. The best grounds to contradict them is poor court procedure which resulted from ignorant judges.

No once knew about the earth's place in the universe at the time. Galileo was pretty sure that the sun was in the center of the universe. So he was wrong. The church knew, or thought it knew, that if the bible appeared fallacious that this could destroy peoples' faith and definitely consign disbelievers to hell. They were a lot surer of this than Galileo was of his theory, which was in error, as it turns out. Galileo admitted that he was wrong (for publishing) according to the record. He had earlier testified that he did not support heliocentrism in his work, which he had agreed to abide by. After re-reading his own words, he admitted he had and was wrong. Like jaywalking or DUI today, wrong in 2208.

The question is not whether you can teach what you want. You can't, of course. Try teaching "intelligent design" in school. Most teachers would be fired or get a warning. Nevermind that they "know" it is correct. Teachers must obey the rules. Or teaching that "global warming" is not a problem or not man-made. Maybe a teacher wouldn't get fired for that. The question should not be whether a person is right (few heretics seemed right even to our broader-minded sensiblities today). Galileo is one of the few who seemed more correct (in the long run) than his detractors. But what is the criteria here? Correctness of what is said? The 15th century in Italy was not the 21st century in America!

Let me try another tack. Why not Joan of Arc? The English thought her a witch. The church did not believe in witches, but didn't like her visions which they distrusted immensely. She seems to have been coached to say that "my lady" in the visions was "Mary." This seems heretical. She could be the focus of a cult or something. So they try her. Good records just like Galileo. She is found guilty, handed over to the authorities who burn her at the stake. The church soon repents this decision, but it is more classic, I think, than Galileo which involves science which has nothing to do with the Inquisition nor its counterparts in Protestant countries. It's only there so someone can say that the Church chose the wrong path, scientifically. Great for "criticism of the catholic church." article. Not really representative here IMO.Student7 (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Salem example is a very bad one. You are saying something like "It is ok for them to torture and kill 'witches', because they didn't knew there was no witches". That don't make their acts less wrong, and judging (wrongly) and executing innocent people for wichcraft less wrong. It is, at least, bad acts perpetuated by ignorance. About Galileo, what matter is that, in the reality we all live in, Galileo was right and Inquisition (and the Church) was wrong (The Earth is not the center of the universe). The Inquisition's purpose (to suppress what they thought was heretical) don't excuse them from judging wrongly and punishing anyone who question their wrong world view (Earth being the center of the Universe). What you are saying would justify any atrocity ever made, as long as the perpetrator think he is doing it for a good cause. That include all religious terrorism ever made (Including the current Islamic ones). Do you really believe in that crap??? By the way, I think we should end this discussion, or move it somewhere else, as it is offtopic (not about the article). If you want answer feel free to post it on my talk user page, or yours.SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)}.

I agree. Will email you.Student7 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(capitalized I)

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)

This article is about Catholic Inquisition, which is always referred with capitalized I (as "the Inquisition"), to distinguish it from inquisition (legal procedure, which the Catholic Inquisition used). SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)}.

Only roman catholicism did inquisition?

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)}.

Deletion: Recent Investigations

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)

An IP address is easier to trace than a signin. So it helps, not hurts anonymity to have a login.

For the record, each Wikipedia article stands on its own merits and must have outside references. We cannot quote another article within Wikipedia. You can see how this might be self-serving after awhile. Worse, if we are quoting somebody who made stuff up, it all comes crashing down later.

A lot of misinformation (after 500 years!) about witches, per se. Basically, the Catholic church did not believe in witches ever, as far I have been able to determine. This didn't help Joan d'Arc any, as it turned out! The largely uneducated populace believed what it wanted, despite official expressions of dismay from the clergy. Maybe witchcraft wasn't quite as readily repudiated in Protestant strongholds as witnessed by the Salem witch trials, essentially a runaway Puritan investigation, the fallout from which ultimately destroyed that specific denomination. Different timeframe of course. At least one author (see for yourself) says that it was the secular courts that burned witches in Germany, not ecclesiastical ones. Student7 (talk) 19:33, 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)

Lost the train of thought here. I don't have a lot of time right now, but the articles should agree. I would guess that this page has more scholarly editors than witch-hunt. If I were asked to vote today without analyzing, I would believe this one. But they should be resolved. Witch-hunt could be correct and this one wrong. If "witch-hunt" doesn't point the finger at any one group, I would guess it is less biased. This one is aimed mostly at the Catholic church and is often biased for that reason. I've been slow-witted lately and didn't quite grasp where you thought the information should go? Individual countries? BTW we need another editor's answer here.

You might place the disagreement between the two articles on the witch-hunt discussion page. That might get a response if the article is "active." Please add four tildes to the end of your next comment. This will save the 'bot from having to do it for you. Thanks.Student7 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese Inquisition

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)

Recent investigations into the Inquisition

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)

You have a point. On the other hand, there is a tendency to erroneously assume that people were and should have been treated as they are today in first world democratic countries. This assumption is nonsense of course. We couldn't have got here without being there first! The contrast is to show that people of that day treated deviancy seriously and with violence. It was not isolated to the Inquisition.

When people of the 27th century attempt to focus in on our deaths from falling off stepladders, perhaps wiser heads will point out that we had deaths from traffic and homicide as well. Student7 (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? That Inquisition shouldn't be linked with executions because deaths happen everyday? I disagree. First because mortality of people don't excuse a specific cause of it. Secondly because not citing torture and execution in this article, practices common in many Inquisitions, alienate people learning about it, who will wrongly end thinking Inquisition almost never resorted to such acts. Of course, we must be extremely careful to not blame current people for "sins" of past (all CURRENT christians and church), that is why I don't add it myself. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}.

Torture was used by the Inquisition, and it was also used in other European countries at the time. For the Inquisition, it was not used to extract a confession or as punishment, but to confirm that a confession was not the result of some heretical lapse (a very difficult concept for moderns to wrap their head around). In England, on the other hand, torture was used to extract confessions and to inflict punishment. As you point out, we do have to be careful not to blame those today for "sins" of the past, but we also can't blame those in the past for being citizens of their time and place. You seem to want to put special focus on the Inquisition's use of torture, but don't see the broader picture.Hobomojo (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hobomojo said: "For the Inquisition, it was not used to extract a confession or as punishment, but to confirm that a confession was not the result of some heretical lapse". I strongly disagree. Torture in Inquisition WAS used to extract confession AND punishment. That's the point of medieval inquisitorial procedure. The church's Inquisition was no different than that. Also you said "you seem to want to put special focus on the Inquisition's use of torture". If you are referring to me, then you are wrong. Note I didn't added anything about torture in the article. But I also don't understand why the article should avoid talking about the types of torture, if it was so obviously used by church's Inquisition. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)}.

(Not too clear on why we are stranding the comment below. Anyway). The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says "Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth." The article goes on to describe who authorized torture and its limits. No big deal back then of course. Thank goodness they got it out of their system then which is why we have the system of government we have today!Student7 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I thank Secularism and Age of Enlightenment for allowing the current secular systems of governments, not Catholic's inquisitorial charity for stopping torturing and killing people. Secularism itself, among many Age of Enlightenment new ideas got strong opposition by the Roman Church at that time. Note lots Catholics still are against Secularism even today. Even Pope Ratzinger made a few anti-Secular speeches. About torture being a form of punishment in Inquisition, I guess, in practice (and not by definition) it will depend of who is applying it. Some will use for punishment, others just to extract confession. Anyway, the the result will be the same: people scared of Inquisition. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{19:57, 27 September 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)

I can remember going into my grandmother's house and finding anti-macassars on the sofas. Along with her other selection of decor, this annoyed me. My parent's generation had more modern tastes.

What I didn't realize is that if my grandmother's generation had continued to select colonial decor, then my parents, most likely would have selected Victorian, and my generations tastes would be "up to date." My grandmother wasn't wrong, though doubtless there is some "standard of interior furnishing" that someone can point to that she may have violated. Most likely written after she died!

The modern era is built on the backs of people who came before us. It is as simple as that. Finding fault is a futile path.

Were Caesar's enemies "right" in killing him? He had destroyed the Republic once and for all. Most of the next 400 years weren't all that much fun in Rome as a result. All we can do is summarize his views and his opponents. Pointing fingers using the Geneva Convention is missing the point, I think. Because of that asasination (and other errors), our forefathers structured the US government considerably differently.

We can learn from the past. But we have to be objective about documenting it. Taking sides is silly IMO. It's like taking a turnpike and trying to skip an intervening city or cities. Or suggesting they should have been skipped. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can excuse even Mussolini by your argument. Or Nero. Or Hitler. Finding fault is not only relevant. It is essential for us to not commit the same mistakes again. Why do you think we live in a secularist country, and not a Catholic one??? Secularism was developed on basis on what all Theist government did in the past. Why we have, in laws, burden of proof in favor of the judged person? Because we saw in the past, and seen legal inquisitions are unfair and ineffective. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}.

Finding fault and placing blame has no business in doing history or writing encyclopedia articles. The bromide of "not repeating the same mistakes again" is also fallacious, since time is linear and the same conjuncture never occurs twice. As for whether we live in a secular country or not is a question of looking at our foundational documents and legal decisions on the one hand and the current rage for endorsements from evangelicals--not to mention that an atheist would never be elected president. And whether the current abuses by the Bush administration might or might not constitute an inquisition (Guantanamo) is a matter of debate.Hobomojo (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Finding fault and placing blame has no business in doing history or writing encyclopedia articles.. Agree. But it is also wrong hiding facts to cover ugly truths. Things must be shown as it was, and let people think for themselves. Avoiding saying Inquisition adopted cruel methods is like, perhaps, saying Holocaust didn't occurred. It is a big injustice to true history and to the people killed. The bromide of "not repeating the same mistakes again" is also fallacious,... For you, perhaps. But for people who learn with mistakes of others it is not. ...since time is linear and the same conjuncture never occurs twice. False. Conjunctures may repeat. History (and human behaviors) get repeating itself. Perhaps in future, a Christian church win influence in some governments, arise another "Holy Office" congregation, and start killing people again. Note it already happened again and again in many centuries through history. What stop it from happening yet again is the knowledge of that happened before, consequences of it. Have you wondered why, in a country with majority Catholic or Protestant, these same people who believe in their religion are against of it ruling their country? As for whether we live in a secular country or not is a question of looking at our foundational documents and legal decisions on the one hand and the current rage for endorsements from evangelicals Very simplistic view of things... If things where just like this, these legal decisions would never stand. What stand it is the ideas behind these "legal decisions", which, I guess, you think there is none (And the legislators just legislated it because being secularist was cute). not to mention that an atheist would never be elected president Just because religious people wouldn't vote on him. Yet no one is capable to turn it into law. Not in any country standing for Freedom. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}.

But the words "ugly" and "cruel" are WP:POV terms. We cannot look at the past with our current preconceived notions which, after all, were determined by this very past. Without this past, we could be experiencing these things today, as, indeed, have the Tutsis, Hutus, Cambodians, Somalians, etc. who did not go through this sort of thing.

It is not likely that the current environmentalist fervor will last throughout the remainder of history (I know I know. If we don't we won't have any. Same sort of reason the Inquisitors used BTW. Anyway). Should the people of tomorrow then evaluate us as being "stupid" or what because we had different values than they do? Student7 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested to put the words "ugly" and "cruel" in article, so why are you pointing it is WP:POV? But that doen't mean we should remove cruel events from history books and enciclopedias. So why aren't you complaining the same fact in the Holocaust and Nazism article, to remove cruel stuffs from there? As a encyclopedia, Inquisition article should have the same threatment, and being showed in all its colors. We cannot look at the past with our current preconceived notions which, after all, were determined by this very past. That is a clear falacy and a excuse to selectively remove only negative things from the article. By your argument all history should be totally useless, as, according to you, looking to the past is wrong and useles, as we have preconceived notions. That excludes even Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount, and all historical events. By the way, why aren't you using this same argument in the Holocaust and Nazism article? It is not likely that the current environmentalist fervor will last throughout the remainder of history ... Should the people of tomorrow then evaluate us as being "stupid" or what because we had different values than they do? Maybe. But what if these same future society is degenerated, amoral and oppressor, and slowly kill people to please their gods? You are talking as if future people's opinion where relevant to current people. Worse yet: You are putting words in future people's minds, as if you knew they would think. Looking to the future to write an article is pointless, firstly because we can't predict what they will think, if not by using our current, "preconceived notions". Secondly a future society will not be necessarily brilliant or more rightfull. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{11:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)}.

Bias by straw-man argument?

The section in question says:

Their findings discounted many previous beliefs. It emerged that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition.

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)

I have to agree on one hand. But on the other, the article needs to show the naive that killing people because they were different was typical of the times. The naive try to compare it to the Bill of Rights and are horrified. The problem is: what were the standards of the time? Dreadful by our standards but quite reasonable by theirs. The question is how else can contemporary norms be demonstrated? And BTW, a scholarly presentation of the Inquisition will indeed mention other cruelties (from our pov) of the time by way of helping us to understand the milieu. So it may be "straw dog" but it is not WP:OR, Student7 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that the Inquisition was unusually bad. History is full of all sorts of things that we would today regard as human-rights violations. (Indeed, plenty of that sort of thing go on today!) 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. It's like saying, Stalin's purges were not very bad because they did not kill as many Irish as Oliver Cromwell did. --FOo (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a milieu, I think and some relation to prevalent standards. What you meant for an example above is a time-matched event - that the murders of Polish officers by the Russians in Katyn Forest were as bad as "some" of the Nazi excesses. Actually, the comparison made the Russians looks bad and anyway, there were war protocols then so it did not match the standards of the time. But it does form a backdrop for the malevolent hatred on both sides for the Polish. This article is back to the Bill of Rights, which did not exist at the time, once any pertinent milieu is eliminated. Student7 (talk) 11:41, 7 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)

So much for my arguing without re-reading the article. The article says "why the relentless focus on witchcraft in the Inquisition when this was not a major fault of the Inquisition?" There may have been faults with the Inquisition and heresy but witchcraft was not a major problem. The church, basically, never believed in witchcraft. Joan was tried for heresy though the English thought she was a witch. The latter couldn't be helped. The heresy trial had been held.

Not a strawdog when the opposition is saying that witchcraft is a major problem. It's probably more of a fallacy to say "the Inquisition killed a lot of people for heresy which was just (non-existent) "freedom of speech" and BTW killed a lot of witches too (and we don't believe in witches anymore, regardless of your answers about heresy)."Student7 (talk) 11:59, 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.

The Holy Inquisition: Myth or Reality

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

"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

Suggest the redirect to be deleted, or just don't worry about it.SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)}.

Netherlands negelcted

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

Recent investigations into the Inquisition

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) 

Indeed, the only "fact" in this section that I think belongs in the article is the call for an Inquisition symposium and the fact that it occurred. This "summary" of the findings is ideosyncratic, at best. I think the heading should be deleted and the sentence about the call for a symposium added somewhere else in the article,, the rest of the text should just cease to exist in the article. The Inquisition was never predominantly about witchcraft, nor were witchcraft cases handled solely by Inquisition cou

Are you questioning the findings of the 30 external historians? Or the way in which their findings are presented? Or the fact that their findings are presented at all? I assume the latter.

If the latter, will you accept a modified section if it can be amended to be more germane to respond to the questions raised in the article? I am assuming that these "findings" were somewhat more than one page long. I'm guessing there was a very long article signed by one or more scholars. Student7 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful in your edits; you cut off both my comment and my signature above. What I am questioning is that this paragraph bears any resemblance to anything that these scholars wrote as a result of the conference. Any scholar more than passingly acquainted with the Inquisition knows that it was not particularly obsessed with witchcraft.

The conference reviewed Vatican records of the Inquisition. Since the Vatican was the top of the Inquisition hierarchy which had more local centers that conducted and decided most of the Inquisition cases (and since in Spain and the Spanish colonies it was all delegated to the King of Spain) the kinds of data cited in the paragraph are not the kinds of data that would be in the Vatican archives, so yes, I doubt this represents the scholarly product of such a conference. What is the source here? A popular press account?

Actually reviewing the documents in the Vatican archives, as opposed to holding an conference, would take decades; so I'd like to know more about the conference. Were the participants actually reporting on studies of the Vatican documents, or were they reporting on Inquisition studies in general?

Finally, there's the question of whether this is germane to the article. Recent scholarly research is a moving target. The whole article should reflect the recent scholarly research at any given point in time, so separating it into another section makes no sense to me, as a scholar, and again, it doesn't cite any sources from the actual conference. Rsheptak (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about clobbering your edit.

I agree that the section is poorly written and sourced. Apparently the section started out as an attack on the church for burning witches and morphed into what we see there now. The "30 scholars" blurb sounds interesting but doesn't seem to be supported by the footnotes. I don't know how to easily save the section or recover whatever the original editors had in mind for either 1) burning witches (or not), and 2) "recent research" which shows otherwise. Having said that, the research, such as it was, tends to be confined, in my mind to the year 2000. I agree that we would need to kow what it covered. We also need a document that contains the results! Student7 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines what the Vatican did was organize an international conference to talk about the state of scholarship on the Inquisition, which then issues "Minutes" as a 738 page volume published in 2004 according to Vatican Press releases stashed on various websites. The basic theme of the press releases is that the Inquisition came in for a bad rap as a result of Protestant myths about the Inquisition. However, I haven't found a nearby University library that has access to it, and I'm not going to spend the time to get it on Interlibrary loan since I have better uses of my time.

Feel free to tag anything you think needs support with a fact tag. All I did was reword what was already there. Rsheptak (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is actually misleading but not because the numbers given are false but because there is not clearly remarked what is talking about. These numbers concerned only the people burned for witchcraft, and it is true that inquistion condemned few people for this "crime". But the total number of executions made by inquisition in Spain, Portugal and Italy amounted to several thousand (according to Henry Charles Lea about 1200 in Portugal, according to William Monter about 3000 in Spain), including mainly judeoconversos, not witches. CarlosPn

At least we have an editor stepping up to the plate. Thanks! As he has said, he was just amending something that was there.

I don't like the "recent investigation" title. It seems to diminish all the rest. The conclusion of the scholars should maybe be put into the lead, or into the section on witchcraft, if one still exists.

It doesn't look like the "secret files" of the Vatican revealed anything dramatic and maybe shouldn't be emphasized. Looked good in print!  :)

Downloading a monster pdf file is probably not within my capability either, assuming it can be found and it happens to be in English!  :) We will have to use summaries from "scholarly" sources which seems a bit tertiary. Will findings be "new"? Probably not to us anyway!  :)

Anyway, what I am basically suggesting is rewriting this section, renaming it, moving it elsewhere, a line at a time.

Suggestions?Student7 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the text from the article and added it to a new heading on this discussion page. Salvage what you will. Rsheptak (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent investigations into the Inquisition -- Take 3

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.

Main article: Historical revision of the Inquisition

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. Some 26,000 persons condemned as witches died in Germany.

Rsheptak (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)