Auto Da Fe In The Spanish Inquisition

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1103565' date='Oct 28 2006, 08:37 PM']Btw, Era, are Dr. Carroll's works availbale online anywhere, or did you handcopy that text?[/quote]
I handcopied it, but I did it a long time ago, I just did a search to find the text from the first time I posted it.

[Budge]

Dr. Carroll was the one having the pro-inquisition discussion on EWTN.

I found some historical proof of an auto-da fe and Inquisition on line...

I can read some Spanish, doesnt look that good.

[img]http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/images/53/53_title.jpg[/img]

This is interesting to me, I didnt realize the medieval inquisition did tests of racial PURITY...{kind of adds heft to my theory that the Holocaust of Hitler was simply an updated Inquisition}


[quote]
The collection contains 25 certificates conferring the title of "familiar of the Inquisition" to individual Spaniards. These certificates, largely manuscripts from the 16th and 17th centuries, conferred all privileges and responsibilities unto [b]Spaniards found to be [u]racially[/u] and religiously pure according to the precepts of the Inquisition[/b]. Familiars, who would be referred to as Friends of the Inquisition today, were known for their racial purity, their support of the Church and their advocacy of the Inquisition.[/quote]

[url="http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=33&gps=112_11_1020_502&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/"]RACIAL PURITY IN THE INQUISITION[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

"Auto da fé? What’s an auto da fé? It’s what ya oughtn’t to do, but ya do anyway..." -History of the World, Part I (don't watch it...not a clean movie...I remember it from my heathen days...but if you fast forward through some scenes, it's hilarious).

[Winchester]

Budge.

No one is saying Autos da fe di not exist, nor are they saying the Inquisition was perfect or did not exist.


Are you only going to discuss the Spanish Inquisition?

Considering that racial purity has never been an objective of any of our doctrines, I would consider the use of the authority of the Church (if this indeed happened) to be abhorrent.

Your point is?

[quote]This is interesting to me, I didnt realize the medieval inquisition did tests of racial PURITY...{kind of adds heft to my theory that the Holocaust of Hitler was simply an updated Inquisition}[/quote]
Now I'm a bit confused. I thought you were talking about the Spanish Inquisition, which is separate and distinct from the Medieval inquisition.

[Justified Saint]

Budge,

[i]Limpieza[/i] was rarely enforced and it was limited to certain reigions -- the principle was often strongly opposed by popes. Conversos continued to be found in the highest ranks of society.

Better go back to the drawing boards Budge, you aren't fooling anyone here. What's next on the list, Goya?

[ruso]

[quote name='Budge' post='1104945' date='Oct 30 2006, 05:17 PM']
Dr. Carroll was the one having the pro-inquisition discussion on EWTN.

I found some historical proof of an auto-da fe and Inquisition on line...

I can read some Spanish, doesnt look that good.

[img]http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/images/53/53_title.jpg[/img]

This is interesting to me, I didnt realize the medieval inquisition did tests of racial PURITY...{kind of adds heft to my theory that the Holocaust of Hitler was simply an updated Inquisition}
[url="http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=33&gps=112_11_1020_502&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/"]RACIAL PURITY IN THE INQUISITION[/url]
[/quote]
The document this is Portuguese no in Spanish. Coimbra this in Portugal.
And yes, the society Spanish was racist in the XVI century, and England, Holland, Germany, Italy, Russian, Morocco, Chinese.......................

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1104945' date='Oct 30 2006, 11:17 AM']
Dr. Carroll was the one having the pro-inquisition discussion on EWTN.

I found some historical proof of an auto-da fe and Inquisition on line...

I can read some Spanish, doesnt look that good.

[img]http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/images/53/53_title.jpg[/img]

This is interesting to me, I didnt realize the medieval inquisition did tests of racial PURITY...{kind of adds heft to my theory that the Holocaust of Hitler was simply an updated Inquisition}
[url="http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=33&gps=112_11_1020_502&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/"]RACIAL PURITY IN THE INQUISITION[/url]
[/quote]
Since you can read Spanish, why don't you quote something where the actual document talks about "racial purity." I really don't know what that text is talking about, but it looks poorly and anachronistically worded. "Racial purity" was a 19th-20th century ideology, and the concept did not really exist in 15th century Spain. (And would not have really made sense, Spain being made up a number of various ethnic/racial groups)
The issue it is probably referring to is religious, rather than racial, in nature, concerning that of "false conversos."

In the eighth century, Muslim invaders took over all of Christian Spain, and Christians were forced to convert to Islam, be killed, or live as slaves under the Muslim conquerors. A Christian resistance formed, and was able to win back a small part of Spain. For over 700 years of hard fighting against the Muslim occupiers, the Christian Spaniards gradually reconquered Spain from the Muslim oppressors. This is own as La Reconquista. It was only completed in the late 1400s, when the island of Granada was won back from the Moors, and Spain became a totally Christian country for the first time in many centuries.

Much of the Spanish Inquisition focused on the issue of the false conversos, Muslims who pretended to be Christian, but had in fact remained Muslim. Muslims had long been the enemy of Christian Spain, and those clandestine Muslims could work from within to undermine the Christian state in Spain (much like communist spies in more recent times.)
And it should be noted that the Inquisition existed as much to protect people from false accusations as to convict the guilty. (A person had to actually be proven guilty by court of law, rather than simply be condemned by a hostile mob.) The vast majority of those charged with being false conversos were found innocent and released. (One had to make a confession of faith, and he was released - only if he later broke this oath, was he punished).
The issue here was religious, not racial.

I find it ironic, Budge, that you keep trying to use the Spanish Inquisition, which was formed to deal with a Muslim enemy, to try to bash the Church, when elsewhere you have repeatedly condemned the Church as evil for being too warm and cozy with Muslims!

So which is it Budge, is the Church evil for being too harsh on those poor Muslims, or for being too nice and friendly with them??!!

Oh, well. Consistancy was never your strong point.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Socrates

[Katholikos]

[b]Budge wrote:[/b]
[quote]This is interesting to me, I didnt realize the medieval inquisition did tests of racial PURITY...{kind of adds heft to my theory that the Holocaust of Hitler was simply an updated Inquisition}[/quote]Wrong, Budge. Hitler's hero was Martin Luther, "Father of Protestantism," whose treatise entitled "The Jews and Their Lies" gave the Nazi's justification for their treatment of Jews. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust.


[url="http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm"]http://www.humanitas-international.org/sho...luther-jews.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html"]http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuthe...alAncestor.html[/url]

------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1105686' date='Oct 30 2006, 09:54 PM']
Since you can read Spanish, why don't you quote something where the actual document talks about "racial purity." I really don't know what that text is talking about, but it looks poorly and anochronistically worded. "Racial purity" was a 19th-20th century ideology, and the concept did not really exist in 15th century Spain. (And would not have really made sense, Spain being made up a number of various ethnic/racial groups)
The issue it is probably referring to is religious, rather than racial, in nature, concerning that of "false conversos."

In the eighth century, Muslim invaders took over all of Christian Spain, and Christians were forced to convert to Islam, be killed, or live as slaves under the Muslim conquerors. A Christian resistance formed, and was able to win back a small part of Spain. For over 700 years of hard fighting against the Muslim occupiers, the Christian Spaniards gradually reconquered Spain from the Muslim oppressors. This is own as La Reconquista. It was only completed in the late 1400s, when the island of Granada was won back from the Moors, and Spain became a totally Christian country for the first time in many centuries.

Much of the Spanish Inquisition focused on the issue of the false conversos, Muslims who pretended to be Christian, but had in fact remained Muslim. Muslims had long been the enemy of Christian Spain, and those clandestine Muslims could work from within to undermine the Christian state in Spain (much like communist spies in more recent times.)
And it should be noted that the Inquisition existed as much to protect people from false accusations as to convict the guilty. (A person had to actually be proven guilty by court of law, rather than simply be condemned by a hostile mob.) The vast majority of those charged with being false conversos were found innocent and released. (One had to make a confession of faith, and he was released - only if he later broke this oath, was he punished).
The issue here was religious, not racial.

I find it ironic, Budge, that you are trying to use the Spanish Inquisition, which was formed to deal with a Muslim enemy, to try to bash the Church, when elsewhere you have repeatedly condemned the Church as evil for being too warm and cozy with Muslims!

So which is it Budge, is the Church evil for being too harsh on those poor Muslims, or for being too nice and friendly with them??!!

Oh, well. Constistancy was never your strong point.
[/quote]


Socrates, your brief history of the Muslim conquest of Visigothic Spain and the reconquista isn't very accurate. First of all, the Muslims who conquered Spain didn't kill and enslave everyone who didn't convert. They did have rules governing dhimmi status amongst non-Muslims in Spain, but that wasn't the same thing as enslavement. Dhimmi status was a series of restrictions placed on those "people of the book" who were not Muslims but who were living in the Dar al-Islam - the abode of Islam. These restrictions varied both by region and by time period. However, they generally required Christian churches not to have bells or ring them, and for Christians to not carry weapons. Sometimes they required that Christians and Jews wear clothing that differentiated them from Muslims, but this was more rare. It's also important to note that while the notion of the medieval Iberian convivencia is not entirely accurate, there was a great deal of tolerance and trade between Christians and Muslims. Even the relationship between Christian and Muslim kingdoms was not always adversarial. Sometimes Christian kingdoms would ally with Muslims against other Christian kingdoms. Sometimes a Christian kingdom that was capable of conquering a Muslim kingdom wouldn't do it, and would instead demand payments of tribute annually. In fact, this latter became an established system in the 13th and 14th centuries. Also, it's important to note that the Christians also enforced their own restrictions on Muslims, just as the Muslims had on the Christians. They required them to not use loud calls to prayer, to not carry weapons, and sometimes to wear special clothing that set them apart. By and large however, these ordinances were fairly lenient on both sides of things. I'd like to add, Granada is not an island, it was simply the last pocket of Muslim resistance in Spain (the Nasrid sultanate) and was as such an Island of Islam surrounded by Christianity.

Interestingly, you're also wrong on the converso issue. There was some worry during the reconquista of Muslims falsely converting and being spies, but what is striking about the Spanish Inquisition, especially in its early stages, is that it is far more concerned with Jews that it is with the moriscos. They were worried that Jews were falsely converting to Christianity and then reverting to Judaism. That's why the Jews were expelled in 1492 and the Moors were not expelled until 1609. So, it's clear that for most of the inquisition, the Spanish were worried about the threat of the Jews. In 1492, the Nasrid sultanate of Granada had been captured by the Spanish, so perhaps they considered the Muslims a defeated enemy, and that is part of the reason for their focus on Jews rather than Muslims.

[Socrates]

Bottom line: Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not being "racially pure."

[Norseman82]

[quote name='ruso' post='1105589' date='Oct 30 2006, 07:30 PM']
The document this is Portuguese no in Spanish.
[/quote]

I'm glad somebody noticed that!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1105751' date='Oct 30 2006, 10:50 PM']
Bottom line: Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not being "racially pure."
[/quote]

Well, scientifically, it is impossible to prove something wrong in all cases. However, "racially pure" is anachronistic terminology with no place in the middle ages. And I have certainly never heard of any case of racially motivated burnings. They didn't think in terms of race - religion was the race of the middle ages.

[Budge]

[quote]Since you can read Spanish, why don't you quote something where the actual document talks about "racial purity." I really don't know what that text is talking about, but it looks poorly and anochronistically worded. "Racial purity" was a 19th-20th century ideology, and the concept did not really exist in 15th century Spain. (And would not have really made sense, Spain being made up a number of various ethnic/racial groups)[/quote]

The historian pointed out the issue of racial purity not me.

[quote]Although the Inquisition was in force in Spain in the 14th century, it was not until the late 15th century with the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon that the Inquisition became an instrument to promote racial purity and Catholic orthodoxy throughout the two kingdoms. Publications of the Holy Office contained in the collection depict the development of the administrative machinations as the Holy Office prosecuted these tasks during this period. Further, the Holy Office's careful record keeping found in these documents captures Spain's social and political life of the period.[/quote]

[url="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:gTahncWRyRgJ:www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/+Racial+purity+and+Spanish+Inquisition&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1"]LINK[/url]


[quote]The issue it is probably referring to is religious, rather than racial, in nature, concerning that of "false conversos."[/quote]

It had to be intertwined with race, in that much of this had to do with Jews, who had Jewish blood, who was Jewish? They used the race stuff to figure out who the Jews were. Auto da fe's focused on them also.

And we know that continues throughout hsitory, do you realize one of the major reasons the Germans could figure out who was Jewish was via Catholic marriage and baptism roles as well as the apostate Prot churches in Germany?


[quote]
So which is it Budge, is the Church evil for being too harsh on those poor Muslims, or for being too nice and friendly with them??!! [/quote]

Catholicism is a mirror image of Islam. After all when Muslims put those to death who convert away from Islam, how are Catholic Inquisitions any different?

[Justified Saint]

[quote]It had to be intertwined with race, in that much of this had to do with Jews, who had Jewish blood, who was Jewish? They used the race stuff to figure out who the Jews were. Auto da fe's focused on them also. [/quote]

This theory is kind of novel, but not without support. B. Netanyahu advances a similar argument -- that the origins of the (Spanish) Inquisition were fundamentally racial and not religious. It is an interesting interpretation that seems convincing on some points, but not without its problems. Part of the problem is that "race" is a rather ambigious term that has meant different things at different times.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1107476' date='Nov 1 2006, 12:57 PM']
This theory is kind of novel, but not without support. B. Netanyahu advances a similar argument -- that the origins of the (Spanish) Inquisition were fundamentally racial and not religious. It is an interesting interpretation that seems convincing on some points, but not without its problems. Part of the problem is that "race" is a rather ambigious term that has meant different things at different times.
[/quote]

I would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was on the whole religious, rather than racial. In fact, racism as we know it in the modern day was an unknown in the middle ages. For example, the rationale for enslaving black Africans by the Spanish and the Portuguese was that they were Moors, and therefore captives of good war - the same exact rationale that had been used in the prior slave trade involving Moors from Spain and North Africa. This same system was used to enslave Native Americans. So, it seems to me that anyone who studies slavery in the medieval Iberian peninsula would recognize that the preponderance of the evidence supports a view of religious rather than racial justification. The same is true of the Inquisition whose express purpose was to inquire to matters concerning religion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1107342' date='Nov 1 2006, 09:51 AM']
The historian pointed out the issue of racial purity not me.[/quote]
And the "historian" has given no evidence for his vague statement. It sounds like he's using sloppy language to me.
[url="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:gTahncWRyRgJ:www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/inquisition/+Racial+purity+and+Spanish+Inquisition&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1"]LINK[/url]
[quote]It had to be intertwined with race, in that much of this had to do with Jews, who had Jewish blood, who was Jewish? They used the race stuff to figure out who the Jews were. Auto da fe's focused on them also. [/quote]
You have given not a shred of evidence that "race stuff" (whatever that means) was used to find anyone guilty during the inquistion. Jews were only found guilty if praciticing Judaism while pretending falsely to be Christian. No one was tried or killed for simply having Jewish blood, Nazi style. Again, the issue was religous not racial (very unlike the Nazis, who wanted to kill Jews for their race).

If your going to make serious accusations like this, Budge, you'd better have something more solid to back it up!

[quote]Catholicism is a mirror image of Islam. After all when Muslims put those to death who convert away from Islam, how are Catholic Inquisitions any different?[/quote]
So Catholics and Muslims are deadly enemies? That's odd, because I thought, from your earlier posts, that the Catholic Church was in some kind of syncretist league with Islam, and worshipped the same pagan gods together.

"The Inquisition had no jurisdiction over practicing Jews and Muslims, only over professed Christians who were in fact still Jews or Muslims, though concealing it." ~ (Warren H. Carroll, "The Glory of Christendom", p. 609)

And many fewer Jews and Muslims were killed in the Spanish Inquisition than were "witches" by "Bible-only" Christians in the 17th century!

Edited November 2, 2006 by Socrates

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1108218' date='Nov 1 2006, 07:02 PM']
I would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was on the whole religious, rather than racial. In fact, racism as we know it in the modern day was an unknown in the middle ages. For example, the rationale for enslaving black Africans by the Spanish and the Portuguese was that they were Moors, and therefore captives of good war - the same exact rationale that had been used in the prior slave trade involving Moors from Spain and North Africa. This same system was used to enslave Native Americans. So, it seems to me that anyone who studies slavery in the medieval Iberian peninsula would recognize that the preponderance of the evidence supports a view of religious rather than racial justification. The same is true of the Inquisition whose express purpose was to inquire to matters concerning religion.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I completely follow the slavery connection. I agree though that racism cannot be categorically applied to historical periods since it is very problematical. Thinking back to Netanyahu, his argument (i.e. the origins of the Spanish Inquisition) is based not so much on racism as anti-semitism, which is essentially a catch-all phrase for the hatred of everything Jewish. In that sense he marshalls forth some convincing proof.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1108495' date='Nov 2 2006, 02:30 AM']
I'm not sure I completely follow the slavery connection. I agree though that racism cannot be categorically applied to historical periods since it is very problematical. Thinking back to Netanyahu, his argument (i.e. the origins of the Spanish Inquisition) is based not so much on racism as anti-semitism, which is essentially a catch-all phrase for the hatred of everything Jewish. In that sense he marshalls forth some convincing proof.
[/quote]

Well, anti-semitism and racism need to be clearly distinguished. The medieval period clearly had rampant anti-semitism from the 14th century expulsion of Jews from England to the 15th century expulsion of Jews from Spain. There were crusades leveled against the Jews (not official crusades mind you, but splinter groups of people caught up in religious fervor who borrowed the ideology of crusading). In Spain it was also common for people to stone the gates of the Jewish quarter every year during Holy Week in many cities. However, the concept of race as we see it - based on skin color or ethnicity is largely lost when looking back at medieval beliefs. The anti-semitism in the middle ages dealt almost entirely with the Jews' responsibility for killing Christ. It was fueled by other issues like usurious banking practices and royal protections, but for the most part, the hatred was of a religious nature. So, while anti-semitism can certainly be argued for most region of Europe in the middle ages, racism is something of an anachronism. Certainly racial purity is an even greater anachronism.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1108497' date='Nov 2 2006, 12:40 AM']
Well, anti-semitism and racism need to be clearly distinguished. The medieval period clearly had rampant anti-semitism from the 14th century expulsion of Jews from England to the 15th century expulsion of Jews from Spain. There were crusades leveled against the Jews (not official crusades mind you, but splinter groups of people caught up in religious fervor who borrowed the ideology of crusading). In Spain it was also common for people to stone the gates of the Jewish quarter every year during Holy Week in many cities. However, the concept of race as we see it - based on skin color or ethnicity is largely lost when looking back at medieval beliefs. The anti-semitism in the middle ages dealt almost entirely with the Jews' responsibility for killing Christ. It was fueled by other issues like usurious banking practices and royal protections, but for the most part, the hatred was of a religious nature. So, while anti-semitism can certainly be argued for most region of Europe in the middle ages, racism is something of an anachronism. Certainly racial purity is an even greater anachronism.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with that assessment, but the religiosity of the conversos is exactly what is at stake. Were they really crypto-Jews, or were the charges mostly fabricated? Netanyahu argues for the latter which suggests a kind of anti-semitism that is not exlusively, and perhaps not even primarily, religious. I don't say I agree with him, but I think he has some good points. Namely, that religion was more of a justification and pre-text for violence against Jews. I think the difficutly is in how we want to think about the importance of the religion of that time period. It might border on tautology to say that anti-semitism (or the Middle Ages for that matter) was religious in nature. In other words, what exactly does it mean to say that a society is religious?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1108499' date='Nov 2 2006, 02:57 AM']
I don't disagree with that assessment, but the religiosity of the conversos is exactly what is at stake. Were they really crypto-Jews, or were the charges mostly fabricated? Netanyahu argues for the latter which suggests a kind of anti-semitism that is not exlusively, and perhaps not even primarily, religious. I don't say I agree with him, but I think he has some good points. Namely, that religion was more of a justification and pre-text for violence against Jews. I think the difficutly is in how we want to think about the importance of the religion of that time period. It might border on tautology to say that anti-semitism (or the Middle Ages for that matter) was religious in nature. In other words, what exactly does it mean to say that a society is religious?
[/quote]

Well I think the main point of the society being religious is that the major distinctions made by the society were between Christian and non-Christian (or in the case of Islamic societies, muslim and non-muslim). Take a non-religious society like the United States for example. We don't differentiate largely between Christian and non-Christian but rather according to "races" - black, white, hispanic, asian american, pacific islander, etc. These aren't the sorts of classifications used in medieval texts.

As to the charges against the reconversos being trumped up, that's a possibility. I think the Spanish inquisition is an interesting case because it was so tied up with notions of Spanish royal sovereignty. The Spanish government (rightly or wrongly) considered Jews to be a threat to the established order. That's why Jews were expelled from the country entirely in 1492. The inquisition itself was begun in the 1470s but continued right the way through the 16th century, and wasn't formally abolished until the 19th century. So, it makes sense then that the Spanish, who were so worried about Jews to begin with, would worry about false converts after the expulsion of the Jews. The idea then being that they might have some Jews in their midst who had not been expelled and were undermining the security of the country. In my mind, while the term anti-semitism clearly fits these practices, the term racism does not.