[Goanet] The Inquisition... another point of view
I have always been intrigued why Goans, and I include intelligent Goans (Catholic and Hindus), have a difficult time with the Goan Inquisition. I had my own theory for their difficulty to understand the Inquisition. Yet, this was well articulated by Prof Thomas Madden, in the article posted on this forum by Fred Noronha. More specifically to my theory, most Goans, including some authorities, view the Inquisition as only an "institution" issue. But Prof Madden states below in the very first paragraph of his article. He describes the two components of the Inquisition. In addition to the "institution", the history relates to "a period of time." Everything that happened in this "period of time", related or unrelated to the "institution" is considered "The Inquisition". This specially applied to Goa where during this "period of time" there were 1. Incessant wars with the Muslim Sultanates and later Dutch and British. 2. Population migration, (native and European). 3. Intrigue, double dealing in trade and treaties. 4. Spies, traitors and army deserters. 5. Famine, endemic diseases, appalling social practices. All the above occurred in what today would be described both literally and figuratively as "the melting pot" of Goa. So why do we view the Inquisition merely in the context of an "institution"? Because as Goans and non-Goans, many love to play the 'gottcha' game. And few love to recycle the "same old stuff" from 'intriguing' posts. I would strongly urge all Goans especially Catholics to read the article of Prof Madden. Some Goans present themselves as intellectuals and 'independent thinkers', by merely spouting the role of the Catholic Church in the Inquisition. As usual they have a lot of opinions with few hard facts. Many Hindutva writers state the "institutional linkage" with no mention in their writings (in print and on the web) of the "period of time". Thus were the prisons of the Inquisition period in Goa any different from the Muslim Sultanate prisons in Bijapur and Ahmednagar etc, or those of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan in Mysore; or the prisons of the Hindu Vijayanagar kingdom at Hampi? Similarly, one could compare the condition of Goa's prisons to the standards of the time in Europe. In fact the appalling (pest infested) conditions of the Inquisition prisons may not be very different from some Indian prisons today. When it comes to capital punishment in the Inquisition period, England had hanging, boiling, and decapitation, The French had the guillotine and the Iberian countries had the burning at the stake. It would be interesting to know the forms of capital punishment in the various Indian kingdoms. Any enlightenment would be welcome. Please compare the number of people subject to capital punishment in Goa during the entire period of the Inquisition to what went on in England in the link below. This may be comparing apples and oranges, but it does give the readers that capital punishment was a common form of punishment in that period of history. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom Under the reign of Henry VIII some 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed by various methods [citation needed] including boiling, burning at the stake, decapitation and hanging, sometimes with the added punishment of drawing and quartering while still alive. Sir Samuel Romilly, speaking to the House of Commons on capital punishment in 1810, declared that "…[there is] no country on the face of the earth in which there [have] been so many different offences according to law to be punished with death as in England." Known as the "Bloody Code", at its height the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including "being in the company of Gypsies for one month", "strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age" and "blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime". Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the eighteenth century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching. Whilst executions for murder, burglary and robbery were common, the death sentences for minor offenders were often not carried out. However, children were commonly executed for such minor crimes as stealing. A sentence of death could be commuted or respited (permanently postponed) for reasons such as benefit of clergy, official pardons, pregnancy of the offender or performance of military or naval duty[1] Between 1770 and 1830, 35,000 death sentences were handed down in England and Wales, but only 7,000 executions were carried out.[2] - I hope in future, Goans will forward links to the Prof Madden article, accompanying the links of Jewish, Dutch or British (Protestant) sources, espec
[Goanet] The Inquisition... another point of view
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:47:54 +0530 From: "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha" >From a Conservative journal, but raises some interesting issues here. FN June 18, 2004, 10:26 a.m. The Real Inquisition Investigating the popular myth. By Thomas F. Madden Excerpt: The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training ? something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community. [end of excerpt] Mario responds: This looks like a classic example of how historians can revise history any way they want to. Unfortunately, they often provide clues to their own duplicity. In the case of Thomas F. Madden, we find the clue in one telling sentence, "The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge." Thomas Madden asks us to believe that evil "secular" authorities were executing Christian heretics without "fair" trials. Now, I ask you. Why would a "secular" authority be bothered with a religious Christian heretic?
[Goanet] The Inquisition... another point of view
>From a Conservative journal, but raises some interesting issues here. FN June 18, 2004, 10:26 a.m. The Real Inquisition Investigating the popular myth. By Thomas F. Madden When the sins of the Catholic Church are recited (as they so often are) the Inquisition figures prominently. People with no interest in European history know full well that it was led by brutal and fanatical churchmen who tortured, maimed, and killed those who dared question the authority of the Church. The word "Inquisition" is part of our modern vocabulary, describing both an institution and a period of time. Having one of your hearings referred to as an "Inquisition" is not a compliment for most senators. But in recent years the Inquisition has been subject to greater investigation. In preparation for the Jubilee in 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to find out just what happened during the time of the Inquisition's (the institution's) existence. In 1998 the Vatican opened the archives of the Holy Office (the modern successor to the Inquisition) to a team of 30 scholars from around the world. Now at last the scholars have made their report, an 800-page tome that was unveiled at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday. Its most startling conclusion is that the Inquisition was not so bad after all. Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed. As one headline read "Vatican Downsizes Inquisition." The amazed gasps and cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters's Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth? To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community. The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge. The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community. As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left
