Talk:Medieval Inquisition

Untitled

I have substantially modified the article as I felt the earlier version was too apologetic in tone. While the myth of the inquisition should debunked, the truth was not exactly a bed of roses either. In particular, the church knew perfectly well that handing over to secular authorites meant death.

I still think this article makes the Church to look like the good guys here! 164.143.244.34 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no good guys here. There is only total humankind madness. Ever realise 'humankind' is most often an oxymoron?

I agree this article leaves out Innocent VIII and that makes the Inquisition sound far more...uh..innocent.

Isn't "heresy" a pretty POV word? - Omegatron 20:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

• It has specific historic meaning and usage in the context of the Inquisition. See heresy which discusses the "POV" aspect.Stbalbach 22:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Roman Inquisition"

This is the more familiar title to me. Is "medieval inquisition" less pejorative, POV or judgmental? It certainly makes it sound like a generalized populist movement: medieval dance, medieval art, medieval inquisition... Does "Roman" suggest that the Papacy was responsible or something? My curiosity is partly subversive as usual: when names are shifted, there's often a revealing story... --Wetman 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roman Inquisition was 16th century.. the medieval inqusition describes the papal and episcopal inquisitions, which were decentralized and not run from Rome. "Authority rested with local officials based on guidelines from the Pope, but there was no central top-down authority running the inquisitions, as would be the case in post-medieval inquisitions." --Stbalbach 20:29, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gnostic heresies

Regarding this text, removed from article to here for discussion:

The suppression of gnostic heresies despising the material world had profound impact on future development of the European civilization. The Catholic doctrine encouraging studies of the material world as a creation of God has prevailed. Without this, the development of modern science in Europe would be inconceivable.

It is original research to conclude that it was because of Catholic doctrine led to the creation of modern science. Two, it is hypothetical to suggest that science would not have developed without Catholicism.. and even more hypothetical to suggest that without the Inqusition, science would never have developed. Finally the Cathars were not a Christian sect, they did not represent a threat to Catholicism, any more than Islam or Hindu or any another religion. --Stbalbach 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well then you know the obsequious catholic power trolls are in here trying to warp minds again. What you did was perfectly correct.

Actually it isn't original research, cf God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science by James Hannam

Ad abolendam

The present translation, "For the purpose of doing away with," looks rather over engineered. The preposition "Ad" means "to". The etymology of "abolendam" leads to "abolish". Why not "To Abolish" or simply "Abolition"?

That's rather primitive. The translation demonstrates quite a bit more knowledge of Latin than you have. The translation is correct as is. It conveys the actual meaning flawlessly. Thanks. Bye.

Why not French and Italian Inquisition?

Look at the Spanish Inquisition article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.214.81 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Reasons for the Inquisition

I have read that there were two major reasons for the Medieval Inquisition. The first being that Catharism was considered a great threat to society at the time, the second being that due to the first reason, many Christians were taking the law into their own hands and killing possible heretics without any form of trial. Should this information be included in the article? Karsaroth 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its been in here and at Catharism, but has probably been removed. The stated purpose of the Papacy in establishing the Inquisition was to prevent the out of hand massacres the crown-led suppression had produced, but how much that was the real motivation should be given in terms of the best historians, who I don't think dismiss such motivation out of hand. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I'd like to add that the following line,

"A possible explanation of this shift is that, after the successful extirpation of the Cathars, the Inquisition needed new heresies to fight against and new revenues to sustain itself."

absolutely reeks of a POV attack on the institution. No fan of the Inquisition myself, I still think that they deserve a little academic fairness. Since I can't edit the article, I strongly urge those who can to add a "citation needed" tag after the above statement, appearing under the heading Inquisitions against heretic movements.216.37.198.7 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Torture not all that common

I removed the following passage:

It was a common part of the medieval judicial system and not particular to the inquisition. The torture methods used by inquisitors were mild compared to secular courts [...]

This is incorrect. Medieval justice before the inquisition was based mostly on the principle of accusatio, which works the way civil lawsuits still work: Someone accuses someone else, and then has to prove it. At the time, this prove was usually provided by witnesses. Confessions were of little importance, and the court acted as an arbitrator and had no interest in proving the guilt of the accused.

Torture is typically a part of the inquisitio principle of justice, with the high importance it places on confessions. This principle has its roots in Roman law, and was re-introduced to Europe mainly through the inquisition.—Graf Bobby 01:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

87.117.200.159 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) the subject is too broad to make even your statement. Laws and their application differed enormously from country to country. Do you mean England, Scotland, Wales, Normandy etc etc. Then we might move over to Vlad the Impaler!So many different systems.

Untitled

This article is fundamentally broken. It has entirely missed the boat on serious academic research on this subject. It assumes that the inquisition against heretics was a result of an increased number of heretics. R. I. Moore's "Formation of a Persecuting Society" published in 1987 has essentially debunked this outdated view. Most scholarship now accepts that rather than the inquisition being a reaction to the rise of heresy, changes within the church hierarchy and a new emphasis on universal conformity lead the church label "heretic" groups heretics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.99.131 (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are fvery few references, and even fewer non Catholic references here. This needs a serious over write. Im deleting anything that isn't rrferenced, and i will try to research the subject. This is obviously pro Catholic biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I just removed much of the Torture part of the article. I see no references that prove that torture and mutilation was not authorized. please stop taking out my edits. i am prepared to monitor this page as long as necessary and make sure you do not simply vandalize my edits. YOU HAVE NO PROOF! thus you may not simply write what you like here. provide reasonable proof of what you are saying, and we can discuss it, otherside, I will simply reedit this as long as it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, Lollipop, you can't prove that something was not authorized. Logical fallacy. You can only prove that something _was_ authorized. The burden is on you to find that proof. The majority of PhD medievalists who specialize in law (and I'm one of them) recognize that the attitude toward torture among clerics during the middle ages was an extremely cautious one, especially during the 12th and 13th centuries discussed in this particular wiki. Read Durandus' Speculum, for example. The whole idea of per inquisitionem was troubling. Read Brundage on the subject. If you have evidence that authorities in the Church, ie coming out of the papal curia, were systematically condoning torture at this point, by all means, produce it. It's not that it didn't happen at all - ad extirpanda discusses it. But it didn't happen systematically, and it was (at least as far as I can tell) always looked upon as problematic for a number of reasons, including clerical prohibitions on bloodletting. I'd be fascinated to see evidence to the contrary, and if you find some you would be able to write a knock-out paper for publication. Until then, stop parroting the nonsense about the inquisition produced by flatly anti-catholics like Lea at the turn of the last century. It was not designed to club people into submission. It was designed to convince them of the error of their ways, and through this to save their souls. And for the record, I'm talking as a professional historian here. I've got no dog in the religion hunt.

Witch-Finder General...????

...links to Matthew Hopkins. Irrelevant to heresy. Deleted. Anyway it was unsourced. You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Little history in "history" section

Unfortunately the "history" section of this article includes more commentary than history. Let's try to add some information if we can. -Darouet (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychological or hidden motives

Are all you scholars really taking at face value the ostensible motivations for the Inquisition and its activities? Really something need to be said about Power, control, compliance and conformity. Were the Crusades really about going to save souls and the Holy Land? People might have kidded themselves that that was their motivation but their behaviour showed otherwise. Did the Conquistadors really believe they were doing God's work? that is what they wrote and how they justified themselves. NO leader said we murdered thousands of Indians today for their gold. They did it because they were blasphemous and to save their souls. Of course they did. This kind of face value description makes the Inquisition read like a basically nice group of churchmen whose main motivation was to help people. From what I have read the Inquisition ended up as a system of terror and no doubt the people who took part loved being "terrorists. 87.117.200.159 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

missing information on Joan Darc trial

The article said the case was reopened because of a petition from Joan's mother and that the judgement was reversed. This paragraph omits the big reason for the difference: the English were no longer in charge. France was liberated at that point and, as Isaac Asimov pointed out, "the king scarcely wanted it said that he owed his crown to a heretic". 50.180.19.238 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

unusual reference

Reference number 3 simply links to a professor's website. Does anyone know the source that is supposed to be referenced here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nee316 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What gave them the right in the first place?

The issue isn't how many people the medieval inquisition have persecuted (prosecuted) and how many were eventually condemned to death or not.

The article shows strong bias and seems to be written by church apologists.

The big issue is, what gave the inquisition the right to do what they did in the first place. How is 'not believing in a certain imaginary figure' or 'not believing in that imaginary figure in the right way' in any way a justification for persecuting and prosecuting people? This seems to me to be a gross violation of basic human rights even if those formally didn't exist at the time.

Seeing as the church has still failed to give even the tiniest shred of evidence for their claimasof a 'supreme being' whereas science has already given a ton of evidence to disprove fundamental bible claims like creation, its time to recognize that the inquisition was a terrorist organisation (even if they didn't cause mass deaths) which tried to make people afraid of questioning the church's claim of an imaginary being (which the church said was real).

Throughout the medieval period the church consistently opposed liberty, supported the feudal lords and enriched itself. 87.212.155.94 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

While I do agree that the tone of the article is uncharacteristically biased towards the Church, most of its historical facts are correct.

In that regard, observe that the Church only prosecuted christians, pagans, Jews and Muslims were exempt from it. The Inquisition was meant for heretics, specifically defined as someone who derived interpretations from the Bible that went against orthodoxy.

The article isn't wrong in highlighting the role of secular authorities in abuses. The Church itself couldn't and didn't enacted most of the persecution by itself, although the article shouldn't ignore its role in encouraging said authorities. But a lot of shit popularly ascribed to the Church was actually done by kings or local populace, without Church approval and sometimes even against its wishes and interests.

But yeah, the article is quite biased and I agree it neglects to tell a lot of details and has a lot of other problems, it needs serious revision. Monteparnas (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't help but laugh at this pathetic anti-theist spiel.

"The issue isn't how many people the medieval inquisition have persecuted (prosecuted) and how many were eventually condemned to death or not."

Yes, it is a significant issue. It tells us how seriously the offenses were taken and clues us in on the attitudes of those involved. Spoiler: it does not corroborate centuries of propaganda promulgated by the Leyenda Negra (which have indeed spilled over into assessments of inquisitions outside of Spain). Disinformation forwarded by secular and Protestant interests have done a great disservice to scholarly historical inquiry into inquisitions throughout history, and it is categorically good that more reliable information has come to light. That the objective evidence happens to vindicate the Catholic Church of unsubstantiated allegations of unusual and rampant torture, unfair trials and witch-hunting does not make it biased. Have you actually looked into the works cited? What "details" are missing that have not or cannot be debunked as anti-Catholic propaganda with no reputable historical basis? Provide me with specifics.

"The big issue is, what gave the inquisition the right to do what they did in the first place. How is 'not believing in a certain imaginary figure' or 'not believing in that imaginary figure in the right way' in any way a justification for persecuting and prosecuting people? This seems to me to be a gross violation of basic human rights even if those formally didn't exist at the time."

Objectively speaking, the Catholic Church had profound political and social influence during the Middle Ages. This is not under dispute as far as I am aware. So I do not see how this is a "big issue" unless we enter the realm of opinion, which you seem to be doing. It does not matter if it "seems to be" a "gross violation of basic human rights" to you. Provide sources on the matter. There are articles on the legacy and interpretations of the Inquisitions, some of which may share your opinion. You seem very interested in forwarding this as objective fact or a prominent scholarly opinion without basis, though.

"Its time to recognize that the inquisition was a terrorist organisation (even if they didn't cause mass deaths) which tried to make people afraid of questioning the church's claim of an imaginary being (which the church said was real)"

This would be funny if it was not a bias that disinformed millions and clouded the actual history of the Inquisitions for centuries. Stay away from articles about Church history; you clearly cannot contain yourself. Rusthead (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)