Inquisition – The True Face (Rafael Rodrigues)

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 21:58:51 +0000

https://apologistascatolicos.c....om.br/inquisicao-a-v

Inquisition – The True Face

The Inquisition was not created all at once, nor did it proceed in the same manner throughout the centuries. For this reason, the following are distinguished:
1) The Medieval Inquisition, directed against the Cathar and Waldensian heresies in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and against false mysticisms in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries;
2) The Spanish Inquisition, instituted in 1478 at the initiative of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella; aimed principally at Jews and Muslims, it became a powerful instrument of the absolutism of the Spanish monarchs until the nineteenth century, to the point that it can scarcely be considered an ecclesiastical institution (not infrequently the Spanish Inquisition acted independently of Rome, resisting the intervention of the Holy See, because the King of Spain opposed it);
3) The Roman Inquisition (also called the Holy Office), instituted in 1542 by Pope Paul III, in view of the rise of Protestantism.

Despite their particular modalities, the Medieval and the Roman Inquisitions were driven by characteristic principles and mentality. We shall proceed to examine this mentality and the procedures of such an institution, especially as they are transmitted to us by medieval documents.
Antecedents of the Inquisition against the heretics
The early Church applied spiritual penalties, especially excommunication; it did not think of using brute force. When, however, the Roman Emperor became Christian, the situation of heretics changed. Christianity being the religion of the State, the Caesars wished to continue exercising over it the rights of the Roman emperors (Pontifices maximi) in relation to the pagan religion; when Arians, they persecuted the Catholics; when Catholics, they persecuted the heretics. Heresy was regarded as a civil crime, and every offense against the official religion as an offense against society; one should not be more lenient toward a crime committed against the Divine Majesty than toward crimes of lèse-majesté against human authority.
The penalties applied, from the fourth century onward, were generally the prohibition of making a will, the confiscation of goods, and exile. The death penalty was inflicted, by the civil power, upon the Manicheans and the Donatists; moreover, as early as 300, Diocletian seems to have decreed the death penalty by fire for the Manicheans, who were opposed to matter and material goods.
Augustine, at first, rejected any temporal penalty for heretics. Seeing, however, the harm caused by the Donatists (circumcelliones), he advocated floggings and exile, but not torture nor the death penalty. Since the State punishes adultery, he argued, it must also punish heresy, for it is not a lighter sin for the soul not to preserve fidelity (fides, faith) to God than for a woman to betray her husband (epist. 185, n. 21, to Boniface). He affirmed, however, that unbelievers must not be compelled to embrace the faith, but heretics must be punished and compelled at least to hear the truth.
The judgments of the Fathers of the Church regarding the death penalty for heretics varied. Saint John Chrysostom († 407), Bishop of Constantinople, basing himself on the parable of the tares and the wheat, considered the execution of a heretic to be a most grave fault; he did not, however, exclude repressive measures. The execution of Priscillian, ordered by Emperor Maximus at Trier (385), was generally condemned by the spokesmen of the Church, especially by Saint Martin and Saint Ambrose.
Among the penalties inflicted by the State upon heretics, imprisonment was not included; this appears to have originated in the monasteries, from where it was transferred to civil life. The Merovingian and Carolingian kings punished ecclesiastical crimes with civil penalties just as they applied ecclesiastical penalties to civil crimes.
Thus we arrive at the end of the first millennium. The Inquisition would have its origin shortly thereafter.
The Origins of the Inquisition
In ancient Roman Law, the judge did not undertake the search for criminals; he proceeded to judgment only after a denunciation had been presented to him. Until the High Middle Ages, the same occurred in the Church; the ecclesiastical authority did not proceed against offenses unless these had previously been brought before it. In the course of time, however, this practice proved insufficient. Moreover, in the eleventh century a new form of religious offense appeared in Europe, that is, a fanatical and revolutionary heresy such as had not existed until then: Catharism (from the Greek katharós, pure) or the movement of the Albigensians (from Albi, a city in southern France, where the heretics had their principal center).
Considering the matter in itself, the Cathars rejected not only the visible face of the Church, but also basic institutions of civil life — marriage, governmental authority, military service — and exalted suicide. Thus they constituted a grave threat not only to the Christian faith, but also to public life.
In fanatical bands, sometimes supported by noble lords, the Cathars provoked tumults, attacks on churches, etc., throughout the course of the eleventh century until approximately 1150, in France, in Germany, in the Low Countries… The people, with their spontaneity, and the civil authority undertook to repress them with violence: Not infrequently the royal power of France, on its own initiative and against the will of the bishops, condemned Albigensian preachers to death, since they undermined the foundations of the established order.
This occurred, for example, in Orléans (1017), where King Robert, informed of an outbreak of heresy in the city, appeared personally, examined the heretics, and ordered them to be cast into the fire; the cause of civilization and of public order was identified with the faith! Meanwhile, the ecclesiastical authority limited itself to imposing spiritual penalties (excommunication, interdict, etc.) upon the Albigensians, for until then none of the many known heresies had been combated by physical violence; Saint Augustine († 430) and ancient bishops, Saint Bernard († 1154), Saint Norbert († 1134), and other medieval masters were opposed to the use of force (“Let heretics be won over not by arms, but by arguments,” admonished Saint Bernard, In Cant., serm. 64).
The following are not isolated cases:
In 1144, in the city of Lyon, the people wished to punish violently a group of innovators who had introduced themselves there; the clergy, however, saved them, desiring their conversion, and not their death.
In 1077, a heretic professed his errors before the bishop of Cambrai; the crowd of common people then rushed upon him, without awaiting judgment, shutting him in a hut, to which they set fire!
Nevertheless, in the middle of the twelfth century, the apparent indifference of the clergy proved unsustainable: The magistrates and the people demanded more direct collaboration in the repression of Catharism.
Very significant, for example, is the following episode: Pope Alexander III, in 1162, wrote to the Archbishop of Reims and to the Count of Flanders, in whose territory the Cathars were causing disorders: “It is better to absolve the guilty than, through excessive severity, to attack the life of the innocent… Mildness is more fitting for men of the Church than harshness… Do not wish to be too just (noli nimium esse iustus).” Informed of this pontifical admonition, King Louis VII of France, brother of the said archbishop, sent the Pope a document in which discontent and respect were expressed simultaneously: “May Your prudence give most particular attention to this plague (heresy) and suppress it before it can grow. I beseech you, for the good of the Christian faith, grant all powers in this matter to the Archbishop (of Reims); he will destroy those who thus rise up against God; his just severity will be praised by all those in this land who are animated by true piety. If you proceed otherwise, the complaints will not easily be calmed and you will unleash against the Roman Church the violent recriminations of public opinion.” (Martene, Amplissima Collectio II 638 s.).
The consequences of this epistolary exchange were not long in coming: The Regional Council of Tours in 1163, taking repressive measures against heresy, ordered that its secret groups be inquired into (sought out). Finally, the assembly of Verona (Italy), at which Pope Lucius III, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, numerous bishops, prelates, and princes were present, issued in 1184 a decree of great importance: The ecclesiastical and the civil powers, which until then had acted independently of one another (the former imposing spiritual penalties, the latter resorting to physical force), were to combine their efforts in view of more efficient results: Heretics were henceforth not only to be punished, but also to be sought out (inquired into); each bishop was to inspect, personally or through trustworthy persons, once or twice a year, the suspect parishes; the counts, barons, and other civil authorities were to assist them under penalty of losing their offices or of seeing interdict placed upon their lands; heretics apprehended would either abjure their errors or be handed over to the secular arm, which would impose upon them the due sanction.
Thus was instituted the so-called “episcopal Inquisition,” which, as the precedents show, responded to real needs and to pressing demands both of monarchs and civil magistrates as well as of the Christian people; independently of the authority of the Church, the physical repression of heresies was already being practiced. In the course of time, however, it was perceived that the episcopal inquisition was still insufficient to restrain the innovators; some bishops, especially in southern France, were tolerant; moreover, their sphere of action was limited to their respective dioceses, which prevented an efficient campaign. In view of this, the Popes, already at the end of the twelfth century, began to appoint special legates, endowed with full powers to proceed against heresy wherever it might be found.
Thus arose the “Pontifical Inquisition” or “legatine” Inquisition, which at first still functioned alongside the episcopal one; gradually, however, it rendered it unnecessary. The papal Inquisition received its definitive character and its basic organization in 1233, when Pope Gregory IX entrusted the Dominicans with the mission of Inquisitors; henceforth there would be, for each nation or inquisitorial district, a Chief Inquisitor, who would work with the assistance of numerous subordinate officials (consultors, jurors, notaries…), generally independently of the bishop in whose diocese he was established. The norms of inquisitorial procedure were successively laid down by pontifical Bulls and decisions of Councils.
Meanwhile, the civil authority continued to act, with surprising zeal, against the sectarians. Noteworthy, for example, is the conduct of Emperor Frederick II, one of the most dangerous adversaries the Papacy had in the thirteenth century. In 1220 this monarch required all the officials of his government to promise to expel from their lands the heretics recognized by the Church; he declared heresy to be a crime of lèse-majesté, subject to the death penalty, and ordered that heretics be sought out. In 1224 he published a decree more severe than any of the laws cited by previous kings or Popes: The civil authorities of Lombardy were not only to send to the stake anyone who had been proven a heretic by the bishop, but also to cut out the tongues of sectarians whose lives, for particular reasons, had been spared. It is possible that Frederick II pursued his own interests in the campaign against heresy; the confiscated goods would accrue to the benefit of the crown.
No less typical is the attitude of Henry II, King of England: Having entered into conflict with Archbishop Thomas Becket, Primate of Canterbury, and with Pope Alexander III, he was excommunicated. Nevertheless, he showed himself to be one of the most ardent repressors of heresy in his realm: In 1185, for example, some heretics from Flanders having taken refuge in England, the monarch ordered them to be arrested, branded on the forehead with a red-hot iron, and exposed, thus disfigured, to the people; moreover, he forbade his subjects to give them shelter or to render them the slightest service.
These two episodes, which are not unique of their kind, clearly show that violent action against heretics, far from having always been inspired by the supreme authority of the Church, was not infrequently unleashed independently of it, by powers that were in conflict with the Church itself. The Inquisition, throughout its history, suffered from this usurpation of rights or from the excessive interference of civil authorities in matters that primarily pertain to the ecclesiastical forum.
In summary, the following may be said:
1. The Church, in its first eleven centuries, did not apply temporal penalties to heretics, but resorted to spiritual ones (excommunication, interdict, suspension…). Only in the twelfth century did it begin to subject heretics to corporal punishments. And why?
2. The heresies that arose in the eleventh century (those of the Cathars and Waldensians) ceased to be problems of school or academy, becoming anarchic social movements that opposed the established order and convulsed the masses with raids and pillaging. Thus they became a public danger.
3. Christianity was the patrimony of society, similar to what homeland and family are today. It appeared as the necessary bond among citizens or the great good of peoples; consequently, heresies, especially the turbulent ones, were regarded as social crimes of exceptional gravity.
4. It is not, therefore, surprising that the two authorities — civil and ecclesiastical — finally entered into agreement to apply to heretics the penalties reserved by the legislation of the time for major crimes.
5. The Church was led to this, departing from its former position, by the insistence exerted upon it not only by hostile monarchs such as Henry II of England and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, but also by pious kings faithful to the Pope, such as Louis VII of France.
6. Moreover, the Inquisition was practiced by the civil authority even before it was regulated by ecclesiastical provisions. Many times the civil power prevailed over the ecclesiastical in the pursuit of its political adversaries.
7. According to the categories of the time, the Inquisition was a progress for the better in relation to the former state of affairs, in which populations took justice into their own hands. It is noteworthy that none of the medieval Saints (not even St. Francis of Assisi, regarded as a symbol of meekness) raised his voice against the Inquisition, although they knew how to protest against what seemed to them to depart from the ideal in the Church.
Procedures of the Inquisition
The tactics employed by the Inquisitors are known to us today, since manuals of practical instructions delivered for the use of the said officials have still been preserved. Whoever reads such texts verifies that the authorities aimed at making the inquisitorial judges authentic representatives of justice and of the cause of good. Bernard of Gui (fourteenth century), for example, regarded as one of the most severe inquisitors, gave the following norms to his colleagues:
“The Inquisitor must be diligent and fervent in his zeal for religious truth, for the salvation of souls, and for the extirpation of heresies. In the midst of difficulties he shall remain calm, he shall never yield to anger nor to indignation… In doubtful cases, let him be circumspect; let him not easily give credit to what seems probable and is often not true; nor let him obstinately reject the contrary opinion, for what seems improbable frequently ends by being proven true… Let the love of truth and the piety that ought to dwell in the heart of a judge shine in his eyes, so that his decisions may never appear to be dictated by cupidity and cruelty.” (Practica VI p… ed. Douis 232 s.).
Since such instructions are found more than once in the archives of the Inquisition, could one not believe that the proclaimed ideal of the Inquisitorial Judge, at once equitable and good, was realized more frequently than is commonly thought? One must not forget, however (as will be stated more explicitly below), that the categories by which justice was affirmed in the Middle Ages were not exactly those of the modern era…
Moreover, it must be taken into account that the role of the judge, always difficult, was particularly arduous in cases of the Inquisition: The people and the civil authorities were deeply interested in the outcome of the trials; thus, not infrequently, they exerted pressure to obtain a sentence more favorable to their whims or temporal interests; at times, the obsessed population anxiously awaited the day when the judge’s veredictum would hand over the proven heretics to the secular arm. In such circumstances, it was not easy for judges to maintain the desirable serenity. Among the tactics adopted by the Inquisitors, torture and the handing over to the secular power (death penalty) deserve particular attention.
Torture was in use among the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans who wished to compel a slave to confess his crime. Certain Germanic peoples also practiced it. In 866, however, addressing the Bulgarians, Pope Nicholas I formally condemned it. Nevertheless, torture was again adopted by the civil tribunals of the Middle Ages at the beginning of the twelfth century, given the revival of Roman Law. In inquisitorial proceedings, Pope Innocent IV eventually introduced it in 1252, with the clause: “Let there be no mutilation of limbs nor danger of death for the accused.” The Pontiff, in permitting such practice, said he was conforming to the customs prevailing in his time (Bullarum amplissima collectio II 326).
Subsequent Popes, as well as the Manuals of the Inquisitors, sought to restrict the application of torture; it would be lawful only after other means of investigating guilt had been exhausted and only in cases where there was already half-proof of the offense or, as the technical language put it, two “vehement indications” thereof, namely: the testimony of trustworthy witnesses, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the bad reputation, bad morals, or attempts at flight of the accused. The Council of Vienne (France) in 1311 likewise ordered that the Inquisitors resort to torture only after a judging commission and the diocesan bishop had approved it for each particular case. Despite all that torture presents as horrifying, it has been reconciled with the mentality of the modern world … it was still officially in use in eighteenth-century France and has been applied even in our own days…
As for the death penalty, recognized by ancient Roman Law, it was in force in the civil jurisdiction of the Middle Ages. It is known, however, that ecclesiastical authorities were opposed to its application in cases of lèse-religion. Nevertheless, after the rise of Catharism (twelfth century), some canonists began to judge it appropriate, appealing to the example of Emperor Justinian, who in the sixth century had inflicted it upon the Manicheans. In 1199 Pope Innocent III addressed the magistrates of Viterbo in the following terms:
“According to civil law, defendants guilty of lèse-majesté are punished with the capital penalty and their goods are confiscated. With much greater reason, therefore, those who, deserting the faith, offend Jesus, the Son of the Lord God, must be separated from Christian communion and stripped of their goods, for it is much more serious to offend the Divine Majesty than to injure human majesty.” (Epist. 2,1).
As can be seen, the Supreme Pontiff with these words wished only to justify the excommunication and confiscation of goods of heretics; he established, however, a comparison that would give rise to a new practice… Emperor Frederick II knew how to draw from it the ultimate consequences: Having recalled in a Constitution of 1220 the final phrase of Innocent III, the monarch, in 1224, openly decreed for Lombardy the death penalty against heretics and, since ancient Law prescribed fire in such cases, the Emperor condemned them to be burned alive. In 1230 the Dominican Guala, having ascended to the episcopal see of Brescia (Italy), applied the imperial law in his diocese. Finally, Pope Gregory IX, who maintained frequent exchange with Guala, adopted this bishop’s point of view: He transcribed in 1230 or 1231 the imperial constitution of 1224 into the Register of Pontifical Letters and soon issued a law by which he ordered that heretics recognized by the Inquisition be abandoned to the civil power, to receive the due punishment, a punishment which, according to Frederick II’s legislation, would be death by fire. The theologians and canonists of the time strove to justify the new practice; thus did St. Thomas Aquinas:
“It is far more serious to corrupt the faith, which is the life of the soul, than to falsify the coinage, which is a means of providing for temporal life. If, therefore, counterfeiters of money and other evildoers are, with good reason, condemned to death by secular princes, much more may heretics, once they are proven such, not only be excommunicated but also in all justice be condemned to death.” (Summa Theologica II/II 11,3c)
The argumentation of the Holy Doctor proceeds from the principle (undoubtedly authentic in itself) that the life of the soul is worth more than that of the body; if, therefore, someone by heresy threatens the spiritual life of his neighbor, he commits a greater evil than one who attacks bodily life; the common good then requires the removal of the grave danger (see also S. Theol. II/II 11,4c).
Nevertheless, capital executions were not as numerous as one might believe. Unfortunately, complete statistics on the matter are lacking; it is known, however, that the tribunal of Pamiers, from 1303 to 1324, pronounced 75 condemnatory sentences, of which only five ordered that the accused be handed over to the civil power (which was equivalent to death); the Inquisitor Bernard of Gui, in Toulouse, from 1308 to 1323, pronounced 930 sentences, of which 42 were capital; in the first case, the proportion is 1/15; in the second case, 1/22. One cannot deny, however, that there were injustices and abuses of authority on the part of inquisitorial judges. Such evils are due to the conduct of persons who, by reason of human weakness, were not always faithful fulfillers of their mission.
The Inquisitors worked at distances more or less considerable from Rome, at a time when, given the precariousness of postal services and communications, they could not be assiduously supervised by the supreme authority of the Church. The latter, however, did not fail to censure them duly when it received news of some abuse verified in this or that region. Famous, for example, is the case of Robert the Bugre, Chief Inquisitor of France in the thirteenth century.
Pope Gregory IX at first highly congratulated him for his zeal. Robert, however, having formerly adhered to heresy, showed himself excessively violent in repressing it. Informed of the excesses committed by the Inquisitor, the Pope removed him from his functions and had him imprisoned. Innocent IV, the same Pontiff who permitted torture in inquisitorial proceedings, and Alexander IV, respectively in 1246 and 1256, ordered the Provincial and General Fathers of the Dominicans and Franciscans to depose the Inquisitors of their Order who became notorious for their cruelty.
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), famous for the tenacity and intransigence of his attitudes, was one of those who most repressed the excesses of the inquisitors, ordering that sentences pronounced by them be examined or simply annulled. The regional Council of Narbonne (France) in 1243 promulgated 29 articles aimed at preventing abuses of power. Among other norms, it prescribed to the Inquisitors that they pronounce a condemnatory sentence only in cases where they had securely ascertained some fault, “for it is better to leave a guilty person unpunished than to condemn an innocent one.” (canon 23). Addressing Emperor Frederick II, pioneer of inquisitorial methods, Pope Gregory IX on July 15, 1233 reminded him that “the weapon wielded by the Emperor ought not to serve to satisfy his personal resentments, with great scandal to the populations, to the detriment of truth and of imperial dignity.” (ep. saec. XIII 538–550).
Evaluation
Let us now attempt to formulate a judgment on the Medieval Inquisition. It is not necessary for a Catholic to justify everything that was done in its name. It is necessary, however, that the intentions and the mentality that moved the ecclesiastical authority to institute the Inquisition be understood. These intentions, within the framework of medieval thought, were legitimate and, one might even say, must have appeared to medieval men as inspired by holy zeal. The factors that decisively influenced the rise and development of the Inquisition may be reduced to four:
1) Medieval men had a profound awareness of the value of the soul and of spiritual goods. So great was their love for the faith (the foundation of spiritual life) that the distortion of the faith by heresy was considered one of the greatest crimes a man could commit (note the texts of St. Thomas and of Emperor Frederick II cited above); this faith was so living and spontaneous that it would hardly have been admitted that someone might deny with good intentions a single article of the Creed.
2) The categories of justice in the Middle Ages were somewhat different from ours: There was much more spontaneity (which at times amounted to roughness) in the defense of rights. It may be said that medieval men, in this matter, followed more the rigor of logic than the tenderness of sentiments; abstract and rigid reasoning in them at times prevailed over psychological sense (in modern times, almost the opposite is verified: Much appeal is made to psychology and sentiment, little adherence to logic; modern men do not believe much in perennial principles; they tend to judge everything according to relative and relativistic criteria, criteria of fashion and subjective preference).
3) The intervention of secular power exercised profound influence on the development of the Inquisition. Civil authorities anticipated the application of physical force and of the death penalty to heretics; they urged the ecclesiastical authority to act energetically; they provoked certain abuses motivated by greed for political or material advantages. Moreover, spiritual and temporal power in the Middle Ages were, at least in theory, so united with each other that it seemed normal to them to have recourse to one another in everything that concerned the common good. From the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Inquisition came increasingly to be exploited by monarchs, who made use of it to promote their particular interests, removing it from the directives of ecclesiastical power, even directing it against this power; this appears clearly in the Inquisitorial Process of the Templars, initiated by Philip the Fair of France (1285–1314) without the consent of Pope Clement V (cf. chapter 25).
4) The human weakness of Inquisitors and of the officials who collaborated with them will not be denied. It would not be lawful, however, to say that the supreme authority of the Church connived at these facts of weakness; on the contrary, there is the testimony of numerous protests sent by Popes and Councils to such or such officials, against such laws and such inquisitorial attitudes. The official declarations of the Church concerning the Inquisition fit well within the categories of medieval justice; injustice occurred in the concrete execution of the laws. It is said, moreover, that each period of history presents the observer with its own enigma: In remote Antiquity, what astonishes are the inhuman procedures of war. In the Roman Empire, it is the mentality of citizens, who did not know the world without their Empire (oikouméne — inhabited world — Imperium) nor conceived the Empire without slavery. In the contemporary age, it is public relativism or skepticism; it is the use of the refinements of technology to “wash the brain,” undo personality, foment hatred and passion. Would it not then be possible that medieval men, in good faith in conscience, resorted to repressive measures of evil that modern man, with reason, judges excessively violent? As for the Roman Inquisition, instituted in the sixteenth century, it was heir to the laws and the mentality of the Medieval Inquisition. With regard to the Spanish Inquisition, it is known that it acted more under the influence of the monarchs of Spain than under the responsibility of the supreme authority of the Church.
Origin of the Spanish Inquisition
King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, aiming at the full unification of their domains, were aware that there existed an ecclesiastical institution, the Inquisition, originating in the Middle Ages with the purpose of repressing a religious and civil danger of the eleventh and twelfth centuries (the Cathar or Albigensian heresy); to this danger seemed to resemble the activities of the marranos (Jews) and moriscos (Arabs) in fifteenth-century Spain.
1. The Medieval Inquisition, which had never been very active in the Iberian Peninsula, was more or less dormant in the second half of the fifteenth century. It happened, however, that during Holy Week of 1478 a conspiracy of marranos was discovered in Seville, which greatly exasperated the public. King Ferdinand then remembered to ask the Pope to revive in Spain the ancient Inquisition, and to revive it on new foundations, more promising for the kingdom, entrusting its direction to the Spanish monarch. Sixtus IV, thus solicited, finally resolved to grant Ferdinand’s request (to which, after hesitating for some time, Isabella had associated herself). He therefore sent to the kings of Spain the Brief of November 19, 1478, by which “he conferred full powers upon Ferdinand and Isabella to appoint two or three Inquisitors, archbishops, bishops, or other ecclesiastical dignitaries, commendable for their prudence and their virtues, secular or regular priests, at least forty years of age, and of irreproachable conduct, masters or bachelors in Theology, doctors or licentiates in Canon Law, who should satisfactorily pass a special examination. Such Inquisitors would be charged with proceeding against baptized Jews relapsed into Judaism and against all other persons guilty of apostasy. The Pope delegated to these ecclesiastical officials the necessary jurisdiction to institute proceedings against the accused according to the Law and custom; moreover, he authorized the Spanish sovereigns to depose such Inquisitors and appoint others in their place, should this be opportune.” (L. Pastor, Histoire des Papes IV 370) It should be carefully noted that, according to this edict, the Inquisition would extend its action only to baptized Christians, not to Jews who had never belonged to the Church; the institution was therefore conceived as an organ promoting discipline among the children of the Church, not as an instrument of intolerance in regard to non-Christian beliefs.
Procedures of the Spanish Inquisition
Supported by the Pontifical License, the kings of Spain on September 17, 1480 appointed as Inquisitors, with seat in Seville, the two Dominicans Miguel Morillo and Juan Martins, giving them as assessors two secular priests. The monarchs also promulgated a compendium of “Instructions,” sent to all the tribunals of Spain, constituting as it were a code of the Inquisition, which thus became a kind of organ of the civil State. The Inquisitors immediately entered into action, proceeding generally with great energy. It seemed that the Inquisition was at the service not properly of Religion, but of the Spanish sovereigns, who sought to reach criminals even of a merely political category. Soon, however, various complaints were heard in Rome against the severity of the Inquisitors. Sixtus IV then wrote successive letters to the monarchs of Spain, showing them profound dissatisfaction with what was happening in their kingdom and issuing instructions of moderation to both civil and ecclesiastical judges. Special mention deserves in this regard the Brief of August 2, 1482, in which the Pope, after promulgating certain rules restraining the power of the Inquisitors, concluded with the following words: “Since only charity makes us like unto God, we beseech and exhort the King and the Queen, by the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that they imitate Him whose characteristic it is always to have compassion and forgiveness. Therefore, be pleased to show yourselves indulgent toward your subjects of the city and the diocese of Seville who confess error and implore mercy.” Nevertheless, despite the frequent pontifical admonitions, the Spanish Inquisition was becoming more and more a powerful organ of influence and activity of the national monarch. To prove this, it suffices to recall the following: The Inquisition in Spanish territory remained a permanent institution for three successive centuries. In this it differed greatly from the Medieval Inquisition, which was always intermittent, having in view certain errors arising in such or such locality. The permanent maintenance of an inquisitorial tribunal imposed considerable expenses, which only the State could undertake; and this is what occurred in Spain: The kings attributed to themselves all the material revenues of the Inquisition (taxes, fines, confiscated goods) and paid the respective expenses; consequently, some historians, referring to the Spanish Inquisition, called it the “Royal Inquisition.”
Emancipated from Rome
In order to complete the picture thus far drawn, let us pass to another characteristic detail of it. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella aimed at strengthening the Inquisition, emancipating it even from the control of Rome… They then conceived the idea of giving the institution a single and plenipotentiary head — the Inquisitor-General — who would judge in Spain itself the appeals addressed to Rome. For this office, they proposed to the Holy See a Dominican religious, Tomás de Torquemada (Turrecremata, in Latin), who in October 1483 was indeed appointed Inquisitor-General for all the territories of Ferdinand and Isabella. Proceeding with the appointment, Pope Sixtus IV wrote to Torquemada: “Our most beloved sons in Christ, the king and queen of Castile and León, have supplicated us to designate you as Inquisitor of the evil of heresy in their kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia, as well as in the principality of Catalonia.” (Bulla ord. Praedicatorum I/622) The gesture of Sixtus IV can only be explained by good faith and trust. The act was, in truth, little prudent… Indeed, the concession benignly made to the monarchs would be a pretext for new and further advances on their part: The successors of Torquemada in the office of Inquisitor-General were no longer appointed by the Pope, but by the Spanish sovereigns (according to criteria not always praiseworthy).
For Torquemada and his successors, the right was obtained from the Holy See to appoint the regional Inquisitors, subordinate to the Inquisitor-General. Furthermore, Ferdinand and Isabella created the so-called “Royal Council of the Inquisition,” a commission of advisers appointed by the civil power and intended, as it were, to oversee the proceedings of the Inquisition; they enjoyed deliberative vote in matters of civil Law, and consultative vote in questions of Canon Law. One of the most typical expressions of the arrogant autonomy of the Spanish Holy Office is the famous trial that the Inquisitors brought against the primatial archbishop of Spain, Bartolomew Carranza of Toledo. Without descending into the details of the event, we shall note here only that for eighteen continuous years the Spanish Inquisition persecuted the venerable prelate, opposing papal legates, the Ecumenical Council of Trent, and the Pope himself, in the middle of the sixteenth century. Emphasizing yet another particular, we shall recall that King Charles III (1759–1788) constituted another significant figure of royal absolutism in the sector we have been studying. He placed himself peremptorily between the Holy See and the Inquisition, forbidding the latter to execute any order from Rome without prior authorization from the Council of Castile, even if it concerned merely the proscription of books. The Inquisitor-General, having admitted a case without the king’s permission, was immediately banished to a locality situated twelve hours from Madrid; he only managed to return after presenting apologies to the king, who accepted them, declaring: “The Inquisitor-General has asked my pardon, and I grant it to him — I now accept the thanks of the tribunal — I shall always protect it, but let him not forget this threat of my anger directed against any attempt at disobedience.” (cf. Desdevises du Dezart, L’Espagne de L’Ancien Régime. La Société 101 s). History likewise attests that the Holy See repeatedly decreed measures aimed at defending the accused against the harshness of royal power and of the people. The Church in such cases clearly distanced itself from the Royal Inquisition, although the latter continued to be regarded as an ecclesiastical tribunal. Thus, on December 2, 1530, Clement VII granted to the Inquisitors the faculty of sacramentally absolving the crimes of heresy and apostasy; thus the Priest could attempt to withdraw from public trial and from the infamy of the Inquisition any accused who was animated by sincere dispositions toward good. On June 15, 1531, the same Pope Clement VII ordered the Inquisitors to undertake the defense of the moriscos who, crushed by taxes by their respective lords and masters, might conceive hatred against Christianity. On August 2, 1546, Paul III declared the moriscos of Granada eligible for all civil offices and all ecclesiastical dignities. On January 18, 1556, Paul IV authorized priests to absolve the moriscos in sacramental confession. It is understandable that the Spanish Inquisition, increasingly distorted by the sometimes petty interests of temporal sovereigns, could not fail to fall into decline. This indeed occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As a consequence of a revolution, Emperor Napoleon I intervened in the government of the nation and abolished the Spanish Inquisition by decree of December 4, 1808. King Ferdinand VII, however, restored it in 1814, in order to punish some of his subjects who had collaborated with Napoleon’s regime. Finally, when the people emancipated themselves from the absolutism of Ferdinand VII, reestablishing the liberal regime in the country, one of the first acts of the Cortes of Cadiz was the definitive extinction of the Inquisition in 1820. The measure was, without doubt, more than opportune, for it put an end to a humiliating situation for the Holy Church.
Tomás de Torquemada
Tomás de Torquemada was born in Valladolid (or, according to others, in Torquemada) in the year 1420. He became a Dominican Religious, exercising for 22 years the office of Prior of the convent of Santa Cruz in Segovia. As early as February 11, 1482, he was designated by Sixtus IV to moderate the zeal of the Spanish Inquisitors. In the following year the same Pontiff appointed him First Inquisitor of all the territories of Ferdinand and Isabella. Extremely austere toward himself, the Dominican friar employed similar severity in his judicial procedures. He divided Spain into four inquisitorial sectors, which had as their respective seats the cities of Seville, Córdoba, Jaén, and Villa (Ciudad) Real. In 1484 he drafted, for the use of the Inquisitors, an “Instruction,” a booklet that proposed norms for inquisitorial proceedings, drawing inspiration from procedures already customary in the Middle Ages; this document was completed by two others of the same author, which appeared respectively in 1490 and 1498. The rigor of Torquemada was brought to the knowledge of the See of Rome; Pope Alexander VI, as some historical sources state, then thought of removing him from his functions; he may only have refrained from doing so out of deference to the court of Spain. The fact is that the Pontiff deemed it appropriate to reduce Torquemada’s powers, placing at his side four assessors endowed with equal faculties (Brief of June 23, 1494). As for the number of victims occasioned by Torquemada’s sentences, the figures reported by the chroniclers are so little coherent among themselves that nothing precise can be affirmed on the matter. Tomás de Torquemada has remained, for many, the personification of religious intolerance, a man with bloodstained hands… Modern historians, however, recognize exaggeration in this manner of characterizing him; taking into account Torquemada’s personal character, they judge that this Religious was moved by sincere love and true faith, whose integrity seemed to him compromised by false Christians; hence the extraordinary zeal with which he proceeded. Torquemada’s upright intention may have been translated in an unhappy manner. Moreover, the following episode contributes to unveiling another, less known, trait of the Dominican friar: On a certain occasion, a proposal was brought before the Royal Council of the Inquisition to impose upon Muslims either conversion to Christianity or exile. Torquemada opposed this measure, for he wished to preserve the classic principle that conversion to Christianity cannot be extorted by violence; consequently, the Inquisition should restrict its action to apostate Christians; these, and only these, by virtue of their Baptism, had a commitment to the Catholic Church. As can be seen, Torquemada, even in the fervor of his zeal, did not lose good sense on this point. He exercised his functions until his death, on September 16, 1498.
Royal Power and the Inquisition in Portugal
In summary: The Brazilian Historical and Geographical Institute published the Regulations of the Inquisition in Portugal (also in force in Brazil) dated 1552, 1613, 1640, and 1774 (the latter signed by the Marquis of Pombal). They are accompanied by an Introduction written by Professor Sônia Aparecida de Siqueira, which highlights the fact that the Inquisition was never a merely ecclesiastical institution, but, by virtue of the law of the padroado, was increasingly directed by the Crown of Portugal in view of its political interests. The Holy See had to oppose more than once the proceedings of the Inquisition in order to protect the New Christians and other citizens judged by the Tribunal. The Inquisition is always in focus. It is a cause of accusations against the Church, often poorly founded or repeated as clichés, without the public having access to the basic documents that guided the Inquisition. Few people have direct contact with the archives and the written sources of the inquisitorial movement.
Thus it is that the Brazilian Historical and Geographical Institute (IHGB) published in number 392 (year 157) of its journal, corresponding to July/September 1996 (pp. 495–1,020), the Regulations of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of the Kingdom of Portugal dated 1552, 1613, 1640, 1774 (the latter signed by the Marquis of Pombal), in addition to an undated Regulation. Such edition was under the care of Prof. Sônia Aparecida de Siqueira, corresponding member of the IHGB in São Paulo, who wrote a lengthy Introduction to such documents. As noted by Prof. Arno Wehling, president of the IHGB in 1996, Dr. Sônia Aparecida situated the Inquisition and its successive regulations within the different historical moments, underscoring, moreover, the progressive expansion of royal power over the institution, culminating in the sectarian regime. (p. 495)
As is known, the Inquisition never (not even in the Middle Ages) was a merely ecclesiastical Tribunal. This was inconceivable in former times, since the State was officially Christian and, for this reason, considered itself responsible for the interests of the Christian faith; in this capacity it intervened in matters of religious forum, at times dictating norms to the Church. This reality became accentuated in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) from the sixteenth century onward, by virtue of the privileges of the padroado. Indeed, since the kings of Spain and Portugal were discoverers of new lands, to which they brought the Catholic faith, the Holy See granted them special powers to organize the life of the Church in the newly discovered regions; hence the great interference in religious matters, under the title of collaboration with the Church … a collaboration that gradually resulted in the suffocation of ecclesiastical authority in favor of the interests of the Crown.
In the following lines, we shall present the origins of the Inquisition in Portugal and some features of the exposition of Prof. Sônia Aparecida, which highlight the ever more overbearing intervention of the monarchs in inquisitorial matters.
Origins of the Portuguese Inquisition
King Dom João III of Portugal (1521–57) desired that the Pope establish the Inquisition in his kingdom, especially with a view to eliminating the Jews not fully converted to Christianity. For 27 years, His Majesty and the Holy See confronted each other, since the king requested powers, in religious matters, that the Pope did not wish to grant him: Thus, according to the monarch, the Inquisitor-General would be chosen by the king, as well as the other (subordinate) Inquisitors, and the latter could be not only clerics but also lay jurists, who would then have the same jurisdiction as ecclesiastics. Furthermore: According to the king’s desire, the Inquisitors would stand above the Bishops and the Superiors of the Religious Orders, so that they could prosecute and condemn ecclesiastics without consulting the respective prelates; the Bishops would be prevented from intervening in any case that the Inquisitors took upon themselves. Moreover: The Inquisitors could impose excommunications reserved to the Holy See and lift those that were imposed by the Bishops. As can be seen, the king thus wished to obtain total control over the Bishops and the Church in Portugal.
Finally, on 12/17/1531, Pope Clement VII granted the Inquisition in Portugal, but in terms contrary to the requests of Dom João III: Instead of granting the king powers to appoint the Inquisitors, the Pope directly appointed a Commissioner of the Apostolic See and Inquisitor in the kingdom of Portugal and its dominions. This Commissioner could appoint other Inquisitors, but his authority was not above that of the Bishops, who could also, on their part, investigate heresies.
The terms of this Bull or concession were never applied in Portugal. The Inquisitor appointed, Friar Diogo da Silva, was the king’s confessor; he did not accept the office, perhaps under pressure from the monarch. Despite this, amid great popular agitation, inquisitorial tribunals began to function anarchically in some dioceses. Consequently, the Pope suspended the Inquisition and, alleging that the king had deceived him (by concealing from him the forced conversion of Jews during the reign of Dom Manoel, 1495–1521), ordered amnesty for the Jews and the restitution of confiscated goods (Bull of 04/07/1535).
The reasons on which such decisions of Clement VII were based are quite significant: The conversion of unbelieving Jews must be fostered by persuasion and gentleness, of which Christ gave the example, always respecting human free will; the violent or extorted conversion of the Jews under the reign of Dom Manoel was regarded as a feat that should not be reproduced. The Holy See thus sought to defend and protect the New Christians, victims of royal power.
Pope Clement VII, who had resisted Dom João III, died in 1534, having as successor Paul III. The king again insisted with the Pontiff in order to obtain the type of Inquisition tribunal that met the interests of the Crown. He did not obtain it properly, but by Bull of 05/23/1536 Paul III reestablished the Inquisition in Portugal, appointing three Inquisitors and authorizing the king to appoint another; moreover, the Pontiff ordered that, for three years, the names of the witnesses for the accusation should not be covered by secrecy and that, for ten years, the goods of the condemned should not be confiscated; the Bishops would have the same faculties as the Inquisitors in the investigation of heresies. Through his Nuncio in Lisbon, the Pope reserved to himself the right to supervise the execution of the Bull, to examine the proceedings whenever he deemed fit, and to decide in the last instance.
It is from this Bull (05/23/1536) that the Inquisition in Portugal can be considered established. The king, who was not satisfied with the provisions of the Holy See, began to circumvent them. He wished, above all, to withdraw the Inquisition from the vigilance of the Pontiff and, to that end, raised numerous incidents to the point of forcing the departure of the Nuncio Capodiferro, who had powers to suspend the tribunal if the clauses protecting the New Christians were not respected. Furthermore, he appointed as Inquisitor the Infante Dom Henrique, his brother, then Archbishop of Braga, who at 27 years of age did not have the legal age to exercise such functions. Finally, he took advantage of or provoked occasions or pretexts to make the public believe in the bad faith of the converted Jews (New Christians): Thus a placard appeared on the doors of the cathedral and of other churches of Lisbon, announcing the imminent arrival of the Messiah… A tailor from Setúbal presented himself to the public as the Messiah, which was not taken seriously by the population, but it sufficed for the king’s agents to carry out great reprisals and attempt to convince Rome of the dangers of Judaism in Portugal.
Despite the king’s ill will, the Pope insisted on maintaining the Holy Office in Portugal under his control. Reinforcing previous norms, the Pontiff issued a new Bull on 10/12/1539, which prohibited adducing secret witnesses and granted other guarantees to the accused, among them the right of appeal to the Pope; he also determined that the emoluments of the Inquisitors should not be paid from the goods of the prisoners.
This Bull was also not observed in Portugal. The Pope then resolved to suspend the Inquisition by the Brief of 09/22/1544; he took the precaution of having this document published by surprise in Lisbon, secretly brought there by a new Nuncio. The king, deeply struck, played his last card; he requested the Pope to revoke the suspension and restore the Inquisition without any limitation, and added the threat: “If Your Holiness does not provide for this, as you are obliged and as is expected of you, I shall not be able to refrain from remedying it, trusting that not only will Your Holiness hold me without fault for what may happen, but also that the princes and the faithful Christians who learn of it will recognize that I am neither the cause nor the occasion of it.”
Such words contained the threat of formal disobedience to the Pope and of schism in the Church. Dom João III followed the advice that had been given to him by his two envoys to the Holy See in 1535: He would deny obedience to the Pope, imitating the example of King Henry VIII of England. Between obedience to the Pope, as a faithful Catholic, and declared rebellion that would allow him to institute a tribunal which was, at bottom, an instrument of royal policy, the king of Portugal was prepared to follow the second path.
The Pontiff found himself at that moment (1544/45) pressed by other grave concerns, such as the convocation and preparation of the Council of Trent, regarding which Emperor Charles V and other monarchs had their interests. Consequently, he ended up accepting the principal points of Dom João III’s request: By Bull of 07/16/1547, he appointed the Cardinal Infante Dom Henrique as Inquisitor-General and withdrew from the Nuncios in Lisbon the authority to intervene in matters within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition; the latter would follow its own procedures, different from those customary in ordinary trials. At the same time, however, the Pope mitigated his provisions: He promulgated a Brief that suspended the confiscation of goods for ten years; another Brief suspended for one year the handing over of the condemned to the secular arm (or the application of the death penalty). In yet another Brief, the Pope made recommendations tending to moderate the foreseeable excesses of the Inquisition and to allow the departure of New Christians to foreign lands. Shortly before dying, on 01/08/1549, Paul III issued a new Brief abolishing the secrecy of witnesses; this Brief was probably never applied in Portugal.
Here are some very significant passages from the Introduction written by Prof. Sônia Aparecida de Siqueira:
New Christians
It was urgent to calm the unrest caused by the presence of the New Christians, potential enemies because of their supranationalism. The combat against dissident minorities was an inescapable program. The neophyte Christians could be bearers of the heretical ferment because of their residual beliefs and their intimate contacts with Lutherans and Jews. Moreover: With the fruition of the discoveries, the exploitation of the colonial world that was being established, with overseas trade, with progressive urbanization, the New Christians gained economic strength and tended toward a solidarity that increased their power of action within the social milieu. The throne felt the threat they would represent if they were not good Christians. It reacted. The Inquisition was created and extended over New Christians, Old Christians, the people, the hierarchies. (pp. 502f.)
Certain determinations of Rome, avoking to itself, directly or through its Nuncios, jurisdiction over the New Christians, reveal that there still existed a certain indefiniteness in the judicial hierarchy, as well as the pontifical purpose of reserving superior jurisdiction to the Curia. In 1533, the Bull of Clement VII Sempiterno Regi revoked all the powers that had been granted to Friar Diogo da Silva, Inquisitor-General of Portugal, calling to itself all the causes of the New Christians, Moors, and heretics. In 1534, a Brief of Paul III addressed to Dom João III ordered that the Inquisitors suspend the proceedings against persons suspected of heresy. In 1535, a Pontifical Letter determined that the Nuncios of Portugal could hear the appeals of the New Christians.
In the same year, Paul III wrote to the king about the New Christians, and to the New Christians; intervening directly in the definition of the procedure, he granted that they might take as procurators and defenders any persons they wished.
The Bulls of general pardon that paralyzed the action of the Tribunal came from Rome, diluting, from time to time, the authority of the Inquisitors. Confirming the first pardon granted by Clement VII, Paul III granted a second in 1535 and, in 1547, by the Bull Illius qui misericors, granted a third. Thereafter, other general indults continued to be granted, and when the king himself negotiated them with the New Christians, he had to petition for them before the Roman Curia, as occurred with Philip III in 1605.
Indeed, the interventions of the Curia in the activities of the Inquisition continued, decreasing no doubt, but constant throughout time, given the nature of its justice. From 1678 to 1681, the Holy Office was even suspended in Portugal by decision of the Pontiff, which indicates that, despite the amplification of absolutism, the tribunals continued to require the acquiescence of Rome in order to operate. (pp. 506f.)
The Figure of the Inquisitor
Capable, suitable, of good conscience, the Inquisitor was to be: Requirements that would guarantee the application of justice with equanimity. Constancy was also required… (p. 526) The collective judgment about the Inquisition would depend on the behavior of its officials, on their capacity to correct their own imperfections, to immolate impulses and interests for the sake of the good name of the Tribunal. The truth is that, in practice, whether because of social vigilance, or institutional control, or perhaps the fusion of individual ideals with those of the Holy Office, we have no record of scandals or abuses by inquisitorial agents. Generally, the exceptions would only confirm the rule. Some Inquisitors, by their virtues or by sacrifice, were even raised to the altars.
In a note (74) the author says: “They did not belong to the Portuguese Holy Office, but the Inquisitors St. Raymond of Peñafort, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo, St. Peter of Verona, martyr, St. Pius V, St. Dominic of Guzmán, St. Peter of Arbués, St. John Capistrano were canonized. Beatified were Pedro Castronovo, Cistercian legate, Raymond, archdeacon of Toledo, Bernard, his chaplain. Also Inquisitors were two clerics, Fortanerio and Ademaro, nuncios of the Holy Office of Toulouse, martyred by the Albigensians, Conrad of Marburg, martyr, parish priest and Inquisitor of Germany, and the confessor of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, John of Salermo. The Inquisitor of Frisia and Holland in the sixteenth century, William Lindanus, was considered Venerable.” (p. 527).
The Pombaline Inquisition
“The idea of separation between a solely political State and a solely religious church germinates at this time.” A new religious policy is intended that uses tolerance as its instrument. Connection with Absolutism, still then alive as a political idea, was imposed. It was necessary to limit the jurisdictional power of the Church and to diffuse the lay spirit.
Amid this climate of the intended reforms, the religious question brought into relief the Holy Office, traditional defender of the orthodoxy of beliefs, faithful guardian of the unity of consciences. There was no thought of extinguishing it, but rather of reforming it, adapting it to the new times. It was urgent to draft a new Regulation that would render the Inquisition more inoffensive and would truly place the Tribunal in the hands of the Crown.
This new Regulation was ordered to be executed by Cardinal da Cunha. In its Preamble, its necessity is justified insofar as the laws that governed the Holy Office had, over the centuries, been distorted by the Jesuits, interested in granting the Pope supreme power over the Inquisition. From the government of the Cardinal Infante Dom Henrique (dominated, says Cardinal da Cunha, by his confessor, the Jesuit Leão Henriques) up to the Reign of Dom João V, the Tribunal had been escaping from the power of the king. The influence of the Company would have reached its maximum under the Inquisitor Dom Pedro de Castilho, who made the legislation more Jesuit than royal. (p. 562)
The times were different. The State was configured in another manner, defining different functions. Jealous of its power, it refused to share it with any institutions or estates. The necessity of limiting the jurisdictional power of the Church was imposed. Thus the Regulation of 1774 aimed at strengthening the power of the Crown, invoking the right of the Kingdom. Absolutist regalism was established as the ideal of Christian union in the civil order. (p. 563)
It is important to know the historical data to which the pages of this article refer only in a few brief traits. They contribute to restoring the truth to focus, showing the latent causes of the Inquisition in Portugal (as also in Spain). Scholars cannot fail to express their gratitude to the Brazilian Historical and Geographical Institute for the publication of the work of Prof. Sônia Aparecida de Siqueira and of the Regulations of the Portuguese Inquisition (which were also in force in colonial Brazil).