Nobody expects... the real Spanish Inquisition (I)


Today I would like to share some personal thoughts on the Spanish Inquisition, without attempting to give even a short historical overview nor entering the debate on numbers (though they are amazingly eloquent), revolving around three questions: what did the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition actually do? Why did it do so? And finally: was it right?

What did the Inquisition do?

Everybody knows this: it persecuted heresy. It tried heretics. What not everybody knows is what a heretic actually is. Not everyone who is not Christian is a heretic. In fact, to be a heretic it is necessary first to be a Christian, or at least to pretend to be. "Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine", says Saint Thomas Aquinas. But, he continues, one may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith: "though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind." (Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q.11, a.1) Someone who isn't Christian cannot deviate from a faith that was never his, and therefore cannot be a heretic. And not being a heretic, he can't be tried by the Inquisition.

Generally speaking, the Spanish Inquisition did not order the execution of any Jew or Mahometan, nor even tried any in court, for the simple reason that there were no Jews or Mahometans in Spain. The Inquisition was established in 1478 and began to act in 1480; the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and the Moriscos in 1502. In the relatively short space of time between the creation of the Holy Office and the expulsions, I only know of one case (the Holy Child of La Guardia) of non-converted Jews being tried (though not because of their faith; they were accused of ritual murder). I haven't found any reliable sources, however, with information on whether these two Jews were tried by the Inquisition, as were the other six Conversos involved, or rather by the ordinary courts.


In any case, after the expulsions there were ―officially― only Christians in Spain: those who weren't had either left or converted. The Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, establishing the Inquisition a decade before the expulsions, offered a clear-cut alternative: either you stay and convert, or you leave; but if you stay, you had better be serious about it. Undoubtedly, this choice is made in less than favorable circumstances, considering how toilsome it must be for a family to move to another country with a few months' notice, losing money in the hurried sale of properties that have to be left behind (which weren't all). But conversions weren't forced. Many, naturally, preferred to convert insincerely, putting their purse before their religion. That they did not take their faith seriously, however, does not make it an injustice that the Catholic Monarchs did theirs.


For Catholics, the Inquisition wasn't a reign of terror where no one dared utter a word that might be misinterpreted and carry him to the pyre.
"Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best", as Saint Thomas quotes Saint Jerome, and then Saint Augustine: "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth." (Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q.11, a.2) The Inquisitorial trial was, as its name implies, a judicial proceeding of inquiry. It was strictly regulated by law, offering many guarantees that prevented arbitrariness. There were many opportunities throughout the trial to clear up misunderstandings and for the accused to show repentance.

Torture or torment was a common means of gathering evidence in Spanish and European tribunals of the time, by no means restricted to the Inquisition, and in any case much less widespread there than in other ordinary courts. It was only applied if the declarations of the defendant were contradictory, and all confessions obtained this way had to be ratified within twenty-four hours, this time without torment. If the contradiction persisted, it could be applied up to two times more, and after the third the prisoner had to be let free. Torment had to be applied in the presence of a doctor, who could stop it, postpone it, or limit it to the healthy parts of the body. The only approved methods were the garrucha (strappado), the toca (a sort of waterboard), and the potro (the rack). Considering that other methods far more horrendous were used at the time across the Pyrenees and that the waterboard, for reasons known to all, remains as infamous as ever, to portray the Spanish Inquisition as history's torturer par excellence is not only a falsification of historical truth, but utterly Pharisaical. In any case, torment was applied on a scant 2% of the people tried.

Not all those found guilty were burned at the stake. Only those who did no repent or relapsed for a second time suffered capital punishment, though up until the very end they were offered a chance for repentance and a quicker death by garrote, before their bodies were burned. But there were also several lesser punishments given for less serious offenses, such as the sambenito (a sack of cloth worn for public shame), lashes, imprisonment, and galleys for men and “galley-houses” (casas de galeras) for women, where they worked and learned a trade. The jails or Penitential Houses of Mercy of the Inquisition were renowned for a more benevolent treatment compared to ordinary jails, and in fact prisoners were known to fake heresy or blaspheme in order to be transferred to the Inquisition's jurisdiction. How far is this reality from the widespread misconception, evidenced in the film Alatriste, that a man could suffer no worse fate ―even cutting his own throat― than to be arrested by the Inquisition!

The Inquisition, properly speaking, did not kill convicts: it relaxed them to the secular arm, which carried out the punishment. This may seem at first glance an exercise of sophistry made to avoid taking responsibility for the dirty work, but there is a reason behind it. And his detail, apparently trivial, is absolutely essential in order to begin to understand what the Inquisition really was. Once again, Saint Thomas makes us see:

"For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, A little leaven, says: Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q.11, a.3)

The secular powers want to persecute heresy. hey have always wanted to, because heresy is always a real threat. And they would do so even if there wasn't an Inquisition. But the Inquisition serves as a buffer, it administers this task through a special process of inquiry and lets the authorities know its conclusion. The secular authority benefits from this separate jurisdiction, led by theologians and canonists, because it provides a specialized knowledge of Theology that isn't strictly the competence of princes. And competent knowledge of theological complexity serves to mitigate the zealous tendency of secular powers to punish heresy where there isn't any, as is evidenced by the witch hunts that took place beyond the Pyrenees and the across the North Atlantic.

Through this mediation the Church not only contributes to serve justice: it also brings in a chance for mercy. One can imagine the Church, standing between the heretic and the prince, saying to the latter: I will help you to better administer your Justice, but first you will let me offer my mercy. Thanks to the Inquisition, someone who is found guilty of so grave an offense is given the unheard-of opportunity to repent and leave the Court completely forgiven, with a second chance and a new life. "On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer."

Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? (Mark 2,9)


Firmus et Rusticus (in English)