Have you ever wondered if you really The creation of the Holy Inquisition was justified?
If so, you are in the best place to stop and reflect on it, and we will do so by taking a tour through history and through the thoughts of different authors.
In Spain, although the greatest apogee of its history in terms of expansion occurred with the conquests of the Catholic Monarchs, a large part of those territories were involved in various internal conflicts for centuries.
These tensions, combined with the unrest and unrest of an anguished society, caused a social crisis in the kingdom, which led the people to look for the culprit of its collapse.
One of the internal causes of this for them were the converted Jews, who were part of Christian life, but so were the Muslims, the witches, the heretics...
In short, we are talking about the Fortalitum fidei, which established them as the enemies of the Christian faith, of the world.
In this way they obtained a special status within the legal system of the time, so a specialized court, of a religious nature, had to resolve the conflicts arising from this.
The arose Holy inquisition.
Justice system and Holy Inquisition
They created this institution to combat Christian problems related to heresy.
It is therefore necessary to refute a part of the Black Legends which established that the Holy Inquisition burned Jews and Muslims, since this is not true.
The Inquisition only affected the sphere of Catholicism and could only punish Christians.
Then, Why is it said that they punished the previous ones?
This confusion arises because The Inquisition was created to deal with infiltrated converts; that is, not was punished to Jews and Muslims, but to judaizers and moriscos.
The justice system carried out during the time of the Catholic Monarchs was totally different from what had been seen in the past.
For the former, the existence of a claim and sufficient evidence was necessary to prove the accusation; in the new system, the judge of the Inquisition court could act ex officio when he was aware of crimes of heresy or witchcraft - among others -, in addition to being the one who interrogated the accused and the one who dictated the resolution.
When the Holy Inquisition was established, the population could go to it to confess voluntarily so that the Church could forgive them; to be absolved of their sins of heresy, they were first forced to walk the walk of shame, half-naked and endure floggings in front of the people.
For the Holy Inquisition it was very important that they confess their personal crimes, as this was a sign of repentance and they could use it as an example to the public.
There were many more denunciations than personal confessions, so after the accusations were made, the accused were detained for years in secret prisons while awaiting trial without knowing what they were accused of.
When they left there, after suffering severe torture, they were forced not to tell anyone what had happened.
In the inquisitorial justice procedure the burden of proof fell on the accused, the presumption of guilt prevailed.
Justice and legitimacy
Justice is the basic criterion for legitimizing law.
However, this has a relative concept, to know if something is fair or not, one must investigate the situation and circumstances in which the fact to be qualified as fair is found.
To prove that justice varies depending on the time and circumstances, the thoughts of some authors and philosophers will be analyzed below.
Thomas of Torquemada
Torquemada was the royal confessor of the Catholic Monarchs, and hence it was not surprising that he was proposed by them as inquisitor general.
His powerful faith allowed the unification of the entire territory through the purity of blood.
They knew him as the hammer of heretics or the savior of his country.
Although he is currently considered one of the cruelest people in the history of Spain, in his time he was considered a hero and represented the virtues of that time: incorruptible, Christian, and prudent, characterized by his holiness.
It should be noted that Torquemada had university studies and, as a general rule, the inquisitors were jurists who had studied Canon Law, so he was an expert who was not based on morality, but on what was stipulated by the law of that time.
Some have wondered throughout history why this inquisitor committed such atrocities if his family had Jewish origins.
Once the ideology of that time is understood, it could be highlighted that he did it for justice, to seek the good of the citizens.
Those he punished were the false converts, so he was protecting Christians from them.
Saint Thomas of Aquino
We know that Torquemada scrupulously adhered to the procedures of the Inquisition, but what would authors like Thomas Aquinas have thought of such an institution?
Justice or injustice? If Aquinas's thoughts on the death penalty are taken into account, it can be related by analogy to the inquisitorial process.
The philosopher argued that the competent authority should punish serious crimes with the death penalty.
As a serious crime that can be related to the case of the institution analyzed in this study, the crime of heresy stands out.
During Aquinas' time, there was a debate about whether the death penalty was just and legitimate for punishing crimes of heresy.
The philosopher was in favour of this issue, as he argued that, if the questioned sentence was normal and fair for punishing criminals and counterfeiters, then it should be even more fair for those who committed the crime of heresy, even more serious than counterfeiting.
A just state was one that pursued the common good.
Thomas Aquinas understood that A just State was one that pursued the common goodTherefore, if he had lived two centuries later he would defend the justice of the Holy Inquisition for seeking the common good.
This institution was intended to achieve purity of blood, to achieve the perfection of people; and, if to achieve this, force and fear had to be used, it was legitimate.
As is clear from Aquinas' writings, in order to achieve virtue, man must follow a discipline that, if he does not have it, must be imposed.
It must be corrected through force and fear so that its vices stop negatively affecting others.
However, for the philosopher, punishment was not the first option; if the sinner confessed and showed repentance, he would be forgiven.
In this way, they would condemn to the death penalty only those who refused to repent or sinned two or more times.
Thrasymachus
This author understands that justice is everything that is advantageous to the ruler.
So, would the philosopher defend the Court of the Holy Inquisition, as well as the methods used by it?
The Catholic Monarchs, as rulers, created the Inquisition.
The reason for its creation does not follow a unanimous theory.
For some it was created to solve internal problems, for others to unify all their territories, and for the rest to prevent the uprising of the opposition; but, ultimately, it was established for the good of the rulers.
In this case, Thrasymachus would say that since justice is most advantageous for the ruler, then its creation would be justified.
Unlike Aquinas, Thrasymachus considers it impossible to equate justice with the common good.
Although at that time it was thought that the Inquisition and its punishments were to protect and keep safe the citizens, the true Christians, and keep them away from the danger of false converts, the reality for the philosopher is that this is done for the good of the Kings, since it is the only way to keep the people united and the opposition away.
Power of the Holy Inquisition
The Catholic Monarchs appealed to the Inquisition as a method to preserve Christian values similar to King Ferdinand II.
Traditional Christian values that would allow society to feel united.
Nicholas Machiavelli
Unlike the rest of the authors we have been analyzing, Machiavelli is contemporary with the time when the Holy Inquisition was reinstated.
This author considered that A prince, that is, the ruler, had to possess the art of domination.
For the philosopher, only those with the capacity for domination and coercion will be respected, and those who possess power must have controlled cruelty, with fear as the main instrument.
The ruler should not worry about whether he acts badly or is too cruel, since this is what ensures the loyalty of his subjects and their unity.
According to the above, it is not difficult to elucidate that Machiavelli would justify the acts of the Inquisition as a way for rulers to acquire power and maintain it.
The Kings, after getting married, had the territory, but not the union, so as Machiavelli says, the cruelty of power unifies.
The kings took advantage of the creation of the institution to instill fear in their citizens.
The punishments imposed by the Inquisition Tribunal were a sign of that power, and if the Catholic Monarchs did not want to lose the loyalty and unification achieved with this mechanism, they could not show compassion for the punishments.
To avoid being hated, they had to base their punishments on the common good.
As we can see, with this method that Machiavelli explained and that, without knowing it, the Catholic Monarchs used, they were achieving this union of all the territories for the same reason: religion; they had made use of the religious union for a political purpose, as so many times throughout history.
Although these are only assumptions made as a result of the study, we can say that the figure of the Catholic Monarchs is reflected in Machiavelli's thinking when he wrote his work "The Prince" to give advice to the ruler.
Paradoxically, the Inquisition banned Machiavelli's texts, although it was neither the first nor the last time that rulers banned something and then acted in the same way.
From what has been analyzed, it follows that, for Machiavelli, The end justifies the means; that is to say, the power, the desire for unification and loyalty of the people towards the Kings justifies the creation of a Court that would punish in such a vile manner.
As Aquinas said, If obedience to the laws is desired, they must inspire fear of the threat of evil, fear of punishment.
John lock
First of all, we should mention that Locke is considered the theorist of liberal revolutions. For him, there is no justification for some to abuse others, since each person organizes and disposes of his life as he sees fit, without the need for a state to dominate them.
This freedom implies a system of sovereign equality, meaning that subordination is unjustified.
As for power, Locke considered that there was only one justified subordination, and that was to the legislative power.
However, this subordination was not unlimited, since The people could revoke the trust placed when they considered that the purposes for which the trust of the citizens was placed were not being met.
It should be noted that for the philosopher religion was not a matter on which political power could act, so he could not have subordinates on this issue either.
Therefore, as regards the Holy Inquisition, Locke would argue that, being an institution created by the Crown, its creation would not be justified, nor would the Catholic Monarchs have any legitimacy to do so, since politics cannot be mixed with religion.
On the other hand, assuming that the creation of this inquisitorial court were justified, punishments using force would not be permitted, since, according to Locke, the Church cannot use force either.
This means that, since the Holy Inquisition was an ecclesiastical institution, it could only take part in religious matters.
Therefore, we can say that because political power is not legitimized in matters of religion and because the use of force by the Church is not permitted, The creation of the Holy Inquisition is totally unjustified for Locke.
Conclusion
Justice is something relative, to reach a more accurate definition we must take into account the circumstances of the moment, the thinking and the historical antecedents that have led us to think that way, as well as another series of values.
Therefore, it is not possible for us to qualify the Holy Inquisition and its methods as just or unjust, because we must start from the fact that at that time society had Christianity as a way of life.
The circumstances, values, customs and thoughts of that time were different from those of today, so what society at that time considered fair may not be so for the rest.
Graduated in Law and internationalist from Loyola University. Export manager at RRYP Global – Reáculoateypunto. In my free time I dedicate myself to debating, learning history and getting to know the world, its cultures and its languages. I speak French and English and have a slight knowledge of Chinese, Greek and Wolof.
Just as the court of the Holy Inquisition was at the time, today it happens in the same formal way, just observe how the states are managed. For example here in Peru. under suspicions that according to now graduate into suspicions and suspicions serious suspicions give you preventive detention and the accused person without proving anything yet, manages to accept what the state proposes to achieve his freedom or protect his property and starts singing like Julio churches. In the inquisition it was the politicized Catholic religion and now it is politicized justice. What's more, when the prosecutors put in their all fours and it is proven that they did wrong, they cannot be prosecuted because the law says that they were only doing their job. and the question is where the rights of the people are, where their freedom was, their time unjustly imprisoned and the hell they spent in prison and that they also brought pain and suffering to their family. as they say there. VICTIMS OF COACTION. Now if he is a corrupt person who takes advantage of this modality, it is also unfair because he is a criminal who only seeks benefits by cheating on his party cronies and thus manages to leave free and intact his economic interests and assets.