openlyatheist

I have come upon a confusing item as I've been reading up on the Inquisition.

Several online sources mention "secular courts" as having been instrumental in the atrocities of the Inquisitions.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp
In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

http://www.geocities.com/iberianinquisition/
First, it was more cruel precisely because it was administered by the secular government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition
The torture methods used by inquisitors were mild compared to secular courts, as they were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death.

No doubt justice was brutal all around back then, but wasn't the entire point of the Inquisition to root out heresy, atheism included? How then could any court be considered secular? And isn't a legal institution that enforces decrees against religious heresies, by definition, not secular?

Diogenes the Cynic

The Inquisition was a Church led enterprise from start to finish. The prosecutors were Church officials, the "crimes" were religious crimes and the punishments, including torture and execution were all authorized by the Pope.

I imagine the revisionists cited above are trying to make some specious equivocations about the participations of local governments but those local governments were still subservient to the church and nothing about the Inquisition could be called "secular" with any intellectual honesty whatsoever.

No Robots

Check out Wikipedia on the Spanish Inquistion:

The Inquisition was primarily under the control of the Spanish monarch, with only the Inquisitor General appointed by the Holy See.

Toto

Don't confuse "secular" in this sense with the modern concept of "secular humanism," or "secular" as a polite way of saying "non-religious."

Secular in that sense means only that the courts were run by the government under the king, not by priests under the church's auspices. Since the king ruled by the divine rights of kings and was annointed by the local clergy, the "secular" courts also had religious authority behind them. But they are still referred to as "secular".

Use the definition from here: A Glossary of the Medieval Church:

Diogenes the Cynic

The monarchs operated as vassals to the Church. The Church was in charge of the Inquisition. End of story.

No Robots

I wish that it were the end of the story.

Please don't think that I am in any way defending the Church here. If anything, I think worse of it for letting itself become an instrument of government policy.

Imnotspecial

You are right on the mark here.

The Church did not have as much power as often is advanced. The Church was in reality generally depending on the good will of the monarchs. Frederick the 2nd is one example of this. He was pretty ruthless concerning his dealings with the papacy. Then there were the Avignon popes who were there for the grace of the French kings. Napoleon did not listen to the Pope either.

Nevertheless is will be to the everlasting shame of the Church that they even handed any heretics over to the secular powers.

Diogenes the Cynic

You've got that backwards. The government was the tool of the Church (and the government was not remotely "secular").

Chili

The government was convinced that the church was right in calling heresies destructive movements and they just acted upon that wisdom. It is just that simple.

Diogenes the Cynic

For the first time I can remember, I think I both understand and agree with something you've posted.