Tales From the Inquisition

In the days of the (Spanish) Inquisition (1478-1834) a man was denounced as a suspected heretic. He was summoned to appear before the tribunal. On the appointed day he actually showed up. However, as he was being questioned it became apparent he wasn't a heretic at all. Nor a blasphemer, a Satanist, a bigamist, a Muslim revert or even a crypto-Jew. He was an atheist.

BTW, regardless of all you've been told, the Inquisition had no authority to investigate or incarcerate *Jews qua Jews*. None. Only Jews who had been baptized and were suspected of an ecclesial crime, such as secretly reverting to Judaism while still presenting themselves as Christians, i.e. "crypto-Jews". Christians, and ONLY Christians, were subject to the Inquisition.

The inquisitor asked the man why he'd become an atheist - and was told: "In my youth I went to mass and said my prayers - and it did me no good. For the past twenty years I've not gone to mass nor have I prayed - and it's done me no harm."

What did the Inquisition do? Hand him over to the state to be sent the galleys? Or to be burnt at the stake?

Nope. He wasn't causing anyone any trouble so they released him.

The Inquisition's jurisdiction was limited to rooting out that which was subversive of Christianity and Christian social order. Atheism from the Church's viewpoint was a somewhat separate case. Heresy was seen as the greater evil.

During the various Inquisitions, provided they weren't blaspheming or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves, atheists usually got off with a warning - and little or no punishment.

A no less important concern of the Inquisition was to restore the good name of those who'd been falsely accused of some ecclesial crime. There was a problem with people denouncing those they held grudges against, or owed money, to the Inquisitors. An early example of "working the system".

Consequently, and Torquemada had a lot to do with it, laws were enacted whereby those who falsely accused others of ecclesial crimes were held liable for the punishments the accused would have gotten if they were true.

Whatever its failings, and all legal systems have failings, all human systems have failings, the Inquisition in Spain was more concerned with arriving at judgements based on *the facts* than probably any other judicial system in the World, before or since. If you were a heretic, an occultist, a Muslim revert, bigamist, blasphemer or crypto-Jew you had a problem. But the Inquisition also went out of its way to exhonerate the innocent and ensure their good name was publicly restored. In any event, at least after Torquemada's reforms, whatever the accusation was, you got a fair hearing. You wouldn't have wanted to be standing in the dock when the sentence was handed down, but you got a fair hearing.

In America the claimed principal used to be, "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed!" Unfortunately, somewhere down the line that turned into, "Free the guilty and jail the innocent!" However, at the time of the Inquisition, NOT punishing the guilty was considered as perverse as punishing the innocent.

The aforementioned atheist thus walked out of the Inquisitorial court, and off the pages of history, as a free man. Though no doubt the inquisitor admonished him to show more care for his soul. Which is good advice given the precarious nature of things.

Perhaps, when life turned sour on him (doesn't it always?) the atheist finally repented - and repeated the ancient formula: "Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner." I for one hope so.

An interesting take on the Spanish Inquisition from a retired history professor: Spanish Jewry Through the Ages, Episode 10: Prof. Richard Kagan – Autobiographical tales from the Inquisition: https://seforimchatter.com/podcasts/


Fitz