The Inquisition and Black Legends: How to Respond to Historical Accusations Without Complexes

catholicus 6 hours ago History and Tradition, History of the Church

There are words that, in the contemporary imagination, seem to carry a verdict even before they are explained. One of them is Inquisition.

For millions of people, merely pronouncing this word immediately evokes images of bonfires, torture, fanaticism, obscurantism, and a Church obsessed with persecuting those who thought differently. The image has been repeated so many times in books, films, documentaries, social networks, and political speeches that, for many people, it no longer seems necessary to prove it. It is enough simply to say the word.

But history does not work that way.

History cannot be studied through isolated images, contextless figures, propagandistic accounts, or twenty-first-century legal categories mechanically applied to medieval and early modern societies. And this does not mean denying abuses, injustices, or mistakes committed by ecclesiastical persons and institutions. It means something much simpler and, at the same time, much more demanding: seeking the complete truth.

A Catholic does not need to lie in order to defend the Church.

Nor does he need to deny the sins of her children.

The Church is holy because of Christ, because of her doctrine, because of her sacraments, and because of the grace she communicates; but her members, including clergy, rulers, and ecclesiastical judges, have been and remain men capable of sin.

Precisely for this reason, the Christian response to history should be neither ashamed defensiveness nor propagandistic apologetics.

It should be truth.

As Our Lord teaches:

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32).

This statement is enormously important when we speak about the Inquisition. Historical truth can be uncomfortable in certain respects, but it can also free Christians from caricatures constructed over centuries.

The question, therefore, is not simply:

“Was the Inquisition good or bad?”

The correct question is much more complex:

What were the inquisitions really? Why did they arise? What crimes did they prosecute? How did they function? What relationship did they have with civil authorities? How many people were actually condemned? What part of the popular image comes from documented facts and what part from later propagandistic exaggerations? And, above all, how should a Catholic interpret all of this in the light of the faith?

That is where a much more serious conversation begins.

1. Before Speaking About the Inquisition, We Must Abandon a Misconception

One of the most common mistakes is to speak of “the Inquisition” as though there had been a single institution for a thousand years, with identical procedures, jurisdictions, and objectives.

That was not the case.

There were different inquisitorial courts and bodies in different places and periods.

There were forms of episcopal inquisition during the Middle Ages, the medieval papal inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and other bodies associated with the defense of religious orthodoxy.

Their jurisdictions, procedures, and relationships with civil authorities differed.

Therefore, speaking of “the Inquisition” as though it were a homogeneous institution is historically equivalent to studying the entire political history of Europe under the generic name “the monarchy.”

It is not historically accurate.

The word inquisitio simply means investigation or inquiry.

The inquisitor was, generally speaking, the person who investigated certain accusations relating to heresy and other matters within the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Naturally, this does not automatically turn every inquisitor into a virtuous man or every procedure into a just one. But it demonstrates something fundamental:

the original meaning of an institution cannot be deduced exclusively from the image that was later constructed around it.

2. Medieval Europe Did Not Understand Religion as We Understand the Modern State

This point is absolutely essential.

Contemporary people often imagine religion as a strictly private matter.

“I believe what I want, you believe what you want, and the state should not interfere.”

This conception has a particular history and cannot simply be projected onto medieval societies.

For centuries, Europe was a society in which religion constituted one of the foundations of public, legal, cultural, and political life.

Religious belonging was not regarded simply as a private preference comparable to choosing a hobby, a sports team, or a musical style.

Religion was connected with:

communal identity;
legislation;
education;
public morality;
marriage;
oaths;
political institutions;
the conception of the common good;
the legitimacy of certain powers;
the understanding of social unity.

This does not mean that such a society was necessarily just in every respect.

It means that we must understand its intellectual framework.

A medieval man who contemplated heresy might regard it not simply as “a different opinion,” but as a threat to the religious and social order.

This may seem strange to a contemporary mentality, but it is indispensable if we want to study history honestly.

And here we encounter one of the great traps of today’s debate.

A society in which religion was regarded as an essential element of the common good is taken and judged exclusively through categories that emerged centuries later.

That is not history.

It is anachronism.

3. Why Did the Inquisitorial Courts Arise?

To understand the phenomenon, we must go back to the growth of certain medieval heresies.

One of the best-known cases was that of the Cathars or Albigensians, particularly present in certain regions of southern France.

The problem was not simply that some people disagreed on certain theological questions.

Catharism contained doctrines profoundly incompatible with Christian faith, especially a dualistic conception of reality that affected the doctrine concerning God, creation, and matter.

The Church regarded these doctrines not as a simple variant of Christianity.

They were heresies.

But there was also a political and social dimension.

Heresies could become integrated into conflicts between cities, lords, and territorial powers. In a society where religious unity was closely connected to political unity, the issue inevitably acquired a public dimension.

This helps us understand why the fight against heresy was conceived not exclusively as a pastoral problem.

It was also considered a legal matter.

And here an essential distinction appears:

the Church was not the only institution involved in the repression of heresy.

Civil authorities also participated.

In fact, for much of European history, civil penalties could be considerably harsher than the penance imposed by an ecclesiastical tribunal.

This does not mean that the Church can simply wash her hands of all civil consequences resulting from her condemnations.

But it does mean that the narrative according to which “the Church invented the Inquisition and alone executed anyone who thought differently” is historically too simplistic.

4. The Medieval Church Did Not Invent the Idea That Heresy Could Be a Public Crime

Here we must enter uncomfortable territory.

The relationship between religion, heresy, and public law existed before the medieval Inquisition.

The Christian Roman Empire, especially from Constantine onward and under later emperors, developed legislation against certain religious deviations.

For centuries, both civil and religious authorities considered religious unity capable of constituting an element of political stability.

This did not begin with medieval inquisitors.

Nor did it end with them.

The confessional societies of early modern Europe, both Catholic and Protestant, maintained various forms of religious control.

Therefore, it is historically incorrect to present the persecution of heresy as an exclusively Catholic peculiarity.

In certain Protestant territories, severe penalties were also imposed on certain forms of religious dissent.

And in non-European confessional societies we likewise find mechanisms for legally protecting the dominant religion.

The historical question, therefore, is much broader:

why did pre-modern societies consider religion a matter of public order?

That is the real question.

5. But Recognizing the Context Does Not Mean Justifying Everything

Here we must be especially clear.

Explaining does not mean justifying.

Understanding the mentality of an age does not oblige us to consider everything that age did to have been morally good.

A historian can explain why a society accepted slavery without claiming that slavery was morally good.

He can explain why religious wars existed without approving them.

He can explain why certain courts used certain punishments without automatically considering those punishments just.

And exactly the same applies to the Inquisition.

A Catholic has no obligation to claim that every inquisitorial procedure was just.

He does not need to defend abuses.

He does not need to justify torture.

He does not need to deny judicial errors.

He does not need to deny that there were condemned persons.

He does not need to deny that people were executed.

He does not need to turn every inquisitor into a saint.

Because the defense of the Church does not depend upon denying reality.

6. Torture: A Question That Requires Precision

One of the elements most frequently used to construct the popular image of the Inquisition is torture.

And here we must avoid two extremes.

The first consists in saying:

“The Inquisition never used torture.”

That would be false.

The second consists in imagining that inquisitors indiscriminately tortured every defendant and that torture chambers were practically the daily center of all tribunals.

That also does not correspond to historical reality.

Torture existed in medieval and early modern legal systems, both civil and religious.

Inquisitorial courts did come to use it under certain conditions and with specific legal restrictions.

That does not make torture morally admirable.

Nor should the fact that other courts used it automatically serve as an excuse.

From a Christian perspective, human dignity requires that even the guilty person be treated as a human being.

The fact that a particular society legally accepted a practice does not automatically make that practice morally good.

This distinction is extremely important for an intellectually honest Catholic apologetics.

7. The Church Does Not Need to Defend Torture in Order to Defend Her History

There is a very dangerous apologetic temptation.

When someone accuses the Church of something, a Catholic may feel the need to respond:

“But others did worse things.”

That may be true.

But it does not always constitute a good answer.

If someone asks about abuses committed by an inquisitorial tribunal, responding only:

“Protestants also persecuted heretics”

does not fully answer the question.

If they ask about executions:

“European states executed many more people”

does not by itself resolve the moral issue.

The correct response must be more mature:

“Yes, abuses existed and there were punishments that today we recognize as unjust or incompatible with an adequate understanding of human dignity. But in order to judge the Inquisition historically, we must distinguish documented facts from later exaggerations, compare its procedures with the legal systems of its time, and avoid automatically attributing to it every abuse committed by civil authorities.”

That is much more solid.

And also much more Catholic.

8. What Did an Inquisitorial Trial Actually Look Like?

Another frequent myth consists in imagining that an inquisitor could arbitrarily arrest anyone, torture them, and burn them without trial.

Reality was more complex.

Inquisitorial tribunals developed legal procedures.

There were accusations, investigations, statements, testimony, and different procedural possibilities.

In certain cases, the aim was to obtain confession and reconciliation.

Punishments could vary considerably.

They included:

spiritual penances;
fasting;
pilgrimages;
fines;
certain religious obligations;
imprisonment;
penitential signs;
reconciliation with the Church;
and, in the most serious and persistent cases, surrender to secular authority.

This last point is fundamental.

An ecclesiastical tribunal could declare a person guilty of heresy and, under certain historical circumstances, hand that person over to the civil authorities for execution of the corresponding secular penalty.

Therefore, it is historically inaccurate to imagine that the inquisitor was simultaneously investigator, judge, executioner, and state executioner.

There was a complex interaction between ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions.

9. “Handed Over to the Secular Arm”: An Expression That Needs Explanation

One of the formulas that most shocks the modern reader is the so-called handing over to the secular arm.

What does it mean?

Generally speaking, an ecclesiastical tribunal could pronounce a sentence in a matter of heresy and refer the condemned person to the civil authorities so that they could apply the penalty provided for by secular law.

This reveals something very important:

the Inquisition did not operate in a political vacuum.

It was embedded in societies in which civil and religious authority maintained close relationships.

Precisely for this reason, it is necessary to distinguish between:

Catholic doctrine;
canon law;
decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals;
civil legislation;
decisions of monarchs;
actions of officials;
and specific abuses committed by individuals.

Mixing everything together under the word “Church” produces a historically defective explanation.

10. The Spanish Inquisition: Probably the Most Manipulated Case

When people today speak about the Inquisition, they immediately think of the Spanish Inquisition.

It was established in 1478 under Ferdinand and Isabella and existed for centuries until its final abolition in the nineteenth century.

Its history is connected with religious, political, and social questions of extraordinary complexity.

Among its initial objectives was investigating the sincerity of the conversion of certain converts from Judaism and, later, other phenomena considered heretical or contrary to Catholic orthodoxy.

Over time, its jurisdiction expanded into various areas.

Here again we must avoid another error:

the Spanish Inquisition was not simply a tribunal against Jews.

It also investigated Old Christians, converts, Protestants, Alumbrados, cases of bigamy, certain matters related to superstition, blasphemy, heretical propositions, and other issues.

Furthermore, the Inquisition should not be confused with the expulsion of the Jews in 1492.

The expulsion was a decision of Ferdinand and Isabella.

The Inquisition and the expulsion policy were related to the religious context of the period, but they were not the same institution or the same event.

11. How Many People Were Executed?

Here we enter one of the areas where propaganda has produced some of the most spectacular figures.

For centuries, enormous numbers circulated concerning victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

In certain accounts, figures of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people executed were mentioned.

Modern historical research based on archival records has drastically reduced many of these traditional figures.

This does not mean that executions never occurred.

They did.

There were people sentenced to death.

There were autos de fe, and people were handed over to secular authorities.

But the actual numbers are far lower than many of the traditional figures spread through anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic propaganda.

Historical studies of inquisitorial archives also show that rates of conviction and execution varied enormously depending on the period.

During the early years of certain tribunals, the figures were considerably higher than in later periods.

The institution changed over time.

And this once again demonstrates a basic rule:

an institution lasting several centuries cannot be studied as though it remained identical from beginning to end.

12. Where Does the So-Called “Black Legend” Come From?

The expression Black Legend is used particularly to describe a propagandistic tradition that portrayed Spain and the Hispanic world as exceptionally cruel, fanatical, intolerant, and backward.

The Inquisition played a central role in this construction.

So did the conquest of the Americas.

During the religious and political wars of early modern Europe, Spain’s enemies found in certain accounts of Spanish cruelty an extraordinarily effective propaganda instrument.

Authors, printers, and polemicists spread accounts that combined real events with exaggerations, second-hand testimony, inflated figures, and scenes designed to provoke a powerful emotional reaction.

This does not mean that all accusations were false.

Here we must make a crucial distinction.

The existence of propaganda does not automatically make everything propaganda claims false.

This is one of the errors of poor apologetics.

If an enemy of the Church reports a real atrocity, the fact that he is an enemy does not make the atrocity a lie.

The historian’s task is to verify it.

13. Propaganda Works Best When It Contains a Portion of Truth

This is perhaps one of the most important lessons for our own time.

The most effective propaganda does not usually invent absolutely everything.

It takes:

a real fact;
separates it from its context;
generalizes it;
magnifies its scale;
removes contradictory elements;
adds emotionally powerful images;
and finally turns one specific episode into a universal description.

This has happened repeatedly with the Inquisition.

A real case becomes:

“The Church always did this.”

A particular tribunal becomes:

“All Catholics were like this.”

A sentence becomes:

“The Church taught that anyone who disagreed had to be killed.”

An exaggerated figure becomes:

“Millions were burned.”

The mechanism is simple.

And surprisingly contemporary.

14. The Black Legend Is Not Merely a Problem of the Past

Today we no longer need printed pamphlets to construct a legend.

We have social networks.

We have short videos.

We have headlines.

We have algorithms.

We have digitally generated or manipulated images.

We have fragments of documentaries without context.

We have viral posts that condense five hundred years of history into three sentences.

The logic is exactly the same.

A user posts:

“The Church burned millions of people during the Inquisition.”

Thousands share it.

The figure seems impressive.

The image generates outrage.

And the algorithm rewards emotion.

But nobody asks:

What is the source?

Which period are we talking about?

Which tribunal?

Which region?

What documentation?

Which historians calculated the figure?

Are we talking about convictions or executions?

Are we mixing civil and ecclesiastical tribunals?

Historical literacy thus becomes a form of intellectual resistance.

15. A Catholic Must Not Be Afraid to Acknowledge the Sins of Catholics

Here we reach the heart of the spiritual problem.

A Catholic may be tempted to think:

“If I admit that there were abuses, I am giving arguments against the Church.”

No.

If abuses occurred and we acknowledge them, we are doing something much more Christian:

we are telling the truth.

The Church is not sustained because all her members have been impeccable.

If that were the case, the Church would have disappeared in the first century.

Peter denied Christ.

Judas betrayed Him.

The apostles argued about who was the greatest.

The Corinthians committed serious disorders.

The Galatians fell into doctrinal errors.

The history of the Church is full of saints, but also of sinners.

This does not constitute a refutation of the Church.

It is precisely what one would expect from a community formed by men in need of redemption.

16. The Holiness of the Church Does Not Mean the Sinlessness of Her Members

Catholic theology carefully distinguishes between the holiness of the Church and the perfect moral holiness of all her members.

The Church is holy because:

Christ is her Head;
the Holy Spirit gives her life;
she possesses the fullness of the means of salvation;
she preserves the deposit of faith intact;
she celebrates the sacraments;
she proclaims revealed truth;
and she is called to lead men toward God.

But this does not mean that every member of the Church always acts holily.

History demonstrates precisely the opposite.

Therefore, when someone says:

“An inquisitor did something unjust; therefore Catholic doctrine is false,”

they are making a logical leap.

The sinful behavior of a Christian does not prove the falsity of Christianity.

In the same way, the corruption of a doctor does not prove that medicine is false.

Nor does the corruption of a judge prove that justice does not exist.

17. The Church Herself Has Developed a Critical Awareness of History

The Church does not teach that every historical behavior of her members is beyond reproach.

On the contrary.

At different moments in history, the Church herself has asked forgiveness for sins committed by her children.

This is profoundly consistent with Christianity.

Christianity does not need to construct a perfect historical memory.

It needs a truthful memory.

The Gospel does not present the disciples as impeccable heroes.

It presents them as men transformed by grace.

The Church does not say:

“We have never sinned.”

She says, in essence:

“Christ is holy and we continually need to convert to Him.”

18. Does This Mean That the Church Was Doctrinally Wrong to Combat Heresy?

Here we must distinguish different questions.

The Church has the duty to safeguard revealed truth.

Saint Paul warns with great severity:

“Even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel different from the one we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8).

Catholic doctrine concerning religious truth does not maintain that all religions are equally true.

The Church affirms that objective truth exists concerning God and salvation.

Therefore, defending doctrine against heresy is not in itself contrary to the Gospel.

The problematic question arises when we distinguish between:

defending the truth;
persuading through preaching;
correcting pastorally;
establishing legal consequences;
using civil coercion;
and applying particular penalties.

These are not exactly the same thing.

19. Truth Does Not Need Violence in Order to Be True

This is a pastoral principle of enormous importance.

The Christian faith is proposed to the intellect and the heart.

We cannot produce authentic faith through violence.

We can externally force a person to perform an act.

We cannot force that person to believe inwardly.

We can threaten.

We can punish.

We can create outward conformity.

But only grace and truth can transform the heart.

Our Lord did not turn the apostles into a religious police force.

He sent them to proclaim the Gospel.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19).

Christian evangelization has conversion at its center.

And authentic conversion involves freedom.

20. But Religious Freedom Does Not Mean Relativism

Here we should avoid another contemporary extreme.

Recognizing the dignity of conscience does not mean affirming that all religions are equally true.

The Church simultaneously upholds two realities:

truth exists, and

the human person possesses a dignity that must be respected.

We must not choose between truth and dignity.

Both belong to Christian anthropology.

Freedom does not mean having the moral right to turn error into truth.

It means that a person must not be unjustly coerced in religious matters.

Conscience needs to be formed by truth.

Therefore, authentic freedom does not consist in saying:

“I believe whatever I want.”

It consists in being able to adhere to the good and to truth without unjust coercion.

21. The Great Difference Between the Church and the Modern Mentality

Paradoxically, both the Inquisition and contemporary society can commit the same error from opposite extremes.

Pre-modern society could fall into the temptation of thinking:

“Religious unity must be externally imposed.”

Modern society can fall into another:

“There is no objective religious truth; everything is a private preference.”

Christianity rejects both reductions.

Religious truth is objective.

But faith must be free.

The person needs inner conversion.

And evangelization cannot be reduced to coercion.

22. We Must Not Confuse Doctrinal Defense with Arbitrary Persecution

Another frequent argument in anti-Catholic debates is:

“If the Church condemned heresy, then she did not tolerate any freedom of thought.”

This requires qualification.

The Church has always taught that there are truths that are not negotiable.

That is not unique to religion.

Science also establishes that certain claims are false.

Law also determines that certain actions are unlawful.

A university may also consider certain arguments to be unfounded.

Every society has mechanisms for distinguishing truth from error.

The problem arises when defending truth becomes an abuse of power.

Therefore, the Church needs to distinguish carefully between:

legitimate doctrinal authority

and

unjust coercion.

23. The Inquisition Should Also Be Studied from the History of Law

An aspect that often disappears from popular narratives is that inquisitorial procedures belonged to the historical development of European law.

Inquisitorial courts contributed, in certain contexts, to the development of more systematic procedures of investigation.

This does not mean idealizing them.

But it does mean that we should place them within the evolution of legal institutions.

Medieval law gradually moved from models in which accusations depended heavily on private parties and certain ritual forms of proof toward more structured systems of investigation.

The inquisitio formed part of that transformation.

This is much more interesting than the caricature of “priests looking for victims.”

24. Was the Inquisition an Exclusively Religious Tribunal?

Not exactly.

It was a religious institution in its purpose and jurisdiction, but it operated within concrete political societies.

In some territories, particularly in the early modern period, royal authority exercised considerable influence over certain tribunals.

The Spanish Inquisition is a particularly important example.

That is why it would be incorrect to attribute every political decision of a Catholic monarchy directly to Catholic doctrine.

Monarchs had political interests.

Officials had personal interests.

Tribunals could make mistakes.

Inquisitors could act prudently or harshly.

The Church, the Crown, and society were not one single undifferentiated reality.

25. The Spanish Inquisition and the Power of the Crown

The Spanish Inquisition had an especially close relationship with the monarchy.

The appointment of the Grand Inquisitor and the structure of the tribunal demonstrate this connection.

This has led some historians to describe it as an ecclesiastical institution deeply integrated into the structure of the Hispanic monarchy.

It would therefore be incorrect to attribute every political decision of the Crown directly to Catholic doctrine.

Monarchs had political interests.

Officials had personal interests.

Tribunals could make mistakes.

Inquisitors could act prudently or harshly.

The Church, the Crown, and society were not one single undifferentiated reality.

26. Autos de Fe: Another Image That Needs Context

The expression auto de fe immediately evokes the image of a burning stake in many people’s minds.

But an auto de fe was fundamentally a public act in which sentences were proclaimed and penitential reconciliation took place.

It was not synonymous with execution.

Some condemned persons could receive spiritual or juridical penalties without being executed.

When capital punishment existed, the execution was carried out by secular authority.

Therefore:

auto de fe ≠ automatic execution.

The confusion between these two realities has contributed enormously to the popular image of the Inquisition.

27. Figures Must Be Treated With Great Caution

One of the fundamental rules of serious historiography is:

the more spectacular a historical figure is, the more we need to know where it came from.

Who calculated it?

Using which documents?

For what period?

For what territory?

Does it include convictions?

Does it include executions?

Does it include overturned sentences?

Does it include civil tribunals?

Is it an estimate or a documented figure?

These questions are especially important in the case of the Inquisition.

Archival research over the last several centuries has made it possible to correct many exaggerations.

But correcting exaggerations does not mean turning the Inquisition into a perfect institution.

It simply means that history must be based on documents rather than figures designed to provoke indignation.

28. Why Is the Inquisition Still So Useful for Attacking the Church?

Because it functions as a symbol.

It is not necessary to know its history.

It is enough to pronounce the word.

“Inquisition.”

And many people mentally complete the rest.

The same happens with certain images of the Middle Ages.

“Middle Ages” becomes:

ignorance;
darkness;
fanaticism;
superstition;
backwardness.

But the Middle Ages produced universities, cathedrals, hospitals, legal systems, music, art, literature, scientific investigation, and an extraordinary intellectual development.

Thomas Aquinas is not the product of an intellectually dead civilization.

Nor are medieval universities.

Reducing that world to “religious fanaticism” is historically untenable.

29. The Medieval Church Was Also an Intellectual Institution

This point is particularly important.

The same civilization that developed the Inquisition produced:

Saint Anselm;
Saint Albert the Great;
Saint Thomas Aquinas;
Saint Bonaventure;
Saint Bernard;
Saint Hildegard;
and an enormous philosophical, legal, and theological tradition.

Medieval universities arose largely within a Christian world.

Scholastic theology developed rigorous methods of argumentation.

Aristotelian philosophy was studied, debated, and reinterpreted.

Questions were debated concerning:

freedom;
conscience;
natural law;
justice;
just war;
authority;
human dignity;
economics;
politics;
morality.

Reducing that world to “religious fanaticism” is historically unsustainable.

30. The Church Was Not Simply an Enemy of Reason

Catholic tradition itself maintains that faith and reason are not enemies.

The affirmation that God is Truth implies that truth cannot contradict itself.

For this reason, Christian tradition developed an intense rational reflection on faith.

The famous scholastic formula fides quaerens intellectum—faith seeking understanding—expresses this dynamic perfectly.

The Church does not teach:

“Do not think.”

She teaches:

“Seek the truth.”

And precisely for this reason, truly Catholic apologetics should not be afraid of the archives.

31. The Problem of Judging the Past by Present-Day Categories

Today we consider certain punishments and legal practices deeply problematic, practices that were accepted for centuries.

This is normal.

Societies change.

Law changes.

Moral sensitivity changes.

Our understanding of certain aspects of human dignity may develop.

But we must avoid two errors.

The first:

“Because today we think differently, all people in the past were monsters.”

The second:

“Because that practice was normal then, it could not have been unjust.”

Both are simplifications.

An action may have been legal and socially accepted and nevertheless morally problematic.

But we must also understand that people in the past acted within different intellectual categories.

The historian must understand.

The moralist must judge.

And the theologian must distinguish.

32. Can a Catholic Admit That Injustices Were Committed in the Name of the Faith?

Yes.

And he should.

But there is an important qualification:

“In the name of the faith” does not necessarily mean “required by the faith.”

An inquisitor could use religion to justify a personally unjust decision.

A monarch could use religion to consolidate his power.

An official could act out of economic interests.

A priest could act out of ambition.

The fact that someone invokes God does not automatically make their action God’s will.

Our Lord Himself denounced those who used outward religion while inwardly distancing themselves from God.

33. The Gospel Does Not Allow Us to Confuse Religion with Power

Christ repeatedly rejected the logic of worldly power.

When His disciples argued about who was the greatest, He taught them:

“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mt 20:27).

This teaching constitutes a permanent warning to every ecclesiastical authority.

Religious authority is not a privilege for satisfying human ambitions.

It is a responsibility.

Therefore, when a Church authority uses his power for revenge, enrichment, humiliation, or abuse, he is not carrying out the Gospel.

He is betraying it.

34. Catholic Apologetics Must Abandon Both Extremes

We can identify two very common errors.

First extreme: apologetics dominated by embarrassment

It says:

“Yes, the Church was terrible, but you have to understand that…”

It begins by conceding the entire accusation and then attempts to apologize.

The result is that the Catholic always appears to be on the defensive.

Second extreme: propagandistic apologetics

It says:

“Everything that is said about the Inquisition is a lie.”

This does not work either.

Because there are documents, executions, trials, torture, and abuses that are perfectly documented.

When the interlocutor discovers that the apologist has denied real facts, all credibility is lost.

There is a third path:

apologetics based on truth.

Recognize what happened.

Deny what is false.

Contextualize what has been taken out of context.

Correct the figures.

Distinguish responsibilities.

And explain Catholic doctrine.

35. The Golden Rule: Do Not Deny What Can Be Proven

If there are documents showing that an inquisitorial tribunal tortured an accused person, we should not say:

“That never happened.”

We should say:

“Yes, documented cases exist. Now let us see how many there were, under what conditions, what regulations existed, how they were applied, and how we should morally judge that practice.”

The second response is infinitely stronger.

Because it does not depend on denial.

It depends on evidence.

36. Nor Should We Accept Claims Without Evidence

The opposite movement is equally important.

If someone says:

“The Church burned millions of people,”

we should not respond with another improvised figure.

We should ask:

“What is your source?”

If the answer is a film, a social-media video, or an uncited website, the historical conversation has not yet begun.

History requires documents.

And figures require methodology.

37. Historical Truth Is Less Spectacular Than Propaganda

Historical reality is usually much more boring than a legend.

There is not always an absolute villain.

There is not always a completely innocent victim.

Institutions are not always monolithic.

There are:

prudent judges;
unjust judges;
guilty defendants;
innocent defendants;
honest officials;
corrupt officials;
reasonable legislation;
unjust legislation;
historical changes;
reforms;
mistakes;
corrections;
political conflicts.

That is precisely what makes history history.

38. What Does Catholic Theology Have to Say About the Judgment of Conscience?

The Church teaches that conscience must be respected, but also formed.

The Catechism clearly distinguishes conscience from mere whim.

Conscience does not create moral truth.

Conscience judges an action in the light of the truth it recognizes.

Therefore, evangelization does not simply consist in saying:

“Do whatever you feel.”

It consists in helping a person discover the truth and conform his life to it.

This teaching is fundamental for understanding the relationship between truth and freedom.

39. The Church Must Teach, Not Manipulate

Authentic Christian pastoral ministry cannot operate through permanent fear.

The fear of God is a reality.

But servile fear cannot become the foundation of Christian life.

Saint John says:

“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear” (1 Jn 4:18).

The Church proclaims the truth.

She warns about sin.

She calls people to conversion.

She teaches about the eternal consequences of our choices.

But her ultimate goal is not to produce terrified subjects.

It is to lead children toward the Father.

40. The Church Must Not Be Afraid of Her Wounds

There is something profoundly Christian about acknowledging wounds.

The risen Christ retains His wounds.

This is a powerful spiritual image.

The glory of the Resurrection did not erase the marks of the Passion.

Similarly, the history of the Church contains wounds.

We must not hide them.

But neither should we allow others to use those wounds to claim that Christ never existed, that the Gospel is false, or that the Church has no divine mission.

The wound exists.

But the wound is not the whole story.

41. The Christian Should Not Be Ashamed of the Church

There is a modern form of Christianity that seems to ask forgiveness for existing.

Whenever the Church is attacked, it immediately begins:

“Well, yes, we are guilty of many things…”

Even before knowing what is being accused.

This creates a psychology of inferiority.

And a Christian who constantly feels ashamed of his faith will find it difficult to evangelize.

Saint Paul wrote:

“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” (Rom 1:16).

This statement should recover all its force.

We should not be ashamed of the Gospel.

But neither should we use the Gospel as an excuse for lying.

42. We Must Not Confuse Catholic Pride with Arrogance

There is also the opposite extreme.

“Our Church never did anything wrong.”

That is not strength.

It is arrogance.

A Catholic can say:

“My faith is true and the Church is holy, but I do not need to turn every Catholic of the past into a saint.”

This position is much stronger.

The holiness of the Church does not depend on manufacturing a history without sinners.

43. The Inquisition and the Evangelization of the Americas

Another area where the Black Legend intertwines with inquisitorial history is the evangelization of the Americas.

Here too we must avoid simplifications.

There were grave abuses during the conquest and colonization.

There was exploitation.

There was violence.

There were injustices against indigenous peoples.

But there was also a gigantic missionary effort.

Religious figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas denounced abuses.

Francisco de Vitoria developed fundamental reflections on the rights of peoples and the legitimacy of war.

Spanish universities debated questions that today we would recognize as fundamental to international law.

Real history simultaneously contains sin and holiness.

We cannot eliminate either.

44. The Catholic Tradition Produced Defenders of Indigenous Peoples

This fact is particularly important.

If the Church had considered indigenous peoples to lack human dignity, the emergence of an intense theological and juridical debate about their rights would be inexplicable.

Francisco de Vitoria and others in the School of Salamanca reflected on:

the dignity of peoples;
the legitimacy of authority;
natural rights;
property;
war;
evangelization;
relations between peoples.

This does not mean that all Christians acted according to those principles.

It means that the Catholic tradition itself contained intellectual resources with which abuses could be denounced.

45. The Church Cannot Be Reduced to Her Worst Members

This should be a general rule.

If someone studies the history of Christianity by selecting exclusively:

corrupt inquisitors;
immoral priests;
ambitious bishops;
violent crusaders;
unjust Catholic monarchs;

they will obtain a caricature.

But if someone selects exclusively:

saints;
martyrs;
missionaries;
theologians;
reformers;
religious;
works of charity;

they will also obtain a caricature.

Complete history includes both.

46. What Can We Learn Spiritually from the History of the Inquisition?

A great deal.

First:

sin can always infiltrate even religious institutions.

Therefore we need continual conversion.

Second:

truth does not depend upon the moral perfection of the person who proclaims it.

A sinful priest can proclaim true doctrine.

An unworthy bishop can validly administer a sacrament.

The grace of God does not depend upon the perfect personal holiness of the minister.

Third:

power without virtue easily becomes abuse.

This applies to a medieval inquisitor.

But also to a modern politician.

To a judge.

To a journalist.

To an administrator.

To a social-media moderator.

To anyone who possesses authority.

47. The Great Lesson for Our Time: We Also Have Our “Tribunals”

Perhaps this is the most contemporary application.

We criticize the Inquisition, yet we live in a society that can also fall into mechanisms of social persecution.

Today we do not always burn people.

But something else can happen:

public cancellation;
digital lynching;
loss of employment;
defamation campaigns;
social exclusion;
informal censorship;
reputational destruction.

A viral accusation can produce devastating consequences without the need for a formal court.

And often without any real right to a defense.

The paradox is striking.

A society that considers the Inquisition barbaric can reproduce mechanisms of collective condemnation with technological tools far more powerful.

48. Cancel Culture Needs a Christian Anthropology

The human person cannot be reduced to his worst mistake.

Christianity teaches something revolutionary:

the sinner can convert.

This means that justice must exist, but so must the possibility of repentance.

Contemporary society can become a kind of permanent tribunal in which a mistake made twenty years ago follows a person forever.

The Gospel offers something different.

It does not eliminate responsibility.

But it opens the door to redemption.

49. “Do Not Judge” Does Not Mean “Do Not Discern”

Here we encounter another common confusion.

Christ says:

“Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt 7:1).

But that does not mean that Christians must abandon all moral judgment.

The same Gospel commands discernment.

The issue is that there is a difference between:

judging an action

and

definitively condemning a person’s soul.

We can say:

“This conduct was unjust.”

without saying:

“This person is eternally condemned.”

Final judgment belongs to God.

This distinction should also be applied to the study of history.

We can state that certain acts were unjust without claiming to know every interior intention of those who committed them.

50. How to Respond When Someone Says: “The Church Killed Anyone Who Thought Differently”

A calm response could be:

“History is more complex. There were inquisitorial tribunals that investigated and condemned heresy, and there were executions. That should not be denied. But it is also incorrect to claim that the Church indiscriminately killed anyone who thought differently. We must distinguish between tribunals, periods, territories, punishments, civil legislation, and documented figures. Furthermore, religious persecution was a feature of many confessional societies of the period, not exclusively of the Catholic world.”

Then we can ask:

“What specific period are you referring to?”

That question completely changes the conversation.

51. How to Respond to the Claim of “Millions of Dead”

We should not respond with another improvised figure.

We should ask:

“What source are you using?”

Then:

“Are you referring to the Spanish, medieval, or Roman Inquisition?”

And:

“Are you talking about those condemned or those executed?”

Finally:

“What methodology did the author of that figure use?”

The conversation stops being emotional and becomes historical.

52. How to Respond to Images of Torture

We can say:

“Yes, torture occurred in certain inquisitorial tribunals and we have no need to deny it. But the popular image of systematic and indiscriminate torture does not adequately represent the historical functioning of every inquisitorial tribunal. We must study the regulations, procedures, and individual cases.”

This is much more difficult to refute than an absolute denial.

53. How to Respond When Someone Says: “The Inquisition Proves Christianity Is False”

The answer can be simple:

“No. It proves that some Christians committed serious sins. To prove Christianity false, you would have to demonstrate that Christ did not rise from the dead, that the Gospel is false, or that Christian doctrine contradicts reality. The sinful behavior of members of the Church does not automatically refute the truth of the faith that those members betrayed.”

This is a fundamental logical point.

If a Christian acts contrary to the Gospel, he is precisely acting contrary to what he claims to believe.

54. The Cross Is the Ultimate Criterion

Christianity does not proclaim:

“Power is good because Christians exercise it.”

It proclaims:

“Power must submit to truth and goodness.”

Christ reigns from the Cross.

Not from a throne of political domination.

Not through violence.

Not through fear.

The Cross reveals that Christian authority must become service.

Therefore, any ecclesiastical authority who humiliates, abuses, or unjustly persecutes someone contradicts the spirit of Christ.

55. The Church Needs Historians, Not Propagandists

A serious Catholic historian should not begin with the conclusion:

“I have to prove that the Inquisition was perfect.”

He should begin:

“I want to know what happened.”

If the documents show an injustice, he must acknowledge it.

If they show an exaggeration, he must expose it.

If they reveal a complex context, he must explain it.

If traditional figures are incorrect, he must correct them.

This is a true defense of truth.

56. The Twenty-First-Century Catholic Must Learn to Investigate

Our age demands a new apologetics.

It is no longer enough to memorize answers.

We must know how to:

locate sources;
distinguish primary from secondary sources;
identify false quotations;
verify figures;
distinguish opinion from academic research;
recognize propaganda;
understand historical context;
identify anachronisms;
and compare different interpretations.

This is especially important on the Internet.

57. Five Questions Before Sharing an Accusation Against the Church

Before sharing a post about the Inquisition, it is worth asking:

1. Who is making the claim?

A specialist historian?

A popularizer?

An activist?

An anonymous account?

2. What is the source?

Is there a document?

An academic work?

A verifiable quotation?

3. What period does it concern?

The thirteenth century?

The fifteenth?

The seventeenth?

The eighteenth?

4. Which institution?

The medieval Inquisition?

The Spanish?

The Roman?

A civil tribunal?

5. Is the figure documented?

This last question can dismantle many myths.

58. Charity Must Also Govern Our Historical Discussions

There is another dimension that we frequently forget.

We can be historically correct and nevertheless argue in an un-Christian manner.

If we respond with insults:

“You are ignorant.”

“You have no idea what you are talking about.”

“You have been brainwashed.”

we may win an argument but lose a person.

Saint Peter recommends:

“Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15).

This should be the principle of all Catholic apologetics.

Reason and charity.

Not one against the other.

59. We Must Have No Complexes, But Neither Should We Have Arrogance

The title of this article contains an important expression:

without complexes.

What does that mean?

It does not mean:

“The Church was always right about everything.”

It means:

“I do not need to lie in order to defend my faith.”

I do not need to accept a caricature.

I do not need to be ashamed of being Catholic.

I do not need to abandon history in order to defend the Church.

I do not need to turn every Catholic historical figure into a hero.

I do not need to deny sins.

I do not need to accept legends.

I can seek the truth.

And truth has nothing to fear.

60. The Real Victory Is Recovering the Ability to Think

We live in an age of slogans.

“Inquisition.”

“Obscurantism.”

“Fanaticism.”

“Repression.”

“Middle Ages.”

These are words that often function as substitutes for thought.

Catholics must resist this logic.

Not by responding with other slogans, but by recovering intelligence.

Ask.

Investigate.

Read.

Compare.

Distinguish.

Understand.

And finally judge in the light of truth.

61. A Church That Is Not Afraid of Truth

The Church does not need an invented history.

She has a real history.

And that history is extraordinarily rich.

It is the history of:

martyrs;
sinners;
saints;
heretics;
missionaries;
emperors;
monks;
kings;
the poor;
theologians;
inquisitors;
reformers;
scientists;
artists;
repentant sinners;
men who betrayed Christ;
and men who gave their lives for Him.

It is a human history permeated by grace.

Precisely for this reason, it is so powerful.

62. The Church Does Not Proclaim the Perfection of Her Men, but the Perfection of Christ

This is perhaps the definitive theological point.

Catholic faith does not rest on the assertion:

“Catholics are morally perfect.”

It rests on:

“Jesus Christ is true God and true man; He died for our sins; He rose again; He founded His Church and remains with her.”

Men can fail.

Christ cannot.

Ministers can sin.

The sacraments do not lose their efficacy because of that.

Historians can make mistakes.

Revealed truth remains.

63. History Should Lead Us to Humility

When we study the Inquisition, we can make another mistake:

turning history into a weapon for feeling morally superior.

“We would never do such a thing.”

Are we sure?

Human history is full of people convinced that they were incapable of committing the injustices they eventually committed.

Christian prudence teaches us humility.

Sin does not belong exclusively to one age.

Pride, cruelty, ambition, and abuse of power can appear in any society.

Therefore, studying the Inquisition should lead us not only to criticize the past, but also to examine our present.

64. What Kind of Society Are We Building?

This is a much more uncomfortable question.

We are scandalized by the punishments of the past.

But what happens when a society publicly destroys a person without a trial?

We are scandalized by religious censorship.

But what happens when certain contemporary opinions immediately result in social exclusion?

We are scandalized by the tribunals of the past.

But what happens when millions of people condemn someone based on a headline they have not even read?

Technology has changed.

Human nature has not changed nearly as much.

65. True Progress Does Not Consist Simply in Changing the Tools

A medieval man could use a stake.

A modern man can use a screen.

But both can be capable of hatred.

Technological progress does not guarantee moral progress.

We can possess artificial intelligence, social networks, advanced medicine, and sophisticated legal systems while retaining ancient human defects.

That is why we need a Christian anthropology.

We need to remember that the human heart needs redemption.

66. Mercy Does Not Destroy Justice

The Christian response does not consist in denying every form of justice.

The Gospel does not say that evil is unimportant.

Justice is a virtue.

Societies need laws.

The guilty may receive penalties.

Legitimate authority is necessary.

But Christian justice must be united to human dignity and the possibility of conversion.

It is not a matter of choosing between justice and mercy.

It is a matter of understanding that true justice cannot become cruelty.

67. The Final Lesson for the Catholic

When someone attacks the Church using the Inquisition, do not be afraid.

But do not lose charity either.

You can respond:

Yes, inquisitorial tribunals existed.

Yes, there were abuses.

Yes, torture occurred in certain cases.

Yes, there were executions.

No, traditional propaganda does not adequately reflect all the dimensions of the phenomenon.

No, the most spectacular popular figures are not historically reliable.

No, there was not a single homogeneous “Inquisition” throughout history.

No, the Church cannot simply be identified with every decision made by civil powers.

No, the sins of some Christians do not prove the Gospel false.

And yes, history must be studied through documents, context, and honesty.

This response is not weak.

It is strong.

Because it does not depend upon propaganda.

It depends upon truth.

68. A Practical Guide to Defending the Faith Against Black Legends

When someone presents a historical accusation against the Church, we can follow this approach:

Step 1: Do not react emotionally

Do not immediately accept the accusation.

But do not automatically deny it either.

Step 2: Ask for the source

“Where does that information come from?”

Step 3: Specify the period

“What century are you talking about?”

Step 4: Specify the institution

“Are you referring to the medieval, Spanish, or Roman Inquisition?”

Step 5: Separate accusation, conviction, and execution

They are not equivalent.

Step 6: Separate Church and civil power

Not every act of a Catholic monarchy automatically constitutes Church doctrine.

Step 7: Acknowledge real facts

Do not deny what is documented.

Step 8: Correct exaggerations

Especially figures and generalizations.

Step 9: Explain the context

Legal mentality, political structure, religious conception of society.

Step 10: Return to the Gospel

Because the ultimate goal is not to win a historical argument.

It is to show the truth of Christ.

69. A Final Spiritual Reflection

The history of the Church is, in many ways, a history of the struggle between grace and sin.

Saint Paul expresses it this way:

“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Cor 4:7).

This sentence perfectly illuminates Christian history.

The Church possesses a treasure.

But her members are vessels of clay.

Some were saints.

Others were sinners.

Some defended the truth heroically.

Others used authority unjustly.

Some died for Christ.

Others made their fellow human beings suffer.

We must deny none of these realities.

But neither should we allow the sins of the vessels to make us deny the treasure.

Conclusion: Truth Does Not Need a Legend in Order to Defend Itself

The Inquisition must be studied rigorously.

Not as a mythological monster.

But neither as a perfect institution.

It was a collection of diverse ecclesiastical tribunals, arising in concrete historical contexts, connected with a society in which religion constituted an essential dimension of public life. There were legal procedures, investigations, various penalties, abuses, torture, and executions. There were also exaggerations, inflated figures, propagandistic accounts, and later simplifications.

Reality is complex.

And precisely for that reason, it deserves to be known.

The Catholic does not have to choose between two lies:

“The Church was always impeccable.”

“The Church was always a criminal institution.”

Both are caricatures.

The truth is deeper.

The Church is composed of men in need of conversion, but she safeguards a deposit that does not originate with men.

History contains real sins, but it also contains an immense current of holiness.

There were inquisitors, but there were also saints.

There were abuses, but there were also martyrs.

There were mistakes, but there were also universities, hospitals, missions, works of charity, treatises on law, philosophy, theology, and an entire civilization built around Christ.

And above all, there was—and there still is—a Gospel that cannot be reduced to the mistakes of those who failed to live up to it.

Therefore, when someone presents us with a new historical accusation against the Church, let us not respond with fear.

Let us respond with serenity.

Let us investigate.

Let us distinguish.

Let us acknowledge.

Let us correct.

Let us place things in context.

And let us defend the truth.

Because Christianity is not afraid of history.

The Church does not need a falsified history.

And the Catholic does not need complexes.

As Saint Peter reminds us: