Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition

by Thomas F. Madden

For many, the Inquisition conjures Gothic images of cloaked figures and barbarous torture chambers. So enmeshed is this view of the Inquisition in popular culture that such scenes play out even in comedies such as Mel Brooks' History of the World and Monty Python's Flying Circus. But is this a fair portrayal? And how was the Inquisition perceived in its own time? Professor Thomas F. Madden of Saint Louis University delivers a stimulating series of lectures exploring all facets of the Inquisition, including the religious and political climate of its time and the Inquisition's relationship to heresy and reformation. With a scholarly eye and infectious enthusiasm, widely published author and noted expert on pre-modern European history Thomas Madden imparts an understanding of the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions while dispelling popular myths associated with the subject.

Course Syllabus

Lecture 1 The Organization of the Catholic Church

Lecture 2 Heresy and Orthodoxy

Lecture 3 Roman Law and the Church

Lecture 4 Birth of the Medieval Inquisition

Lecture 5 Medieval Heresies

Lecture 6 Centralizing the Medieval Inquisition

Lecture 7 The Working of the Medieval Inquisition

Lecture 8 Birth of the Spanish Inquisition

Lecture 9 "Poisonous, Offensive, Misleading": The New Heresies of the Protestant Reformation

Lecture 10 The Spanish Inquisition in Its Maturity

Lecture 11 The Roman Inquisition

Lecture 12 Crafting the Myth of the Inquisition

Lecture 13 The Inquisition and Enlightenment

Lecture 14 The Inquisition in Popular Culture

Genres: History, Religion, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Christianity

CD

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Thomas F. Madden (born 1960) is an American historian, the Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

He is considered one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States. He has frequently appeared in the media, as a consultant for various programs on the History Channel and National Public Radio.

In 2007, he was awarded the Haskins Medal from the Medieval Academy of America, for his book Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice, which was also a "Book of the Month" selection by the BBC History magazine.

Reviews

[Todd Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Heaven or Heresy is an audiobook produced by The Modern Scholar and as such structured as a lecture given by a professor (Thomas F. Madden of Saint Louis University in this case) and is not a book on tape. As one might suppose from the title, the topic is that of a history of the inquisition – a process the Christian church used to rout out heretics and eliminate dissenting elements of the population.

Today, the inquisition is looked back upon as a time when the church extended their power by stifling dissent of those with beliefs that differed from orthodox teaching through the use of torture and slaughter.

One quickly comes to the realization, however, that Madden is a church apologist and as such attempts to white-wash events in a way that absolves the Catholic Church from the horrors meted out to those deemed to hold heretical beliefs. In fact, he even alludes to the fact that Monty Python was historically accurate and that the comfy chair and soft pillow were the real techniques used to bring the lost lambs back into the fold (note: he didn’t really, that was a joke).

What Madden does do, though, is argue that it was the big bad secular authorities (to whom the church turned over those individuals deemed to be heretics) that tortured people and burned them alive. He seems to, in fact, believe that this absolves the church of all responsibility concerning the matter. Of course, this is absurd. As Wikipedia points out “the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded {to the state}, and cannot be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects”. Madden’s attitude is simply a reflection of the common hypocritical attitude one has come to associate all too closely with religious institutions.

But why would Madden choose to polish this turd? Well … a quick search of the web reveals that Madden is a member of Catholic Answers. And what is the stated purpose of this organization? “Catholic Answers is one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Its mission statement explains its purpose: Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.”

He's a Catholic apologist, pure and simple.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this lecture series, Professor Madden challenges modern perceptions and beliefs about the Inquisition, arguing that they are a product historical revisionism in our past. Our current perception of the inquisition is a caricature of a certain phase of the Spanish Inquisition. In support of this end, he does the following:

- Defines heresy
- Discusses the incorporation of Roman law into the church following the conversion of Constantine
- Discusses the different inquisitions that were in effect
- Discusses the impact of the Protestant Reformation on inquisition efforts
- Discusses how modern perceptions of the inquisition developed

This last point takes up three of the fourteen lectures, a prudent approach since he has to go against the grain of popular culture and overcome modern prejudices.

Heresy had been a problem since the early days of the church, even documented in the New Testament. New converts from different regions and pagan backgrounds brought with them a variety of worldviews that resulted in divergent doctrines. Furthermore, the frequent persecutions by the Roman government and by various local governments had adversely impacted the ability of churches to communicate with each other and maintain a consistent set of doctrines. The conversion of Constantine allowed such coordination and was followed by the council of Nicea and other councils in which orthodoxy was clearly defined. Furthermore, the laws of Rome were changed to make heresy a crime against the state. Another impact of the conversion of Constantine and the end of persecution was the conversion of the upper crust and the educated classes, resulting in the melding of church doctrine with Roman law in the management of church affairs.

Following the fall of the western Roman empire, the near constant wars, invasions and other upheavals in western Europe resulted in disorder in the church. Sometimes bishops and other church leaders were appointed as vassals by feudal lords on the basis of their loyalty and not their spiritual maturity and understanding of doctrine. As a result, many laymen were completely misinformed about church doctrine, and pastoral care was not necessarily a priority. Over time, reform movements arose to place the clergy under the authority of the church and to restore its mission to spiritual matters. It was in this context that the first inquisitions took place.

The first inquisitions were more about pastoral care and due process. The secular lords outlawed heresy but might not have known enough church doctrine themselves to distinguish heresy from a hole in the ground. A simple accusation of heresy might be sufficient to get someone burned at the stake by secular leaders. Inquisitions consisted of clergy educated in church doctrine and due process such as rules of evidence who investigated heresy by questioning laity. Most often, heresy was a result of incorrect teaching and was corrected by providing corrective teaching of church doctrine. The objective of the inquisitors was the spiritual health of the church and restoration of the wayward, not punishment. Only defiant holdouts were considered to be heretics and turned over to the secular lords for criminal prosecution. The church did not have authority to impose secular punishment. While this may still offend modern sensibilities, it was clearly an improvement over burning the misinformed at the stake.

Because of the shear number of acquittals by the church inquisition, it gained a bit of a “soft on heresy” reputation, and there was a push by various kingdoms to institute their own royal inquisitions. One of these was the Spanish Inquisition. It was instituted to address a specific problem. Spain had a substantial Jewish population, and there had been some forced conversions. A Jew who had been forced to convert but subsequently recanted was considered not a Christian and not subject to church law. Those who didn't recant, conversos, were considered Christian and were subject to church law. They also had enemies. Other Jews resented their conversions, and non-Jewish Christians resented their prosperity and influence. As a result, they were often accused of maintaining a Christian facade while actually practicing Judaism. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted by Ferdinand to investigated these accusations. The shear number of accusations convinced inquisition leaders and Ferdinand that this was a really big problem, and the inquisition got out of hand, largely by the relaxation of due process requirements.

The Protestant Reformation changed the nature of the inquisition. Its ideas weren't new, but their rapid spread was aided by the use of the printing press and the protection of reformers by various secular rulers who accepted reform doctrine and resented the church inquisitors who were not subject to their authority. As a result of these dynamics, the inquisition as it stood was inadequate to stop Protestant heresy (I am a Protestant and hearing Protestant teachings referred to as heretical took some getting used to.). At this time, the Roman Inquisition was instituted to maintain doctrinal purity in the papal states. The Index, a list of banned books with heretical teachings that was promulgated by the inquisition, proved to be effective in keeping Protestant teachings out of Spain and possibly the Italian peninsula.

To summarize the history of the inquisition, it helped to bring pastoral care and due process to those accused of heresy. It was only during the hysteria of the early Spanish Inquisition that due process and rules of evidence were relaxed, producing the abuses we now associate with the inquisition.

The modern view of the inquisition is that it was a suppression of dissent by means of harsh and sadistic methods. Several dynamics over the past four centuries contributed to this perception.

First of all, during the Reformation, there was a propaganda war between Protestants and Catholics. Both sides were targeting heresy. For the Catholics, Protestant teachings were heretical. For Protestants, Catholic teachings were heretical but so were the teachings of rival Protestant sects. For example, Lutherans would have considered Calvinists heretical and vice versa. Catholics were executing Protestants, and Protestants were executing Catholics and rival Protestants. There were efforts by Protestant propagandists to connect the Catholic Church and its inquisitions with the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Empire. Likewise, there were efforts by Catholic propagandists to label Protestants as the un-Christian persecutors. The Protestants won the propaganda war.

Second, religion blended with nationalism. Spain and France were Catholic; the British and the Dutch were Protestant. Many of these nations were geopolitical rivals who used their propaganda machines to paint rivals as evil. The Spanish Inquisition became synonymous with the evils of Spain.

Third, during the Enlightenment, religious toleration rose to prominence. Protestant nations had a variety of coexisting Protestant sects, and the doctrinal uniformity of Spain and the Italian peninsula appeared to Protestants a result of oppression by the inquisition. Increasingly, the inquisition was viewed as representing an intolerant past.

Fourth, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Gothic novels and various plays popularized a view of the inquisition as a sadistic oppressor. In the twentieth century, it was parodied in comedies and was used interchangeably with “witch hunt.”

If Professor Madden is right about the history of the inquisition, and I suspect he is, our modern view of the inquisition forcibly demonstrates the shear power of polemic to shape popular opinion. I fear that we Protestants may owe the Catholic Church an apology. I unhesitatingly contend that some of its teachings are unbiblical, but we should criticize a person or organization for his or its reality, not our fantasy of that reality. Professor Madden's objective in this lecture series was clearly to teach the history of the inquisition based on the most current scholarship, but I also learned a lot about the power of rhetoric.

[Bad Horse · Rating 1 out of 5]

Madden's lecture series is a disgraceful, one-sided attempt to justify a thousand years of oppressive torture and execution on an industrial scale, to enforce total thought-control across all of Europe.

One can defend some of the Church's actions--in the case of witch-burnings, for instance, one can in some cases show that the Church's regulation of the inquisitorial process dampened the flames, preventing the population from taking matters into their hands and burning more people. And it's true that the papacy sometimes reigned in overenthusiastic inquisitors.

But there are also cases in which one can show that inquisitors took a zealous glee in torturing and executing far more people than the local populace or secular authorities would have; and the Goa Inquisition, which seems not to be on the curriculum, was 260 years of cultural genocide. (Okay, technically only 256.) And there are many cases when a vicious zeal in inquisition advanced a priest's career, such as the Dominican Antonio Ghislieri, who entered the priesthood specifically in order to become an inquisitor, and eventually became Grand Inquisitor and then Pope Pius V. He reportedly still liked to attend torture sessions even after becoming Pope.

There are no cases in which you can call any of the many inquisitions just or humane, since they only enforced unjust laws, and only by cruel methods. Nor can you defend it, as Madden does, by saying that getting rid of troublemakers was a normal, necessary process for all ancient governments. The Inquisitions were a use of legalized, systematic terror to enforce complete uniformity of thought--a phenomenon which never existed anywhere on Earth prior to 1000 AD, and is AFAIK unique to Christianity, the French Revolution, communism, Nazism, and contemporary academia. (There was an Islamic Inquisition, but it focused only on whether the Koran was created or eternal, and only lasted 15 years. Ancient Rome had only a few brief inquisitions, and only to find people who refused to offer sacrifice to the Emperor, not to enforce any beliefs.)

He makes the usual pathetic excuse that the Church didn't actually execute, or even want to execute, heretics; they were actually "protecting" the heretics from the state, who were the ones who would actually execute them, by giving them a chance to recant. He describes inquisitions in general as being dedicated to saving heretics from the mean old kings who would otherwise kill them. Thus ignoring the fact that inquisitors throughout the centuries spoke and wrote of condemning heretics to the flames; that the Church was not "protecting" heretics, most of whom the secular authorities never would have bothered; and that popes regularly ordered kings to exterminate heretics more vigorously from 1200-1600 AD, and threatened to excommunicate rulers who failed to execute heretics condemned by church inquisitions.

That was bad enough, but I reached my breaking point in lecture 5. As "one of the foremost historians of the Crusades in the United States", Madden has no excuse for making such a disgraceful, dishonest attempt to justify the Albigensian Crusade, one of the worst atrocities in history.

First he pretends that the clergy in Languedoc were too extravagant and corrupt to obey the virtuous Pope Innocent III, and this was why Catharism flourished; when in fact it flourished because the Papal court at the time was so extravagant and corrupt that the asceticism of the Cathars greatly impressed the people. Then he says that the Crusade "got out of control", even though the massacre at Beziers, in which the crusaders murdered the entire population of 20,000 men, women, and children, happened in 1209, and the crusade continued in that vein for another 20 years, under 3 popes, and the murderers received nothing but praise and commendation from the popes and their clergy. (The Beziers massacre was where the phrase "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" came from, said by the Pope's personal representative, Abbott Arnaud Amalric, who was in charge of the massacre.)

Maddens also claims the crusade was "never meant to exterminate the heretics" even though many missives, orders, and sermons about the crusade made during the crusade contain the phrase "exterminate the heretics" in them (I think the preferred phrase was "extirpandam haeresim"), and every account agrees that the Pope and the crusaders all demanded that all heretics be killed.
He never mentions that the crusaders set the policy that it was better to kill everyone in a city that was 99% Catholic than to risk overlooking a few heretics. He never mentions the main goal of the crusade for the Church: to enforce absolute submission to the Pope throughout Europe (a key theme in 13th-century European history).

Maddens never mentions the massacre of Beziers, or any other of the massacres of the Albigensian crusade. He pretends this crusade was unusual in being against Christians, when perhaps half of all crusades were against Christians. He does not mention the systematic policy of terror, torture, painful mass executions, and massacre used throughout the crusade. He merely says it was "bloody", with no mention of the fact that the vast majority of the blood was that of unarmed men, women, and children. The estimates of the number of civilians who died from violence, exposure, or starvation over those 20 years range from 250,000 to 1 million. We have a lengthy account of the crusade written by the Cistercian monk Peter of lex Vaux-de-Cernay, whose entirely sympathetic account of it nonetheless reveals that the crusaders, and the church backing it, were more bloodthirsty and cruel than the Taliban.

(He also never mentions that the extermination of Cathars began 100 years before the Albigensian Crusade was declared, or that it continued until 1826, when the last one was killed. Nor, oddly, does he ever touch on the Albigensian Inquisition itself, which began only after the end of the Crusade and went on for decades. Probably because there's not much nice you can say about decades of torturing people into confessing heresy and then burning them alive by the dozens or hundreds.)

Then he goes on to lie about the Waldensians. He pretends that Waldo was just some whacky uneducated man who didn't know anything about the Bible, and justifies this by saying that the Pope had theologians quiz him and then declare he was not competent to preach. Anyone who knows anything about the papacy in the high middle ages and the Renaissance knows that such papal tribunals always had a predetermined outcome. He also neglects mentioning that Waldo's objections to Catholic theology were based on his having read much of the New Testament, and were mostly the same as the objections later made by Protestant reformers, again based on reading the Bible and realizing that Catholic theology and practice were something quite different.

He neglects to mention that the Catholic church, knowing full well that their theology was only partly based on the Bible, had already tried to prevent the laity from discovering this by implementing a general policy, from 1079-1870 AD, of declaring unauthorized translation of the Bible into "vulgar" languages, or the reading of such translations by the laity--in many cases, the reading of any translations--as heresy, precisely because anyone reading the Bible would discover that Catholic doctrine was a patchwork of contradictory texts and neo-Platonist philosophy. This banning of the Bible was made official dogma at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, and upheld by the Council of Tarragona in 1234, the Council of Trent in 1564, through Pope Pius IX's 1846 encyclical, and by Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic Constitution of 1897.

His later lecture on "The Roman Inquisition" is mostly one long argument, based on character assassination, biased summaries, and irrelevancies, that Galileo was a jerk, and the Catholic Church was perfectly reasonable and justified in putting him on trial for his life for promoting the Copernican solar system.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/review/R11HID8...

If you are looking either for horror stories or to confirm what you've always been told by Hollywood, then give this a miss.

On the other hand, if you want a clear, lucid and comprehensive survey of contemporary scholarship, this is an excellent source.

Professor Madden takes his time in developing the origin of the Inquisition from its Roman precedents before tackling the histories of the various Inquisitions - Spanish, Roman, and papal - that most people have conflated when they talk about "The Inquisition." Along the way, Madden shares insights into the Inquisitions that often run counter to conventional wisdom. For example, the Inquisitions had broad popular support, limited the use of torture and appointed lawyers for the defense. That last surprised me. In addition, the numbers of people brought under inquisitorial scrutiny was always very small and the inquisitions had an acquittal rate exceeding that found in modern democratic legal systems, suggesting that the system was not rigged and that the judges were trying to reach an objective conclusion.

One of the negative reviewers says:

"Did the Inquisition burn 20,000 or was it 50,000? Did the Inquisition destroy the lives of 200,000 Jews or was it only 90,000 Jews? All of this is a distinction without a deference."

To the contrary, Madden pointed out that over its more than 400 year history, the number for the Spanish Inquisition was closer to 3,000. The difference is that this proves the leniency of the Inquisition and the effectiveness of its system for defending the accused. This is particularly true, as Madden points out, when the secular states were using far more torture without defense counsels and killing ten or a hundred times as many.

In addition, the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over anyone but baptized Catholics. Thus, inquisitors did not see themselves as persecuting "Jews" but punishing Catholics for heresy. (This is not to say that in the Spanish Inquisition there was an element of racism against "New Catholics," or that, in fact, some of the Catholics punished for "Judaizing" were Jews who did not want to convert and had no intention of actually converting. It is, nonetheless, anachronistic to accuse the inquisitors of destroying the lives of "Jews" since that was not what they thought they were doing. In addition, in many cases, it was not what they were doing at all, since there were many cases of bona fide conversions where Jewish family traditions placed the New Christians under suspicion of "Judaizing.")

Madden also pointed out the significance of the notion of "relaxing" a convicted accused to the state. The state carried out punishment. Until the accused was given to the state, punishment could not be carried out. Thus, during that time, the Inquisition was free to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused under a fairer and more humane system than the state would have provided, which is why accused people often tried to get the inquisition to take jurisdiction over their case.

Anti-Catholics of whatever persuasion will find these lectures to be disappointing, but the facts are the fact.

A good companion text for seeing the kinds of cases that the Spanish Inquisition actually dealt with is "Inquisitorial Inquiries" - https://www.amazon.com/Inquisitorial-...

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Prof. Madden is excellent.

Surveys the history of the inquisiton as understood by actual and legitimate historical discovery. Really opened my eyes to the truth of what the inquisition actually was - as distinct from what our common culture regards it as. It is much more complicated than what we commonly think of (surprised?). The last hour or so also explored how the myth of inquisition came about.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas Madden's book had some surprises in it for me, specifically in the idea that the Spanish Inquisition, as we've come to know it, was far from being as horrible as commonly understood. This is based on more modern historical research into papers and writings from the era, as opposed to the Hollywood version most of us are familiar with. The book has a number of interesting insights in it, and certainly gave me a new outlook on the Inquisition, and the history of Christianity.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

If your depth of understanding of "The Inquisition" is limited to Monty Python's version, do the world a favor and realize you are an idiot on the subject. Listen to this to get a better idea of the different ways inquiries happened and where, and there were a lot of them. Helpful to learn protestants had inquistions as well and it was not just a Catholic situation.

[Ellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes, the inquisition was, according to Dr. Madden, a different thing than I have always heard it portrayed to be. Yet, people were tortured and killed simply for holding different beliefs from the church/state. Here is another example of the disasterous coupling of religion and politics.

[Bruce Wiley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find Madden explains things in a way that is easier for me to understand than many authors. He does seem to downplay the brutality of the inquisitions a bit too much although he does put it very much in perspective to the times.

[Mizrob A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought this would be a really comprehensive course, that gives a good intro to history of inquisition by giving accounts of inquisition by geographical regions and make some comparative analysis and give some actual numbers and stats. But I got really disappointed. A good chunk of the course is wasted on professor's complaints about the general public's wrong views about the inquisition.

So many things are wrong with this course that I don't know where to start.

He starts the course by giving early accounts of Christianity, early church and first 'heresies'. Madden doesn't clarify what he means by 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy'. Someone who doesn't know about the early history of Christianity and the Church gets mislead that there was originally (at the time of apostles) only one view of Christianity and that different interpretations of the scriptures (i.e. 'heresies') arose only in and after the second century. Really? Has this guy read the Bible? Letters of Paul? Where you can see even in the beginning there were many different interpretations and sects? Listening Madden you get the view that 'Orthodoxy' is true (and was true from the beginning), and the 'Heresies' arose after and corrupted the religion. Because of this kinds of views we get a shitty account of reformation.

Then he makes the silly statement that the tradition of 'separation of church and state' was started by Constantine. He makes this blanket statement so in the rest of the course he can blame everything on the state part of the equation. You can't simply divide church and state in the middle ages, because Churchmen were one of the biggest feudal lords and owned a lot of land—they *were* the state. And almost all actual statesmen themselves were very religious, In some cases outdoing the priests in their piety.

When talking about torture by inquisition, he literally claims that 'torture worked for getting the truth'. How does he know this, is beyond me. He tries to blame the 'state' for all the executions because it was the 'state' that actually killed the condemned. But why the state killed those people? Isn't that because inquisition condemned them first? It's like saying that courts are not part of the justice system and putting all responsibilities on jails!

The biggest downside of the course is that he never gives concrete numbers and stats for his claims. Because of lack of rigorous cross comparison between geographical areas and jurisdictions, you don't get any clear picture of the actual impact or scale of inquisition.

Most of it is just religious apologism (or more specifically catholic church apologism, because he gives a very pathetic account of the reformations). Shame.

[Hank Pharis · Rating 2 out of 5]

(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).

I know very little about the Inquisition. But Madden claims that the Inquisition’s reputation is worse than its reality: “Although in their day the various inquisitions were considered the state of the art in judicial fairness and integrity, today they are viewed as corrupt and unjust. Although in their day, the inquisitions were criticized for being too soft- hearted or lenient, today they are remembered as cruel and sadistic. Why? The answer lies not in the inquisitions themselves, but in the various agendas of those who came to view the inquisitions.” (40)

“By the eighteenth century, a new print culture was being born in Europe and America. In these predominantly Protestant countries, there was a large mar- ket for Gothic novels. These usually quite large books were set in medieval times or ruins of the darkest sort and featured youthful innocents who were in some way threatened by the horrible evils of the dark past. Virtually all of the Gothic novels traded on a popular anti-Catholicism that portrayed clergy, nuns, and monks as subtle, devious, and always evil. The Inquisition in one form or another became a stock institution in these novels.” (44)

“In the twentieth century, the myth of the Inquisition was so firmly established that it no longer had much appeal in serious treatments. Instead, it became the subject of comedy, such as the portrayal in Monty Python’s Flying Circus or Mel Brooks’ History of the World, Part I. When “inquisition” is mentioned at all today, it is used interchangeably with “witch hunt,” which is ironic given the opposing histories of these two activities. Despite the work of numerous his- torians, the Inquisition remains for most people, as the Random House Dictionary defines it, “an official investigation, especially one of political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.” (44-45)

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introductory lecture series on the Medieval Inquisitions and the Spanish Inquisition. The lecturer takes for granted a minimal understanding of early Christianity and basic Catholic doctrine, and so, understandably, the content may be confusing to some, as many previous reviews of this lecture series seemingly indicate.

Madden is a minority in the world of Medieval history—it is very rare, these days, to find a Medievalist who is sympathetic to Catholic belief. Speaking from personal experience, when one contextualizes Medieval history a with a Catholic Christian understanding, one is often denigrated as dismissive of the evils of the past and haplessly apologetic where apologetics are not called for. It is, however, a great irony that when one attempts to analyze Medieval Western Europe in a Christian sense, as Western Europe was largely Catholic (or “Nicene Christian”) throughout the Middle Ages), one is regarded as biased, prejudiced, and so on. It is the scourge of the Medievalist to present a Christian worldview positively to a vehemently secular audience which, paradoxically, refuses to ascribe any perspective but their contemporary, profane worldview to any other civilization or historic period. It is easy to denigrate any other set of beliefs when the only values one acknowledges as valid are one’s own.

That said; as a Medievalist, Madden fills the enormous void of historians willing to see the other side of history for the one-thousand year period referred to as the Middle Ages, and makes an effort to see the positive aspects of Medieval society, rather than immediately dismiss it for being borne of a religious worldview, wherein religious morals informed the actions and values of the society. Madden is an apologist for the Medieval Church, but that ought not discredit his evaluation of history—the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church have not substantially changed since the Middle Ages, and it is only through that understanding one may accurately asses the Medieval, Western European worldview.

Excellent work for an introductory lecture series, and an important perspective for anyone genuinely open-minded and serious about understanding historic peoples with differing opinions from their own.

[John Bacho · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, a fairly progressive place, the topic of religious injustice comes up more often than you'd think. If we're talking about recent ones, like anti-abortion rights or child sex abuse scandals, then the interlocutor may be able to discuss it a few layers deeper -- perhaps they watched 'Spotlight' recently or they read about the numerous investigations. But historical tragedies? With any detail? Not so much. It's usually a litany of evils:

"And what about the Crusades?" she asked before sipping her peach kombucha.
Just as he carefully placed his vinyl copy of The Wipers' "Is This Real?" back into alphabetical order on his homemade shelf, he exclaimed "Oh I know! All that murder in the name of their almighty! The ever expanding body count of religion, am I right?"
"Totally. Don't even get me started on the Inquisition..." she trailed off, partly to check if they had enough oat milk for coffee in the morning.

I don't think I've heard a reply like:
"Yeah, but which century? And was it an episcopal, state, or a papal mendicant inquisition?"

Now I can be that person.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little bio search will show that the professor is not very objective on this topic, so even the use of torture is given a sympathetic treatment. The best part of this series to me, and who knows if it was intended, is a detailed look at the protestant reformation and how it manifested itself in different countries within about a 30 year period. As an account of history, this whole series is fascinating. As a matter of interpretation, many listeners may often disagree with this.

[Tim Vogt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Truly disgusting apologetics from a man who has allowed religion to twist him into an immoral cretin. I found a lecture of his on youtube and, surprise surprise, the comments were disabled. I wonder if it has anything to do with his views being indefensible. This is nothing but apologetics under a veneer of scholarship.

[Icyfarrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

宗教法庭的历史渊源讲得还挺清楚的，但是这位教授讲话真的慢，感觉有点紧张过度

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was good but somehow I missed the fact that it was about the Inquisition so I was a little disappointed to find out it was not about the doctrine of heaven.

[Don Heiman · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 2007 Recorded Books’ Modern Scholar Series released Saint Louis University Professor Thomas Madden’s 14 audio book “Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.”The course lectures are well done. His description of Mendicant Dominicans and Franciscan roles within the Inquisition, the interplay between Church and governing divine right Monarchs, and the process used to extract admission of guilt from those accused of heresy stunned my understanding of religious truth and justice. The Middle Ages intolerance mixed with illiteracy and extreme poverty gave religious and government leaders authoritarian controls that were often cruel and hateful. Madden’s insights helped me better understand the depths of European Middle Ages spiritual perspectives and governance values. (P)

[Skuli Saeland · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heaven or Heresy eru fyrirlestrar um tilurð rannsóknarréttar kirkjunnar í Evrópu á miðöldum. Mér fannst sérstaklega skemmtilegt að kynnast mörgu nýju sem hér var sett fram. Madden heldur því m.a. fram að rannsóknarréttur kirkjunnar hafi oft á tíðum sýnt vandaða starfsemi og verið hvað mest umhugað um sálarhjálp þeirra sem voru rannsakaðir. Hins vegar hafi verið margar útgáfur af rannsóknarréttinum og oft hafi þeir heyrt undir staðbundin yfirvöld sem voru sérstaklega gjörn á aftökur. Pyntingar voru aftur á móti hluti af réttarkerfi miðalda, háðar sérstökum reglum og ættaðar frá réttarfari Rómverja. Slæm orðspor rannsóknarréttarins hefur verið endurskoðað síðustu ár, sérstaklega eftir að opnaður var aðgangur að skjölum Vatikansins, og Madden rekur hér t.a.m. ástæður þess að almenningsálitið varð jafn slæmt og raun ber vitni með umfjöllun um þjóðtrú, áróður og bókmenntir svo eitthvað sé nefnt.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am very found of Thomas Madden's lectures and typically he covers topics that hold a great deal of interest for me. This time I picked this course based only on the fact that he was the lecturer without reguard for the topic. He did a nice job covering a long time period and dispelled many myths of the inquisitions throughout history. I also appreciated that he explain how the myth of the inquisition came to be in modern times. I wish he would have discussed why the inquisition really never took hold in the eastern or russian orthodox churches. If you are interested in this topic you will find his discussion of it interesting. If you are more like me, and are only slightly interested, it does tend to drag a bit in the middle. However, with only 14 30 minute lectures it is not a huge a time investment so you might as well give it a try.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting series of lectures by professor Thomas F. Madden of Saint Louis University on the history of the Inquisition. He lays out the history of inquisition beginning in the Medieval church up to the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Madden discusses how inquisition started as an attempt stamp out heresy and actually helped to bring legal process to the Middle Ages. He then talks about how the Protestant Reformation helped to turn inquisition to The Inquisition, exaggerating the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition and how it became the historical face the Inquisition.

[Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book changed my pre-conceived notions about the Inquisition. I was especially surprised to hear details which ran counter to the popularized movie version of the Spanish Inquisition. Interesting.

[Melinda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another solid lecture series from Professor Madden. Full of great content and easy to listen information and ideas. I learnt a few things and like the relatively balanced view this series gave.