The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-01-26
FATHER JAS. C. BEISSEL
ON THE INQUISlTlON

| siastical tribunal; and as 1t was to
| take cogniZance, among other Things,
| of religious matters, the Spanish gov
eminent could not establish 1t without
| the intervention of the spiritual au-
| thority competent to judge such topics.
| But as DR.. Brownson remarks (voI-
xii, d. 30, sit was solicited by the
| Spanish Kings and conceded, though
reluctantly, by the Pope, not as trib-
sunal against peaceable and inoffensive
heretics, but, if there be any truth in
history, it was established for the pur-
| pose of ferreting out and bringing TO
light persons who were secretly con-
spring against royalty, as well as
against religion; men plotting in secret
to overthrow both Church and State
by a violent and bloody revolution;
persons whom our own laws would con-
denim and punish as criminals. Tnat
the secular power was guilty in some
instances of injustice and cruelty IN
dealing with the accused, we do not
deny; but the Church cannot be held
responsible for abuses that proceeded
from the violation of her injunctions,
and against which the Roman Pontiffs
loudly protested on many occasions
sternly rebuking the inquisitors for
from defending or justifying such
abuses though we firmly believe there
has been much falsehood and exaggera-
ton in the case Abuses occurred on
ly because that tribunal was gradually
withdrawn from the authority and In
fiuence of the Holy See, and had been
turned into a political machine to
further political ends. It is a. well
known fact that the DEGREES of Rome
protesting against excuses, annu1ling
sentences passed in Spain, ordering
trials to be transferred to Rome, were
often ignored by the Royal officials,
and papal letters addressed to the In
quisitors were Intercepted by Spanish
ministers and never reached their de-
stination. Llorente tries to take the
edge off these remonstrances of the
Holy See by insinuating that they
sprang from the base motive of cupid
ity; that the Popes had an eye on the
fees they could extort as the price. OF
their dissolution. The insinuation is an
ATROCIOUS CALUMNY, a charge as
bold as untrue. It is triumphantly
refuted by the Protestant historian
Ranke, who. in his work entitled
Princes and Peoples (vol. T., p. 241),
distinctly asserts that all profits de-
rived from the considerations ordered
by that tribunal went to the King, and
that the proceeds of the collected fines
formed a regular revenue of the royal
Hence the frequent COM
plants of the Spanish Kings that the
POPE, BY RECEIVING APPEALS
AND GRANTING SECRET ABSOLU-
DEFRAUDED THE ROYAL
OF CONSIDERABLE
The Church never re- |
ceived a cent, as it was one of the |
standing rules that the decision OF the |
court should be given gratis in |
every case.
Remark II. Even II the accusations |
Of wanton cruelty and bloodshed.
charged against the inquisition, were
well grounded, this would be no argu-
ment against the legitimacy OF that
tribunal. To prove an abuse Of a
thing does not prove the necessity of
the lawful use of it;
every human institution or
r,vention would have to be put down,
and not even railways, telegraphs and
telephones would escape. An institu-
ion is deservedly condemned only
when the abuses are not accidental,
tut spring necessarily from it's essen
ial character; that is. when the abuse
s the effect caused by the institution
tself. Apply these considerations to
he Roman InQuisition, of which we
peak now. The mode of proceeding {
Lgainst accused persons was accurate L
.