[LMB] OT: the inquisition
Michael R N Dolbear
little.egret at mrdolbear.freeserve.co.uk
Sat Jan 31 12:52:08 GMT 2009
> From: Eric Oppen <technomad at intergate.com>
> Date: 31 January 2009 03:23
> Quoting Azalais Aranxta <tiamat at tsoft.com>:
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, M. Haller Yamada wrote:
> >> (-: Already breaking my resolutions about no OT, but I did want
> >> to respond, and I'm too weak to resist. Using the Inquisition
> >> as an excuse for losing the knowledge *sounds* reasonable, but
> >> what about all the women who weren't under an inquisition? For
> >> example, the Jewish women?
> > ...why do you think Jewish women were safe from the inquisition?
> Strictly speaking, the Inquisition had no as in _no_ jurisdiction over
> non-Christians. Granted, being Jewish or Moslem in "christian" Spain
> was often difficult, or impossible...but someone who'd never been
> baptized was safe. Backsliding converts, and heretics, OTOH...they
> were in a heap o'trouble.
Yes, it's a plot point in Eric Flint's 1632 series. IIRC one of the
Americans is planning on pointing out he was never baptised if necessary.
> Now, if the Church had adamantly refused to recognize
> baptism-at-swordpoint as valid, all would have been much cooler...
Not really since they would have had to give up infant baptism (Anabaptists
were regarded as heretics by Catholics, Calvinists and Lutherans alike).
There were some nasty cases where Christian servants secretly baptised
children of Jewish families and so put them into the jurisdiction of Church
and Inquisition who could now remove them for a proper christian
More information about the Lois-Bujold