The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New GranadaLea, Henry Charles
History
The inquisition in the Spanish dependencies: Sicily—Naples—Sardinia—Milan—the Canaries—Mexico—Peru—New Granada
Lea, Henry Charles
Inquisition
Cases grow more frequent with time and, with their increasing frequency,
the penalties seem to grow less. In 1694 Fray Domingo Mireles was
accused by four women, with details of foul obscenity. He was sentenced
to deprivation of confession and reclusion for four years, but was
allowed to choose his place of retreat. He served out the term, went to
Spain, and returned with a rehabilitation charitably granted by the
inquisitor-general. In 1698 Fray Cipriano de Armas was prosecuted on the
evidence of two women; the case was carried to the end and remitted for
decision to the Suprema, which ordered its suspension. In two cases in
1742 the sentence was merely deprivation of confessing, six months’
reclusion and five years’ exile from certain places. In 1747 Fray
Bartolomé Bello had not only seduced Maria Cabral González, but had
strangled in his cell a child born to them, after piously baptizing it,
but when the case reached the Suprema it was suspended. In 1750
Francisco Rodriguez del Castillo was prosecuted on very serious charges
but was only suspended for two years from confessing and given some
spiritual exercises. In 1755 there were nine complainants against Fray
Francisco García Encinoso, who was deprived of confessing and sentenced
to six months’ reclusion, when he was sent to the convent of N. Señora
de Miraflor, with instructions to the superior to keep the matter
profoundly secret and to treat him well. In 1769 Fray Domingo Matos was
sentenced only to six months’ reclusion and the denial of certain
privileges, which was subsequently remitted. The sympathy of the
tribunal apparently was exhaustless and frequently resulted in practical
immunity. In 1785, Fray Joseph Estrada, Franciscan difinidor, was
accused by several women with full details, but the tribunal, on
December 7, 1793, suspended the case. Then, in 1804, he was again
accused by a nun in the convent of la Purisima Concepcion of Garachico.
Finally, after twelve years’ delay, on February 28, 1805, the tribunal
ordered its commissioner to give him _audiencias de cargos_, or private
examinations, on report of which the case would be voted on, bearing in
mind the advanced age of the accused and the difficulty of communicating
with the Suprema, in consequence of the war. This was the last of the
matter for, on April 9, 1806, the commissioner at Ycod reported the
death of the culprit.[320] When so serious an offence was visited so
lightly, we can scarce be surprised that its subjection to inquisitorial
jurisdiction failed to check it. There naturally was much difficulty in
inducing women to come forward as accusers, yet the number of
denunciations was large and steady. Thus, from July 26, 1706, to
February 15, 1708, the total denunciations of all kinds to the tribunal
was 75; of these only 22 were of men, out of which 7, or practically
one-third, were for solicitation.[321]
* * * * *
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account