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
There were also seven other prosecutions against
his followers, resulting in the imposition of fines.[584] Had all
viceroys, like Francisco de Toledo, known how to control the Inquisition
it might have been made a useful political instrument but, as we shall
see, succeeding inquisitors preferred to follow their own ends and it
became a perpetually disturbing influence.
The bishops did not willingly acquiesce in the surrender of a
jurisdiction which could be so profitably employed. That Archbishop
Loaiza showed a recalcitrating temper is manifested by a letter of the
Suprema directing that he should not style himself “inquisidor
ordinario” in his pastorals and edicts. Another letter permits him to
inspect the commissions of the inquisitors and their instructions if he
desires, but it must be in the audience-chamber as they are not to be
removed from there, except the printed instructions, of which a copy may
be given to him on condition of his allowing no one to see it. There was
evident friction despite the injunctions of the Suprema that a good
understanding should be maintained.[585] This was increased when, in
1574, a royal cédula addressed to the bishops ordered them to exercise
special vigilance and make secret inquiry about disguised Lutheran
preachers who were said to be on their way to Peru. The prelates assumed
this to be a grant of renewed inquisitorial power and undertook to
exercise it, giving rise to no little trouble. Sebastian de Lartaun,
Bishop of Cuzco, not only published edicts trespassing on inquisitorial
jurisdiction but boasted that, if the inquisitors came into his diocese,
he could punish them, and he arrested and imprisoned in chains their
commissioner Pedro de Quiroga, a canon of his cathedral, publicly and
under circumstances creating great scandal. The tribunal retaliated by
summoning to Lima the bishop’s provisor Albornoz and throwing him in the
secret prison; furthermore it imprisoned the priest Luis de Arma, who
had assisted in chaining Quiroga, as well as the episcopal fiscal Alonso
Duran and a cleric named Bejerano for the same offence, to which the
bishop responded by seizing Quiroga’s temporalities and forbidding him
to enter the church. The tribunal, in 1581, reported the situation to
the Suprema, which replied that nothing was to be conceded to the
Ordinaries save what was allowed by the laws and the royal cédulas;
from the Bishop of Cuzco’s edict the matter pertaining to the
Inquisition was to be struck out and he was to be duly warned. A second
notice was to be given to the Bishop of Panamá of the cédulas forbidding
his interference in matters of faith and, if he continued to disobey,
the Suprema was to be advised. The same was to be done with other
bishops similarly offending, and special attention was directed to the
acts of the Bishops of Popayan and Tucuman. If we may believe the
reports made by the tribunal to the Suprema the episcopate was filled
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