Quoted By:
>As time went by, the inquisition increasingly moved to reduce the use of torture in order to obtain testimony and confessions. The use of doctors in torture sessions to ensure that they did not exceed the required limits so as not to compromise either the subject's life or the fairness of his confession, portrays this well. It is still necessary to make it clear that the allegation of progressive-enlightenment historiography lacks scientific seriousness given that it usually uses the assertion that “confession under torture does not constitute valid proof” as if inquisitorial proof was based solely on that; At another point, it is necessary to say that this assertion is based on a subtle anachronism: one cannot judge the inquisitorial procedure in light of supposed legal advances that occurred in subsequent centuries, as if the inquisitors were endowed with visceral Machiavellianism, applying unfounded justice. What they had the best and most advanced hand in terms of law – the body of laws of Roman law – was what was used in inquisitorial trials. It should also be noted that the Church always granted remission of the temporal penalty if the suspect was found guilty but repented, which demonstrates that the central objective was not to obtain goods at any cost. Furthermore, the inquisitors, during the 14th and early 15th centuries, were very reluctant to believe reports of witchcraft and only did so under the pressure of events that were mounting
>As far as the kings were concerned, their relationship with the Jews was ambiguous. Sometimes they needed them as moneylenders and traders, sometimes they became debtors to Jewish moneylenders, which led to purges and expulsions. In the case of the Iberian Peninsula, involved in the struggle against Muslims during the reconquest, it was not always possible to openly harass the Jews given their financial dependence. In Iberia, the Saracen was the main object of hatred and not so much the Jew
