Not always burned at the stake!

Catalina de Zamora was tried by the Inquisitorial court of Ciudad Real in Castile during the summer and early fall of 1484

By RENÉE LEVINE MELAMMED
Catalina de Zamora was tried by the Inquisitorial court of Ciudad Real in Castile during the summer and early fall of 1484. Like many other converso Jews who resided in the vicinity, she had left town a decade earlier and relocated to Palma because she felt she could freely observe Judaism there. Note that they left prior to the establishment of the Inquisition, but the atmosphere in Ciudad Real was most likely already hostile to these unfaithful Catholics.
The interesting aspect of this rather speedy trial is the contrast in testimonies given by the numerous witnesses. (Haim Beinart believed that it was so expedited because of the unbearable heat; see Records of the Trials of the Spanish Inquisition in Ciudad Real 1:367-424). Essentially, if one were a successful crypto-Jew, such conflicting testimonies were to be expected. After all, he or she would strive to appear to be a faithful Catholic so that witnesses could attest to this in good faith. At the same time, if one secretly observed Judaism, a fellow Jew could simultaneously state that the same individual followed a completely different lifestyle. This is the reality of a secret life.
During the grace period declared by the Inquisition in 1483 when confessants could be reconciled before actual trials began, Catalina offered a streamlined confession. She mentioned eating some food that had been prepared in advance while at her sister’s on Shabbat and keening at funerals. She was reconciled to the Church and warned not to relapse because if she did, the consequences would be severe.
When her trial began the following year, the prosecutor presented a list of heretical acts based on 12 witness testimonies. This conversa was reported to have observed Shabbat more seriously than claimed, especially by not working and preparing stews to eat on this day. In addition, she was described as an active keener who also prepared shrouds for the deceased. She seems to have prepared a Hebrew amulet for her daughter as well.
At the same time, Catalina supposedly denigrated Catholic beliefs, even calling the Virgin Mary a whore and belittling the Inquisition, which she said was creating martyrs. In her opinion, the body could be destroyed but the heart remained with the God in whom one believed.
The defense fought back, first attempting to refute these claims by insisting that since her confession she had been a faithful Catholic and was truly reconciled to the Church. She was loyal to the faith, worked on Saturdays like on any other day, and had even actively attempted to convince others to abandon the Law of Moses in order to be faithful to the Church.
Her lawyer adamantly denied all claims against her, and brought an array of 11 witnesses to support these contentions, presenting each with a list of questions. These witnesses included neighbors, friends, house servants and three priests.
According to them, Catalina had attended mass, taken communion, made confession, listened to sermons, visited monasteries and churches, was penitent and devoted, observed Sundays and other holidays, praised Jesus and the Virgin Mary. She even taught her servants the basics of the faith. Catalina was seen cooking and spinning on Saturdays as she did on any other day.
The prosecution rejected these contentions, so the defense proceeded to submit a second questionnaire and more witness testimonies. This aim of this defense technique (indirectas) was to prove that the defendant was a good Christian. Used only in the early years of the Spanish Inquisition, it was discontinued once everyone realized that this type of proof did not negate the possibility that the accused could be a practicing Jew as well.
In this particular case, the charges were not terribly serious, although the prosecutor presented Catalina as a relapsed heretic. The defense also attempted to discredit the witnesses for the prosecution and succeeded in diminishing the severity of the charges. Nevertheless she seems to have made various disparaging remarks that upset the Inquisitors and the other members of their committee. The final decision was to subject her to 100 lashes in public and to banish her from the archbishopric of Toledo for life.
If she dared return, she would be facing life sentence in prison. At least she was not burned at the stake.The author is a professor of Jewish history at the Schechter Institute and the academic editor of Nashim. She is currently at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.


Related Tags
Catholic