Dignitatis Humanae and the Inquisition

[codefro]

Disclaimer: I am really not looking for hot-headed bullet responses, but looking for some good dialogue to understand the subject

I want to start out by saying I enjoy the documents issued by Vatican II and there is very little I struggle with.

The one document I struggle with the most is DH. It is a very confusing document in that it seems that the document has a difficult time expressing its ideas in a formulaic fashion.

The three points of contrast in the document I sum up as such:

1. Nobody has a right to be in and to remain in error.
2. All nations have the obligation to offer up public worship to God.
3. No person can be coersed to change their faith (proselytism).

If this there is more that can be added to the list, I welcome it.

Anyways, following St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we need to read all the documents of Vatican II in light of Church tradition to understand their full meaning and hermeneutic. That being said: I wanted to discuss the Inquisition. The inquisition was approved of by the Popes in their day. So, two things that were the purpose of the Inquisition: to discover if inquisitee was a heretic, and if so then hand them over to the state. The Church Inquisitions did not carry out the punishments, but essentially came to the verdicts. I imagine in a lot of cases, if the inquisitee was discovered to be a heretic- they would be offered the chance to recant.

So, I guess that is where my confusion is. If this was endorsed by the Church, hypothetically it could in theory be endorsed again if the need were there. So then upon understanding the hermeneutic of DH, how must we understand the message of the document to enlighten our understanding of proselytism if the inquisition was a process and organization that gained full endorsement by the Catholic Church? It could be that the inquisition doesn’t fall into the category of ‘proselytism’ as all they are doing is discerning whether one is in heresy or not, as opposed to say if Catholics were to hold the belief that all must “convert or die” like in Islam. Then DH might merely be keeping the Church from falling into that error. Just tossing out thoughts at this point.

 

[otjm]

Societies were far different when the Inquisition occurred from what they are today.

Today’s societies, with the exception of one very prominent one, are most generally not theocracies; in fact, most are secular to one degree or another, with Western Europe and North America seemingly leading the way to an almost totally secular society/government.

So, going back in history, how many wars, particularly in areas that would be considered either Christian or having a strong Christian influence, were either religious wars or had religion as a significant element? I am no historian, but my recollection is that there were a very significant number of such wars.

With a nation which was either Catholic or putatively Catholic, someone espousing heresy was viewed as a serious threat to the State as well as to the Church, and the threat was perceived as more than just one wich might be reduced to “sheep stealing”.

One of the problems we have is with perspective, and it is not only in matters of church affairs. Take the lion which appears to have been poached; there were massive repsonses to the death of the lion, including death threats made to the dentist who allegedly shot the animal.

Meanwhile, the leader of the country in which the lion resided has violated just about every human right on the books, and many of them with outright violence and death to the unlucky targets.

But not a peep out all the animal lovers. Not a scintilla of a peep.

The point I am trying to make is that we too often see what we want to see, and fail to see what is the larger picture. Protecting the State from what was seen as potentially a major disruption of the peace was seen as a moral good, as it protected not only the government, but the citizens of that government, and not only including those who were “under arms”, but also the innocent civilians who would be subject to any fomented civil unrest.

Hindsight is alleged to be 20 -20, but when it comes to history, vision too often is at a minimum blurred; and often simply blind.

The Church had - and has - a legitimate concern for truth and Truth; and heresy is a denial of Truth. So the Church had a legitimate concern with heresy (and keep in mind that the Arian Heresy was long lasting and created bitter divisions - to name one).

Likewise, the State had a legitimate concern for peace and order, and had enough memory to remember times where heretics caused major civil disorder, if not outright war. failing to understand both of these issues gives one to questioning history. And history is merely the historian’s election of what they consider to be most important, which leaves many, if not most, to evaluate facts in light of their own beliefs and prejudices. Thus the caveat when reading recollections concerning that time in history.

 

[Cassianus]

During the inquisitions, he state was itself confessional. It was not neutral with regards to religiosity. The state wasn’t looked at in the same way as today where we see the state as beurocratic institutions handling legislation & taxes. Instead, the state was basically the King & whoever he appointed. So the religiosity of the state was similar to that of an individual. The King was the head of a body which consisted of the people. The different stations; merchants, peasants, clergy & Knights were the limbs of this body. If a false doctrine spread in one limb of this body, it was viewed similarily to a disease spreading in one limb of an individual’s body - because all that concerned the nation as such: whether it was safe, rich or poor, in peace or at war - was always connected to the piety of the nation & ultimately the piety of the monarch.

This idea of what the state is was common for all European nations, Protestant, catholic & orthodox. It appears first in Platos Republic & it was shared between the states of the Middle Ages, renaissance & Ancient Greece & Rome.

The modern state is based on a fundamentally different question than the historical polity: 'what’s the worst thing that can happen & how can we prevent it?". Before the enlightenment the state instead asked “what’s the Ultimate Common Goal & how can we reach it?”. To the 1st the answer was usually civil war is worst & it’s prevented by making the state neutral & blind to creeds. To the 2nd the answer was usually “salvation” & it could only be reached through Christ.

All states of the west has accepted the enlightenment state model for various reasons, mostly 'cuz of the success of the examples of France & USA.

I would read the document as the church wants the state to recognize the true God officially, but doesn’t want to force individuals to adopt Catholicism because of respect to their free will endowed by God. In the end, I think the difference is due to the development of political philosophy, which doesn’t affect dogma of the Christian Faith other than in the way in which that dogma is expressed by states.

 

[codefro]

I would read the document as the church wants the state to recognize the true God officially, but doesn’t want to force individuals to adopt Catholicism because of respect to their free will endowed by God. In the end, I think the difference is due to the development of political philosophy, which doesn’t affect dogma of the Christian Faith other than in the way in which that dogma is expressed by states.

I agree with the main body of your response, but this part isn’t really accurate. The Catholic Church doesn’t just want a general belief in God and to minimize the rest of the details. That’s exactly the example of hermeneutics of rupture that Benedict XVI was explaining. The Catholic Church considers herself the true Church as established by Jesus Christ and as a communicator of the Sacraments to the world. Any opinion contrary to that is error. Therefore, as no man has the “right to be in error”, said person must be given the truth for him or her to accept or reject. That’s more in line of what the document says.

What I’m looking for though is squaring the document based off of the Church’s strategy in the past, and not where she finds herself now.

Personally, I don’t see secularism lasting much longer. It’s a weak system that has spread republicanism and relativism and will soon fall prey to dictatorship, or Islam. Catholicism will be the only force that can stop either of those. When it does, things will be different. We could well end up back with Catholic countries again. So, I don’t want this conversation to be “Secularism” is the answer that Vatican II called for. It’s not.

Sorry if that came off as standoff-ish, but just being blunt.

 

[Tomdstone]

What I’m looking for though is squaring the document based off of the Church’s strategy in the past, and not where she finds herself now.

I don’t know, but it seems to me that the tortures and the burning of people alive at the stake were somewhat extreme.

 

[codefro]

I don’t know, but it seems to me that the tortures and the burning of people alive at the stake were somewhat extreme.

Read my initial post. The Church did not do any of that, the state did. I am talking in terms of ecclesial action and not what the state does afterwards.

 

[1ke]

If this was endorsed by the Church, hypothetically it could in theory be endorsed again if the need were there.

Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition is today known as Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It didn’t go anywhere. It’s still right there in the Curia. There is always a need, because there are always those who are in error.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church did not do any of that, the state did.

So people accused of heresy were never tortured in the Inquisition by Catholic clerics ? And Catholics who publicly opposed burning at the stake were never excommunicated?

 

[codefro]

Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition is today known as Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It didn’t go anywhere. It’s still right there in the Curia. There is always a need, because there are always those who are in error.

Good point, 1ke.

 

[otjm]

I agree with the main body of your response, but this part isn’t really accurate. The Catholic Church doesn’t just want a general belief in God and to minimize the rest of the details. That’s exactly the example of hermeneutics of rupture that Benedict XVI was explaining. The Catholic Church considers herself the true Church as established by Jesus Christ and as a communicator of the Sacraments to the world. Any opinion contrary to that is error. Therefore, as no man has the “right to be in error”, said person must be given the truth for him or her to accept or reject. That’s more in line of what the document says.

What I’m looking for though is squaring the document based off of the Church’s strategy in the past, and not where she finds herself now.

Personally, I don’t see secularism lasting much longer. It’s a weak system that has spread republicanism and relativism and will soon fall prey to dictatorship, or Islam. Catholicism will be the only force that can stop either of those. When it does, things will be different. We could well end up back with Catholic countries again. So, I don’t want this conversation to be “Secularism” is the answer that Vatican II called for. It’s not.

Sorry if that came off as standoff-ish, but just being blunt.

I think, if the Church is going to deal with Islam - and it has not made much in the way of inroads, for example, in Saudi Arabia, as churches are banned - then the Church is going to need to start buying 338 Lapuas and teaching marksmanship… ISIS being the current most virulent form, not that Hamas and Hezbollah are junior varsity.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think, if the Church is going to deal with Islam - and it has not made much in the way of inroads, for example, in Saudi Arabia, as churches are banned - then the Church is going to need to start buying 338 Lapuas and teaching marksmanship…

That is not what the Holy Father recommends. The Holy Father has kissed the Koran.

 

[dmar198]

So people accused of heresy were never tortured in the Inquisition by Catholic clerics ? And Catholics who publicly opposed burning at the stake were never excommunicated?

It is my understanding that some Catholic clerics used torture in the Inquisition, and that they thereby violated Catholic doctrine. Re: burning at the stake, I am unaware of any Catholic who was excommunicated for opposing burning at the stake. Can you give an example?

That is not what the Holy Father recommends. The Holy Father has kissed the Koran.

I don’t think this pope has kissed the Quran. He did suggest that fighting against ISIS is a moral duty though:

“With terrorism one must fight, but I repeat what I said in my previous trip: when an unjust aggressor must be stopped, it must be done with an international consensus.” source

“One nation alone cannot determine how to stop an unjust aggressor. … To stop an unjust aggressor is a right of humanity, but it is also a right of the aggressor to be stopped in order not to do evil.” source

“In reaffirming that it is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor, I wish to reiterate, moreover, that the problem cannot be resolved solely through a military response.” source

 

[dmar198]

Disclaimer: I am really not looking for hot-headed bullet responses, but looking for some good dialogue to understand the subject

I want to start out by saying I enjoy the documents issued by Vatican II and there is very little I struggle with.

The one document I struggle with the most is DH. It is a very confusing document in that it seems that the document has a difficult time expressing its ideas in a formulaic fashion.

The three points of contrast in the document I sum up as such:

1. Nobody has a right to be in and to remain in error.
2. All nations have the obligation to offer up public worship to God.
3. No person can be coersed to change their faith (proselytism).

If this there is more that can be added to the list, I welcome it.

Anyways, following St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, we need to read all the documents of Vatican II in light of Church tradition to understand their full meaning and hermeneutic. That being said: I wanted to discuss the Inquisition. The inquisition was approved of by the Popes in their day. … If this was endorsed by the Church, hypothetically it could in theory be endorsed again if the need were there. So then upon understanding the hermeneutic of DH, how must we understand the message of the document to enlighten our understanding of proselytism if the inquisition was a process and organization that gained full endorsement by the Catholic Church?

Let me make clear that I think the Inquisition can be defended as, on the whole, a good thing. In fact, I think it was a noble institution, with a holy purpose (saving souls), and I think it made notable improvements in judicial theory and practice (it affirmed the rights of the accused, it kept the records of trials, it allowed for defense attorneys, it demanded a high standard of proof on the part of the State, it set rules for the procedures of courts – and, perhaps most importantly, the Inquisition, at the command of Canon Law, strongly urged the States not to harm convicted heretics).

Nevertheless, even though I think the Inquisition can be defended, I want to make clear that I do not think any Catholic is required to think so. It is my understanding that one can be a good Catholic and think that every Inquisition was an unholy abuse, with all their parts. The use of the Inquisition at best appears to fall into the domain of discipline, not doctrine, and it is my understanding that a discipline can conceivably be an evil abuse, unless it is commanded of the entire Church. Therefore, unless I’ve missed something, one could take that line with regard to the Inquisitions.

I bring that up because you said “If this was endorsed by the Church, hypothetically it could in theory be endorsed again if the need were there.” – Not if the Inquisitions were sinful. If they were sinful (again I don’t think they were sinful, at least not on the whole), then the only way the pope could endorse them again would be by sinning (or through innocent ignorance, if he thought the Inquisition was a good thing and if he was wrong about that through no fault of his own).

That said, I do not think the Inquisition was contrary to #3 on your list of the primary points of Dignitatis Humanae. One reason is because it dealt with Catholics rather than non-Catholics. The Church maintains even in today’s current Code of Canon Law that bishops have a right to use coercive measures to keep Catholics from departing from the faith: “Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.” source

The above document, in context, says that the Church may coerce its members by both spiritual and temporal means. The same Code of Canon Law also says: “Can. 748.2 No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.” source

I think Dignitatis Humanae is forbidding people from coercing others to embrace the Catholic faith. It does not forbid bishops from coercing their flock to keep the faith. And that is what I think the Inquisition was about, though I think it was marred by the use of torture.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[Genesis315]

As dmar198 mentioned, Dignitatis Humanae does not deal with the Church’s coercive power over her members.

Note, Dignitatis Humanae does not make religious liberty absolute, but rather it is limited and public authority can rightly limit its exercise. Here’s what the CCC says about those limits:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Note how the limits are based on the common good, which is objective (not positivist) and includes the supernatural end of man (it is not naturalist) (See also CCC 1924 to 1925 for the elements of the common good). Since public authority exists to ensure the common good (see CCC 1898), it has the power to limit false religious activity when it is a detriment to the common good. The limits necessary to preserve and promote the common good are going to vary depending on the circumstances, the make-up of a populace, etc.

 

[Southwell]

Let’s start with the Spanish inquisition. That’s the one that gets all the flack. The Jews were expelled from Spain following the reconquista. There were many false conversions, those who said they were Catholic but were, in fact, practicing Jews. There were identified, and given the opportunity to repent. Many others were closet protestants, heratics, or secret Muslims. These as well were ferreted out. Bottom line, this is not proselytizing! The subjects of the inquisition were austensively Catholic. This is not to say there were not abuses, there wete, as is true of any such program.This was after all in the wake of a long and bloody war.

The inquisition existed in all Catholic countries,and, in fact, exists today, but all we hear of is Spain.

 

[otjm]

That is not what the Holy Father recommends. The Holy Father has kissed the Koran.

Oh boy, here we go again.

John Paul 2 was dealing at the time with clerics who were not as extreme as those who are the prods to ISIS, and the Taliban, and the other extremist groups well known for inciting people to torque themselves off in public squares, etc.

John Paul 2 also worked with the more centrist clerics in uniting to defeat the U.N. push to require third world countries to adopt abortion and enforced birth control.

The subject matter is about the extremist groups within Islam. Dragging up the incident is irrelevant to the discussion of how militant, extremist Islam will have to be dealt with.

 

[thinkandmull]

Read my initial post. The Church did not do any of that, the state did. I am talking in terms of ecclesial action and not what the state does afterwards.

Ye but the Church approved it. They didn’t want the blood on their own hands, but they gave the people over to be killed by a horrible painful death. The Church “doesn’t want to force individuals to adopt Catholicism”, but that is what the Inquisition amounted to. The Catechism says (2298): “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture… In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

So the Church now recognizes that its own tribunals of the past were contrary to the right to bodily integrity.

The idea that a person could in **good faith ** believe a heresy and still pretend to be a Catholic… well, that was considered a fantasy by the Inquisition. Think for yourself: “would I put someone to death because of their belief”?

 

[thinkandmull]

It is my understanding that some Catholic clerics used torture in the Inquisition, and that they thereby violated Catholic doctrine. Re: burning at the stake, I am unaware of any Catholic who was excommunicated for opposing burning at the stake. Can you give an example? I don’t think this pope has kissed the Quran. He did suggest that fighting against ISIS is a moral duty though:

“With terrorism one must fight, but I repeat what I said in my previous trip: when an unjust aggressor must be stopped, it must be done with an international consensus.” source

“One nation alone cannot determine how to stop an unjust aggressor. … To stop an unjust aggressor is a right of humanity, but it is also a right of the aggressor to be stopped in order not to do evil.” source

“In reaffirming that it is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor, I wish to reiterate, moreover, that the problem cannot be resolved solely through a military response.” source

The Curia affirmed that John Paul II once kissed the Koran, but it was an act of respect to the Muslims present. Someone from the Middle East told me that it is not unheard of for a Muslim to Kiss the Bible to show respect to a Christian friend

 

[thinkandmull]

Let me make clear that I think the Inquisition can be defended as, on the whole, a good thing. In fact, I think it was a noble institution, with a holy purpose (saving souls), and I think it made notable improvements in judicial theory and practice (it affirmed the rights of the accused, it kept the records of trials, it allowed for defense attorneys, it demanded a high standard of proof on the part of the State, it set rules for the procedures of courts – and, perhaps most importantly, the Inquisition, at the command of Canon Law, strongly urged the States not to harm convicted heretics).

Nevertheless, even though I think the Inquisition can be defended, I want to make clear that I do not think any Catholic is required to think so. It is my understanding that one can be a good Catholic and think that every Inquisition was an unholy abuse, with all their parts. The use of the Inquisition at best appears to fall into the domain of discipline, not doctrine, and it is my understanding that a discipline can conceivably be an evil abuse, unless it is commanded of the entire Church. Therefore, unless I’ve missed something, one could take that line with regard to the Inquisitions.

I bring that up because you said “If this was endorsed by the Church, hypothetically it could in theory be endorsed again if the need were there.” – Not if the Inquisitions were sinful. If they were sinful (again I don’t think they were sinful, at least not on the whole), then the only way the pope could endorse them again would be by sinning (or through innocent ignorance, if he thought the Inquisition was a good thing and if he was wrong about that through no fault of his own).

That said, I do not think the Inquisition was contrary to #3 on your list of the primary points of Dignitatis Humanae. One reason is because it dealt with Catholics rather than non-Catholics. The Church maintains even in today’s current Code of Canon Law that bishops have a right to use coercive measures to keep Catholics from departing from the faith: “Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.” source

The above document, in context, says that the Church may coerce its members by both spiritual and temporal means. The same Code of Canon Law also says: “Can. 748.2 No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.” source

I think Dignitatis Humanae is forbidding people from coercing others to embrace the Catholic faith. It does not forbid bishops from coercing their flock to keep the faith. And that is what I think the Inquisition was about, though I think it was marred by the use of torture.

I hope that helps. God bless!

There is a huge difference between “penal sanctions” and torture (even if it was milder than the states use of it). Torture amounts to forcing people to be “full Catholics”.