Inquisition

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Stanley123;

Is this what you are referring to in your earlier comment about Popes “approving” of execution and torture as discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishops co-operation. And if, on the strength of their papal jurisdiction, inquisitors occasionally manifested too great an inclination to act independently of episcopal authority it was precisely the popes who kept them within right bounds. As early as 1254 Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the episcopal consent. Similar orders were issued by Urban IV in 1262, Clement IV in 1265, and Gregory X in 1273, until at last Boniface VIII and Clement V solemnly declared null and void all judgments issued in trials concerning faith, unless delivered with the approval anti [sic] co-operation of the bishops. The popes always upheld with earnestness the episcopal authority, and sought to free the inquisitional tribunals from every kind of arbitrariness and caprice.

Perhaps I’m misreading the entry, but it seems to me that the Holy Fathers were not “approving” of of execution and torture as much as they were attempting - by removal of the final authority to the bishops - to limit the inquisitional authorities from quickly handing over accused heretics to secular authority for torture and death.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

JFT:

I know that this may sound whiney and knit-picking, but has anyone noticed some of the “hyper-inflated” numbers given for those whom the Inquisition has “killed”/“burned at the stake”? I know that Spain’s Inquisition was more politically motivated, but come on! Ninety-five MILLION deaths due to the Inquisition? Whatever happened to “truth in advertising”?

I’ve heard 100 million and 150 million (from a SDA pastor) deaths by the inquisitions. And the sad thing is I think both of them beleived not only that it did happen but, in the populations of those times and areas were able to sustain such a hit to the population (along with the black plauge, wars and all that).

 

[adnauseum]

Robert in SD and Montie Claunch - excellent work both of you.

I can’t convey to you how heartening it is to see others care so much about defending our Church.

God bless you both. Thank you.

 

[Catholic2003]

Augustine:

Back in the Middle Ages, for similar reasons, torture would an accepatable method of protecting further damage.

From CCC 2297:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

Unlike the CCC discussion of the death penalty, there is no indication that any circumstances make the use of torture acceptable.

From Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past:

5.3. The Use of Force in the Service of Truth

To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors.

 

[dancus]

Eden:

I would read this article before responding:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Black Legend was created by Protestants to legitimize their claims that they were part of a “hidden” church that had been persecuted for centuries alongside the Catholic Church.

Also, the Church never burned anyone at the stake. It was the secular authorities who killed the heretics.

BTW - Hi Stanley!

The last paragraph is very interesting. So interesting it has a name “The Nurnberg Defense.” Invoked by the Concentration Camps guards, “I was only following orders when I gassed those inmates”.The site web site mentioned I never knew existed. The atrocities mentioned I have never come across. However the rack, hot iron, floggings, burning at the stake are historical fact. Yes the burnings were carried out by the secular authorty. However at the behest ol Thomas de Torquemada. Appointed by Pope Sixtus IV as his Papal Delegate in this matter and with full authorty to deal with the request of the Spanish King. Who requested the Vaticans aid in ridding Spain of Moors and Jews. Dominican Friar and jolly fellow Torquemada set to his task with burning zeal. (Pardon the pun.) The Church has been guilty of mistakes and it’s in everyones best interests to admit them and move on. Putting spin on the mistakes only brings additional problems that surface to bite you on the butt. Dan

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Another good book on the Inquisition would be Henry Kamen’s book, The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision.

I always get a kick when protestants say that the Inquisition was responsible for the deaths of 60, 70, 80, 100, 100++, “Bible believers”. Common sense (or 15 min. in the library) would tell you that Europe didn’t even have that many people to kill at the time, especially when you confine that to the areas that the Inquisition had power in (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the Spanish New World, etc.). Wow, you have to wonder why seemingly half-inteligent people would swallow such an outrageous lie, save for intense hatred of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[stanley123]

Robert in SD:

Hi Stanley123;

Is this what you are referring to in your earlier comment about Popes “approving” of execution and torture as discussed in the Catholic Encyclopedia?
.

No. You have to scroll down about 7 paragraphs from this point to read:
“Torture “was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull “Ad exstirpanda” of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum – i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life.””

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

From CCC 2297…
:
Unlike the CCC discussion of the death penalty, there is no indication that any circumstances make the use of torture acceptable.:

I thought that development of doctrine was supposed to flow from what was always taught before, and not to be a radical break with a past doctrine or teaching?

Is the current teaching of the RCC now that the infliction of severe bodily pain is intrinsically evil? Is that what is taught now? But this was not what was taught in the past:

Lv. 20:1- Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: If any man of the children Israel, or of the strangers that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let him die. The people of the land shall stone him.

Lv. 20:14 -If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime. He shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you.

Lv. 21:9 -If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom and dishonour the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire.

Deut 25:2 - And if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes: they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them. According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be:

And according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Torture “was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull “Ad exstirpanda” of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum – i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life.”

If torture is intrinsically evil, why was it used in the Old Testament and why was it authorized by more than one Pope?

 

[Petergee]

ComradeAndrei:

Another good book on the Inquisition would be Henry Kamen’s book, The Spanish Inquisition, A Historical Revision.

I always get a kick when protestants say that the Inquisition was responsible for the deaths of 60, 70, 80, 100, 100++, “Bible believers”. Common sense (or 15 min. in the library) would tell you that Europe didn’t even have that many people to kill at the time, especially when you confine that to the areas that the Inquisition had power in (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the Spanish New World, etc.). Wow, you have to wonder why seemingly half-inteligent people would swallow such an outrageous lie, save for intense hatred of the Holy Catholic Church.

I understand the current consensus among mainstream secular historians is that a grand total of about 3000 people were killed following adverse findings by the Inquisition. That’s less than one per month. An infringement of human rights, certainly. But why do some people focus on this relatively minor infringement of centuries ago when atrocities thousands of times worse are happening in our own time?

 

[Catholic2003]

stanley123:

I thought that development of doctrine was supposed to flow from what was always taught before, and not to be a radical break with a past doctrine or teaching?

…

If torture is intrinsically evil, why was it used in the Old Testament and why was it authorized by more than one Pope?

Good questions. As Catholics, we are obligated to follow the Magisterium, which is the living teaching authority of the Church. So that rules out believing that torture is acceptable.

As to how to reconcile what the Church teaches with historical Church practices and actions, I’m sure the theologians will have all sorts of ideas about that.

 

[kaycee]

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. "

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I understand the current consensus among mainstream secular historians is that a grand total of about 3000 people were killed following adverse findings by the Inquisition. That’s less than one per month. An infringement of human rights, certainly. But why do some people focus on this relatively minor infringement of centuries ago when atrocities thousands of times worse are happening in our own time?

That is basically what Kamen’s book says. How many people did the protestants burn or execute in other ways for “witchcraft”, or “heresy” (either a Catholic or brand of heretic contrary to their own heresy)? How about the secular authorities, how many people did they execute? The times often called for harsh punishment, it seems bad to modern eyes but at the time it was necessary in some instances. Sure, abuses occured-but when have they not?

*Also, in my last post I meant 60, 70, etc. MILLIONS. Just to be sure… *

 

[Catholic2003]

Petergee:

But why do some people focus on this relatively minor infringement of centuries ago when atrocities thousands of times worse are happening in our own time?

I believe that some people focus on the Inquisition because they are trying very hard to understand the Church’s infallibility (and the Church’s role as a moral teacher) in light of the events that took place. After all, Hitler and Stalin each certainly killed a lot more innocent victims, but neither of them claimed to be infallible. (Or if they were crazy enough that they did, nobody took the claim seriously.)

 

[Singinbeauty]

Catholic2003:

I believe that some people focus on the Inquisition because they are trying very hard to understand the Church’s infallibility (and the Church’s role as a moral teacher) in light of the events that took place. After all, Hitler and Stalin each certainly killed a lot more innocent victims, but neither of them claimed to be infallible. (Or if they were crazy enough that they did, nobody took the claim seriously.)

I think you hit the nail on the head here… Since the catholic church claims that it is infallible and that the popes are infallible it is hard for those of us who aren’t catholic to see how something or someone infallible could allow those things to happen. Whether or not it was a government using the church the church still let the government do these things in it’s name.

 

[AquinasXVI]

The Verdi opera that vilified the Dominicans based on the King of Spain and his dead son is part of the propaganda. None of it was true other than the king and his dead son.

There are civil records in Spain that prisoners purposely blasphemed so they can be sent to the Dominican prisons because of better living conditions in the Inquisiton Prisons.

Anti-clerical printing of outrageous tortures were propaganda that is today taken as historical fact.

BBC has a great presentation of all this, it was shown here in teh US by EWTN.

Going off tangent:

We may have the same situation in 200 years when history looks back at The DaVinci Code and take that as the reality of the church at this time. This is why fiction can become the poison in the well of true history. It happened for the Inquisition.

The truth only need to be twisted by one degree and it’s already a lie. This pattern goes all the way back to Adam and Eve believing that twisted one percent.

in XT.

 

[mercygate]

Singinbeauty:

I think you hit the nail on the head here… Since the catholic church claims that it is infallible and that the popes are infallible it is hard for those of us who aren’t catholic to see how something or someone infallible could allow those things to happen. Whether or not it was a government using the church the church still let the government do these things in it’s name.

Infallible in faith and morals.

Nobody today condones torture (even if, as the Inquisition demanded, it must not take life or limb or endanger life), and thus we challenge the very purpose of the Inquisition. But the historic context *does *significantly change the temperature of the assessment: EVERYBODY (including Protestants) believed that heresy was worse than plague; that it was treason against the state because the state and the faith were united; that it killed souls. People really BELIEVED in God, Heaven and Hell – unlike our world today where even the faithful function more like practical atheists.

Remember also that this was an age when people undertook for themselves painful physical penances and mortifications (fasting, hairshirts, the flagellum). The whole orientation and philosophy concerning mortal flesh versus the immortal soul were on a different historical page. The tactics of the Inquisition come more under the heading of discipline than doctrine. We would not today challenge the initial premise that heresy is the most pernicious of all evils. But we certainly deal with it differently!

 

[Evan]

Concerning torture, when did we stop using it?

In this country it was still being used to get at the Truth (ie a confession), legally, in the 20’s and 30’s. It was believed that it was a proper tool of police enforcement and investigation to use torture to extract truth from reluctant witnesses.

In the 21st century we are horrified, but you would be accused of laxness if you failed to use it 100 years ago.

 

[Catilieth]

In asking the question “is torture intrinsically evil”, the question also begs “is slavery intrinsically evil?”. What if you answer yes? In speaking of the infallibility of the church, if it condoned one intrinsic evil (torture) , what if it condoned the other (slavery)?

I would have to answer that none other than St. Paul himself condoned slavery; he returned a runaway slave to his master! Never once was anything said against slavery in the Gospels, and in fact slaves were explicitly told to obey their masters.

It took 1500 years before Christian realize that slavery was an offense against human dignity, a dignity derived from our brotherhood in Christ Jesus. And where do you think that this realization took place? What country first did away with slavery, outlawing slavery as being contrary to Christian charity???
None other than Spain!!

Doctrine is developed as our understanding of the Gospels increases. And Church teachings must be view in context with the historical reality in which they existed. There may come a day when we are considered grossly barbaric for imprisoning convicted felons.

 

[stanley123]

Catilieth:

Doctrine is developed as our understanding of the Gospels increases…

Is the development of doctrine a smoothly operating enterprise, so that it slowly builds on what went before, increasing our understanding of past definitions? Or can it be a radical break with the past so that what was intrinsically morally correct at one point in time suddenly becomes an intrinsically objective grievous wrong and intrinsically moral evil at a later point in time?

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Is the development of doctrine a smoothly operating enterprise, so that it slowly builds on what went before, increasing our understanding of past definitions? Or can it be a radical break with the past so that what was intrinsically morally correct at one point in time suddenly becomes an intrinsically objective grievous wrong and intrinsically moral evil at a later point in time?

This question is a good one but is not quite to the point here since this issue is one of discipline, not doctrine. Whether abuses occurred is another issue (do we condemn fire because it gets out of control?). The use of physical “persuasion” – not taking life or endangering life or limb – would not be “intrinsically evil.” and those were the rules of the Inquisition.