Inquisition

[mercygate]

Hospitaller:

I’m currently embroiled in an argument with a bloke who thinks the Inquisitions were authorized to use rape to extract confessions.

I’m not even sure if I should be arguing with him, but he’s not a bad sort otherwise, so would anyone like to recommend the best way to refute a claim like this?

Ask him where he got that idea. He’s making the claim; he needs to demonstrate it.

 

[Hospitaller]

mercygate:

Ask him where he got that idea. He’s making the claim; he needs to demonstrate it.

I’m working at it. He’s a hard sucker to pin down.

 

[Petergee]

stanley123:

Wouldn’t this be classified as a form of forced conversion? If a person is forced to convert to Catholicism, would it be fair to torture that person if he reverts to his previous tradition?

It would never be fair to torture anybody. The inquisition on rare occasions (much less often than ALL civil courts of that time) used torture to obtain evidence as a last resort when all other means had failed. The Inquisition wanted to know the person’s spiritual state. They realised that unlike a civil crime like robbing a house, torture was very unlikely to lead to the truth.

 

[Augustine]

ICXCNIKA:

But, can we judge the future according to the standards of the present?

The past was, the present is and the future is not, yet.

 

[Catholic2003]

I’ve been thinking about this some more, and the following are the only possibilities that I can see:

• The previous Church teaching on torture has undergone doctrinal development into the current Church teaching.
• The Church’s actions during the Inquisition did not constitute a teaching on the morality of torture.
• The previous Church teaching on torture was not infallible, and was in fact wrong.

I thought about including some form of moral relativism (e.g., “limited” torture was okay back then because everyone else was doing worse types of torture, but now it’s not okay because we know better), but I couldn’t see how to square that with the Church’s teaching on moral absolutes.

 

[stanley123]

Petergee:

It would never be fair to torture anybody. .

That’s what I thought, but it seems that His Holiness Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture upone heretics and that torture had a recognised place in the inquisition.
Also, I doubt it would be fair to force someone to convert to Catholicism, and then torture them if they later decide that they want to revert back to their original faith.

 

[Petergee]

stanley123:

That’s what I thought, but it seems that His Holiness Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture upone heretics and that torture had a recognised place in the inquisition.
Also, I doubt it would be fair to force someone to convert to Catholicism, and then torture them if they later decide that they want to revert back to their original faith.

I’m sure you won’t get any argument from anyone here about any of that, but what’s your point?

Are you saying that you think the Inquisition tortured people simply BECAUSE they were heretics? Or that they even tortured people simply because they WANTED to revert to their original faith? Or that the Inquisition forcibly stopped people from returning to their original faith? If you think that you are wrong on all counts.

 

[stanley123]

Petergee:

…what’s your point?
.

My point is that His Holiness Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture upone heretics and that torture had a recognised place in the inquisition.
And I question the fairness of a procedure according to which someone is forced to convert to Catholicism, and then if they later revert back to their original faith they are tortured.
Not everyone was tortured or burned at the stake.
See:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7016/Jews2.htm#Index

“This page provides some of the names of Conversos who were tried in New Spain (México) by the Spanish Inquisition for relapsing into Judaism.

…Not all the persons tried by the Inquisition were burned at the stake, some were lucky and got away with wearing a San Benito, or serving a jail sentence, but many lost their properties and died in prison. Furthermore, in New Spain there were Conversos in all walks of life. Some of them practiced Judaism and were caught, some were not. On the other hand, there were also Conversos who did not practice Judaism, but they were falsely accused of practicing the religion of their ancestors”

Or see:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

“First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto-da-fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned.”

 

[Axion]

stanley123:

Generally, I would oppose the use of torture to extract confessions. I don;t know why these forms of torture were approved. they seem to me to be very painful.

• Sawing: Heretics were hung upside-down and sawed apart down the middle, starting at the crotch.
• Disembowelment: Not the nice kind of disembowelment, where a samurai slits you wide open like a fish and you die in moments. No, that’s not good enough for the Inquisition. A small hole is cut in the gut, then the intestines are drawn out slowly and carefully, keeping the victim alive for as much of the process as possible.
• The Stake: Depending on how unrepentant a heretic might be, the process of burning at the stake could vary wildly. For instance, a fairly repentant heretic might be strangled, then burned. An entirely unrepentant heretic could be burned over the course of hours, using green wood or simply by placing them on top of hot coals and leaving them there until well done.

I don’t know where you’re getting all this rubbish from - but it seems to be anti-catholic sites.

Contrary to legend and propaganda, the inquisition was limited to one use of torture per prisoner, and this was limited to the unbloody form, strappando, which was the raising of the prisoner by his arms, strapped behind his back.

 

[Axion]

stanley123:

My point is that His Holiness Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture upone heretics and that torture had a recognised place in the inquisition.
And I question the fairness of a procedure according to which someone is forced to convert to Catholicism, and then if they later revert back to their original faith they are tortured.

No-one was forced to convert to Catholicism. The Spanish monarchy banished non-Catholics from Spain. If people converted to Catholicism so that they could continue to stay in Spain, that was their choice.

…Not all the persons tried by the Inquisition were burned at the stake, some were lucky and got away with wearing a San Benito, or serving a jail sentence,

Not “some”. Try “the vast majority”. Kamen shows that only about 1-2% of those tried by the Spanish Inquisition were ever killed.

Or see:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

“First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto-da-fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned.”

The figures on the site you quote are very untrustworthy, being up to 10 times what modern academic research has found the actual numbers to be.

 

[Axion]

Here’s a better link on the Inquisition:

nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

 

[gus]

Aren’t you forgetting the Times at which this occurred

Spain had Just driven out the Moors after hundred’s of years of
Occupation. The Jews were seen as allies of the Moors
(seem hard to believe in today’s world)
A heretic or one who falsly Converted was seen by secular authoritities as traitor. Treason(Heresy) was punishable by death.
Torture and corporal punishment were ligitimate practices of the times.everywhere in the world up until the 20th century
It’s somewhat dishonest to go back 500 years and apply current
standard practices to another historical period.
Pesonally I don’t believe in Capital Punishment for Murder
But the Majority of the people in the US do.
When you think about it Heresy is a much worse crime than murder, If you believe in eternal damnation.
What can be worse than leading others into perdition.
In our secular world there is little or no belief in hell.
If this is your frame of reference than heresy is almost a freedom.
As for me an any other Christain Its remains a crime.

 

[stanley123]

Axion:

I don’t know where you’re getting all this rubbish from .

It was the link given by the OP.

 

[stanley123]

gus:

Pesonally I don’t believe in Capital Punishment for Murder
.

I would say that if you are going to have it, it is better to apply a less painful method, such as injection under sedatives, etc. I am opposed to the more painful methods which use torture and burning alive at the stake.

 

[stanley123]

Axion:

The figures on the site you quote are very untrustworthy, being up to 10 times what modern academic research has found the actual numbers to be.

Still, I would not favor burning people alive at the stake, or torturing people as I believe this to be quite painful. It appears that these people were first forced to convert to Catholicism, and then when they had doubts about it, they were burned alive at the stake? This doesn’t seem right.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

stanley123:

Still, I would not favor burning people alive at the stake, or torturing people as I believe this to be quite painful. It appears that these people were first forced to convert to Catholicism, and then when they had doubts about it, they were burned alive at the stake? This doesn’t seem right.

(1) Spain was responsible for forcing the conversion, not the Church - i.e. convert or leave policy.
(2) Spain was responsible for burning heretics at the stake, for the stated purpose of maintaining civil order.
(3) The role of the Church was to ascertain whether or not a person was or was not a heretic.
I think it’s safe to say that we all agree that torture is bad, and so is forcing someone to convert. But your attempt to connect these facts with the Church in a way that has not already been freely admitteed by Catholics here is not supported.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Augustine:

The past was, the present is and the future is not, yet.

But if the future is not, yet. What is the “yet.” In what capacity does the future exist, if it exists at all? How can we talk about something that doesn’t exist? Do we have any evidence that there is a future?

 

[stanley123]

Robert in SD:

your attempt to connect these facts with the Church in a way that has not already been freely admitteed by Catholics here is not supported.

What particular statement of mine are you referring to here that you specifically disagree with?

 

[Augustine]

Catholic2003:

I’ve been thinking about this some more, and the following are the only possibilities that I can see:

1. 
   *]The previous Church teaching on torture has undergone doctrinal development into the current Church teaching.
   *]The Church’s actions during the Inquisition did not constitute a teaching on the morality of torture.
   *]The previous Church teaching on torture was not infallible, and was in fact wrong.

1. 1. 
      *]Was it a teaching at all?
      *]OK, the behavior of some popes didn’t either.
      *]But has it ever been taught as, say, that on capital punishment?
      
      
      Catholic2003:
      

      I thought about including some form of moral relativism (e.g., “limited” torture was okay back then because everyone else was doing worse types of torture, but now it’s not okay because we know better), but I couldn’t see how to square that with the Church’s teaching on moral absolutes.

      So it seems that we’re down to considering whether there was a teaching at all or just a procedural rule.
      
      I confess myself devoid of any insights about the matter. Comments are welcome.
      
      

 

[mamabear7]

stanley123:

It is agreed that we oppose torture, but historically, was it not true that in 1252, Pope Innocent IV approved the infliction of torture on heretics to extract confessions?
See the Catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

Remember that leading someone into heresy is worse than murder because it murders the soul. Heresy can take you out of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, and send you to hell.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
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.”