Is wishing for the Holy Inquisition sinful?

[Milesius]

It is impossible to convert by force, sure you can hold a gun to someone’s head and they will say they convert, but inside there will have been no conversion, inside you will have created an even greater enemy

An enemy that will be all the more dangerous by been inside the Church.

We need a stronger Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but not to deal with those outside the Church but to deal with the enemies within, the successors of Iscariot. That has always been the role of the Inquisition, to root out fake Catholics, not to convert anyone.

Carrying out the work of evangelisation is the work of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and thy know as well as I that you cannot force an internal conversion, it just does not work, a real conversion can only happen freely and it is the only kind worth having.

 

[bingbang]

It is impossible to convert by force, sure you can hold a gun to someone’s head and they will say they convert, but inside there will have been no conversion, inside you will have created an even greater enemy

An enemy that will be all the more dangerous by been inside the Church.

EXACTLY. If a Muslim came and said you have to convert to Islam or you will be killed, a lot of Catholics would “convert” to Islam but would end up HATING Islam and only putting on a show.

 

[Roy5]

Questionhaver

Are you Swiss. living in Switzerland? If so, I want to say how much I admire your country. For one thing Catholics and Protestants seem to live admirably together. And I love the beauty of the Swiss Alps, though I've had the privilege of visiting there only twice, and once the mountains were enshrouded in fog. And then, of course, Switzerland has been wise and shrewd enough to stay out of the disastrous wars that caused such misery for so many. 

 There can be vigorous debate about the 'Holy' Inquisition. The whole concept is alien to me, as well as repulsive. How can a 'Christian' church compel people to believe the way it demands? As I said in an earlier posting, this has been a stain on Catholicism that still is a serious scar on its history. Maybe Huss (or Hus), Wycliffe and Waldo were not persecuted by the precise Inquisition, which often is associated mainly with Spain, but the spirit of the Inquisition, its demand for doctrinal conformity or else, set the stage for so many evils of the 13th to 17th centuries.

  I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage. My father's side was French-Canadian Catholic, my mother's old New England Puritan Protestant. On Mom's side, her ancestors were Belgians who embraced Calvinism. That ancestral grandfather was summoned before the city council at Ghent for his heresy, so he and his family fled to France that very night. Once toleration of Protestants in France came to an end, they fled to England where they joined the Puritans. A grandson migrated to New England, etc.

  We need to get beyond this bitterness from past history. Catholics and Protestants differ, which doesn't trouble me for a minute. "Think and let think" is my conviction. No one has all the answers when it comes to this massive, miraculous and mysterious universe. We should not be enemies but allies in a battle to promote the gospel of Christ, which emphasizes love of God and of one another. There are common enemies out there that really threaten humankind.

 God bless all of his children, of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier.

 

[Rence]

God isn’t a democracy. Nor are His entity and His teachings subject to personal preferrence.
As much as I love democracy as a way the state works (I’m Swiss), as much do I reject it in my faith. Truth is never a matter of majority or interpretation. Either something is true, or it isn’t. And no matter how much you want it to be different, it won’t ever be.
Just look at what damage liberalism has already caused to our society … but maybe that’s just me.
I may want to agree with you on the celibacy, then again, it’s a honourable commitment the clergy chose and an ancient tradition.

No, God is not a democracy, Catholicism is not a democracy. But He gave everyone Free Will. Free to listen to the Good News of Jesus – or not. He never directed us to take ones Free Will away and force them to be Catholic – and yes, it would have to be by force. Yes, He and His entity and teachings are subject to personal preference. No where in the CCC does it say to force people to be Catholic. Being Catholic and following Catholic rules is a choice that one makes, not something to be imposed…especially by force.

If you want to covert people to Catholicism you have to spread the Word and pray for those to receive it well and follow it. And if they don’t, you have little else to do but move on while saying a prayer for them.

What I would want, though, is an organization uniting all of Christianity - by force if need be. Because if you think about it, all those “denominations” that once split from the Catholic Church are in one way or the other “misleading others about the faith”.
The Hl.Church, on the other hand, by her contemporary passive position and in allowing heresy to abide is putting thousands, if not millions, of lives in jeopardy.
Furthermore, unity is the most simple form of defence.

There is nothing the Catholic Church can do about people not wanting to be Catholic without violating the rules and laws set down by God Himself. Uniting all of Christianity by force is evil. In fact, they can do very little about someone who is Catholic but who chooses not to follow the rules of the Church. The only thing they can do is deny them the Eucharist, and there is some question about that as well.

So what I’m indeed asking, is:

Originally Posted by Questionhaver
So in a nutshell, I believe that had the Hl.Inquisition never ended but instead ensured unity throughout the Church to this very day, the world would be a better place. And I’d wish for a reinstitutation of a similar ecclesiastical organization.
Is it wrong for me to do so?
I’m worried I may be commiting a sin (anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disregarding the commandment of love, haughtiness, …) but remain unsure.
Should I seek help?

Yes, it’s wrong to wish that the Catholic Church would forcibly take over the world by making everyone Catholic and subject to Catholic rules and laws. If you feel anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disrgard of the commandment to love or hautiness just because an individual chooses to not be Catholic, then you should talk to a priest and yes you should seek help, for your own sake.

 

[Sideline]

Well, as one who would likely be tortured if the inquisition returned, I’m fairly disgusted by the idea.

Although, maybe I’m over reacting. Maybe they’d only threaten to torture me, or sentence me to life imprisonment instead of burning me. Even if they tortured me, it’d be for my own good, right? Wearing a mark that would make me a pariah doesn’t sound all that bad, after all, it’d only be for a couple of years. I’m sure that the community I live in wouldn’t have any problem employing me, or letting me continue my education. It’s not like there association with me would impugn on them after all. Odds are they would only question my former friends, possibly under duress, but maybe only with the threat of it.

Oh, who am I kidding? I am not nearly strong-willed enough to put myself in jeopardy like that. I’d probably keep my lack of faith to myself while making pious shows of receiving sacraments I thought were stupid and meaningless. I don’t see a lot of point in them now (other than as a psychological comfort to the faithful), but I think I would be much more hostile if I had to participate against my will. I only hope I could resist the temptation to abuse the system. I mean really, the smartest thing for me to do would be to climb as far up the ecclesiastical ladder as I could. People would be much less likely to check up on a bishop than they would just a common Joe Schmo.

That would be kind of sweet, when I think about it. With the threat of the Inquisition, church attendance and donations would be way up. There would be lots extra to go around. Fancy clothes, nice home, and I doubt I’d have any problems getting a mistress. Power attracts after all, and I can be fairly charming to boot. The only worry I can see is to keep from snickering when I say, “Corpus Christi”.

You know what? Sounds good, I’m on board!

 

[Milesius]

Well, as one who would likely be tortured if the inquisition returned, I’m fairly disgusted by the idea.

That is actually very unlikely, you would never even fall under the jurisdiction of the inquisition as you openly admit you are not a Catholic and the inquisition predominately dealt with people ether pretending to be Catholic or claiming to be the true Christians. The inquisition was predominately concerned with protecting the integrity of Christianity not torturing people simply for not accepting Christ.

 

[Sideline]

That is actually very unlikely, you would never even fall under the jurisdiction of the inquisition as you openly admit you are not a Catholic and the inquisition predominately dealt with people ether pretending to be Catholic or claiming to be the true Christians. The inquisition was predominately concerned with protecting the integrity of Christianity not torturing people simply for not accepting Christ.

I’ve been baptized. That makes me a target.

 

[Sideline]

Ironically, what I’ve written in this thread alone would be enough to condemn me as a heretic.

 

[Sideline]

Ironically, what I’ve written in this thread alone would be enough to condemn me as a heretic.

I might be wrong on that. Is it possible to be a heretic and an apostate? I did write something that conflicted with Church teaching (heresy), but I have also rejected the whole faith (apostasy). I honestly don’t know. Either way, I think it would have been enough to land me in a lot of trouble.

 

[roveau]

“Now, I trust most of you to already know this, but before we have somebody pulling the very alluring “wtf, are you stupid, 'course it is, they burned people!”, let me state that the Holy Inquisition was not nearly as bad as hearsay and contemporary art would have one believe, just as the death count is usually greatly exaggerated.” Quote by Questionhaver.

I don’t know where your information comes from but the archives of the Inquisition have been very well preserved in many countries, especially Spain and although Spain may not have been the worst, there is material there that would defy anything Hollywood produced in horror.

So, no, I would not like to see the return of the old Inquisition.

 

[Questionhaver]

If this above is what you wish for, then I would say that yes, this is sinful (as well as very disturbing) and that you need to talk to someone about it. A good priest is a good start.

Thank you.

My question: would Jesus be living in the Vatican if he was living here on earth today? I think not. He’d be out evangelizing and spreading the Good News.

When last I checked, the Church still had its missionaries.

He also said: if they don’t listen to you, shake the dust of that town/house off your feet and move on to the next. Which indicates very well that he wouldn’t be interested in an ‘inquisition’. He didn’t say, “if people don’t listen, put them to The Question, and then hand them over to the secular authorities and have them tortured and killed” so that we can covert everyone to Catholicism. He said, if people don’t listen to what you have to say, move on. He said loud and clear how he wanted Catholics to evangelize.

Yes, however, he was talking about how to deal with heathens, not heretics.
A heretic is by definition somebody teaching or following a doctrine regarding Christian faith that differs from what the Hl.Church declared just.
A heathen is somebody outside Christian faith.
The Hl.Inquisition dealed with heretics. You cannot cherry pick what you like and disregard what you don’t. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s the duty of the Hl.Church to ensure that Christian beliefs remain Christian.

Acceptance of faith is voluntary; keeping the accepted faith, necessary.(St.Thomas of Aquin)

Yeah, that is completely immoral. I don’t even think there is a good argument for that being moral at all. If Jesus supported something like that, why didn’t he implement it himself? He obviously had the power to do that. If Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone, why would Catholics think that they should??

Hang on there, buddy.
You’re saying “Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone”, I’m saying He did.
How many times has He reprimanded and corrected those who would follow him, forcing them to either accept His sovereignty or be cast away. How’s that different from the Hl.Inquisition which seeked to reprimand and correct those Christians who would start to disregard what Christians are required to believe?

You can’t make someone believe religious ideas by force.
For example, would it be OK if Muslims started an inquisition? If it isn’t OK for other religions to do it to Christians, than it isn’t OK for Christians to do to other religions…despite what you think is true and what is not.

You’re either misunderstanding me or my idea of Inquisition.
The Hl.Inquisition was never about other religions. But about Christians who would disregard Christianity. A heretic must be Christian, otherwise it’s a heathen.
What you’re referring to is the crusades, which is another chapter of the Hl.Church’s history, that I don’t agree with either.

It is impossible to convert by force, sure you can hold a gun to someone’s head and they will say they convert, but inside there will have been no conversion, inside you will have created an even greater enemy

An enemy that will be all the more dangerous by been inside the Church.

We need a stronger Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but not to deal with those outside the Church but to deal with the enemies within, the successors of Iscariot. That has always been the role of the Inquisition, to root out fake Catholics, not to convert anyone.

Carrying out the work of evangelisation is the work of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and thy know as well as I that you cannot force an internal conversion, it just does not work, a real conversion can only happen freely and it is the only kind worth having.

Again, Evangelization does not - as you properly stated - enter the idea of Inquisition.
But there is a difference between spreading the Gospel and making sure that the spread Gospel remains right.
It was the Hl.Inquisition’s job to “root out fake Catholics”, yes, but with the intention of converting them back to what was right.

Questionhaver
Are you Swiss. living in Switzerland? If so, I want to say how much I admire your country. For one thing Catholics and Protestants seem to live admirably together. And I love the beauty of the Swiss Alps, though I’ve had the privilege of visiting there only twice, and once the mountains were enshrouded in fog. And then, of course, Switzerland has been wise and shrewd enough to stay out of the disastrous wars that caused such misery for so many.

Yup, that’s my country. I don’t know why, but “Swiss” is often confused with “Swede”.
Anyway, if you read the Swiss History, there were many, many disastrous wars throughout Switzerland.
It is true, though, that Switzerland avoided any major bloodshed since 1847.
Ironically, that last armed conflict on Swiss grounds was the “Sonderbundskrieg”, which was 27 days of Catholics fighting Protestants. So the peaceful together you admire was not always so.
But you know, I’m glad it wasn’t, for even though the Catholic cantons eventually lost, it united Switzerland from a confederation to a federation. And as I stated afore, unity is the most simple form of defence. In fact it’s the only way to ensure peace and prevent infighting.

There can be vigorous debate about the ‘Holy’ Inquisition. The whole concept is alien to me, as well as repulsive. How can a ‘Christian’ church compel people to believe the way it demands?

That would be a crusade, and as I already stated, I disagree with them too.
But if a Christian Church compels Christians to believe what Christianity demands, wouldn’t that make more sense?

[too long again, continued in the next post]

 

[Questionhaver]

I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage. My father’s side was French-Canadian Catholic, my mother’s old New England Puritan Protestant. On Mom’s side, her ancestors were Belgians who embraced Calvinism. That ancestral grandfather was summoned before the city council at Ghent for his heresy, so he and his family fled to France that very night. Once toleration of Protestants in France came to an end, they fled to England where they joined the Puritans. A grandson migrated to New England, etc.

Well, what can I say, that’s quite a diversity.

We need to get beyond this bitterness from past history. Catholics and Protestants differ, which doesn’t trouble me for a minute. “Think and let think” is my conviction. No one has all the answers when it comes to this massive, miraculous and mysterious universe. We should not be enemies but allies in a battle to promote the gospel of Christ, which emphasizes love of God and of one another.
There are common enemies out there that really threaten humankind.

You know, there are many things out there that I’d consider worse than Protestantism.
But ecclesiastical unity nevertheless strikes me as absolutely necessary.
Perhaps it’s even a requirement to successfully tackle these common enemies.

God bless all of his children, of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier.

Amen.

No, God is not a democracy, Catholicism is not a democracy. But He gave everyone Free Will. Free to listen to the Good News of Jesus – or not. He never directed us to take ones Free Will away and force them to be Catholic – and yes, it would have to be by force. Yes, He and His entity and teachings are subject to personal preference. No where in the CCC does it say to force people to be Catholic. Being Catholic and following Catholic rules is a choice that one makes, not something to be imposed…especially by force.

Is that a typo, am I misunderstanding you or are you really stating that it doesn’t matter what one believes as long as somebody believes anything at all and that God, His entity and teachings can be reshaped by everybody in accordance with their own desires?

If you want to covert people to Catholicism you have to spread the Word and pray for those to receive it well and follow it. And if they don’t, you have little else to do but move on while saying a prayer for them.

Yes, it’s wrong to wish that the Catholic Church would forcibly take over the world by making everyone Catholic and subject to Catholic rules and laws.

Once again, I should like to state that I am not desiring a crusade but a force uniting Christianity.

If you feel anger, resentment, execration, intolerance, disrgard of the commandment to love or hautiness just because an individual chooses to not be Catholic, then you should talk to a priest and yes you should seek help, for your own sake.

That’s not quite the situation.
I am displeased with the struggles the Hl.Church is facing and resent the heretics for the role they played in it. Some sects have gone so far in confusing Christian faith that I execrate them.
That and the thereof resulting intolerance make me wonder if I am disregarding the commandment to love, which would be quite arrogant of me indeed.

Is it possible to be a heretic and an apostate? I did write something that conflicted with Church teaching (heresy), but I have also rejected the whole faith (apostasy). I honestly don’t know. Either way, I think it would have been enough to land me in a lot of trouble.

You cannot be a heretic unless you claim to be a Christian.
Heresy is the rejection and/or corruption of certain doctrines of the faith while still claiming to practice.
Apostacy is rejecting religion altogether.

That said, Inquisition wouldn’t target you.

 

[puppypatrol]

Well, I see that there are still many who buy into the Protestant propaganda created during the Reformation AFTER the periods of inquisition. There was never an official “Office of Inquisition” The Church was never allowed to put anyone to death and never did. The “torture” of the church never mamed or killed anyone and, more times than not, the total torture session consisted of showing the accused the tools of torture, and never went any further. The purpose of the inquititions was to discover the truth, guide heretics to repentance and back to the Church. In the 350 years of all the periods of inquisition, less than 5000 people were executed and all of them executed by the state, not the church. In the 100 years between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I tens of thousands of Catholic Priests, religious, men, women and children were put to death in the name of heresy.

Much of what has been taught in history classes as facts have been disproved and the truth has been proven from documented court records of the time. When the inquisitions ended there were some people who cried for their return, the ecclesiastical court was seen as more fair and a better place to be tried than the civil courts, so much better that there were criminals who would purposely commit blasphemy in order to go to the ecclesiastical jail.

It might be time to update some of your history resources and don’t rely on information from those whose best interest is in keeping the myth going.

 

[angelerulastiel]

It doesn’t really matter what the Inquisition really was, the OP has stated that their idea of what goes on is that we should threaten to torture, torture, imprison for life, or burn, cafeteria Catholics, and all non-catholic Christians.

Umm, and Jesus sending people away who refused to fully obey him is a LOT differant than him burning at the stake. I am pretty sure Jesus never even threatened to torture someone, much less the rest of it.

Yes, it is very sinful to wish to threaten/harm/imprison/kill those who do not believe exactly the way you do. It is stupid to believe that it would never be abused. It is ridiculous to believe that it would cause a true conversion or unification of anyone.

I agree that if you actually believe that the Inquisition as you picture it is good that you probably need some help. But I think you’re just having fun with everyone here. I don’t believe you are a serious poster.

 

[Rence]

He also said: if they don’t listen to you, shake the dust of that town/house off your feet and move on to the next. Which indicates very well that he wouldn’t be interested in an ‘inquisition’. He didn’t say, “if people don’t listen, put them to The Question, and then hand them over to the secular authorities and have them tortured and killed” so that we can covert everyone to Catholicism. He said, if people don’t listen to what you have to say, move on. He said loud and clear how he wanted Catholics to evangelize.

He was talking to his disciples about evangelization and about the continuity of the religion that He was establishing and leaving to his disciples, that meant heathens and heretics. You’re right in that it is the duty of the Church to ensure Catholic beliefs remain Catholic, however, not by force. They have no power to force people, and they shouldn’t force people. Though they can excommunicate people.

Acceptance of faith is voluntary; keeping the accepted faith, necessary.(St.Thomas of Aquin)

It’s all voluntary. The Chuch can do absolutely nothing to anyone for not “keeping the faith” except counsel and then excommunicate. Nor should they.

Hang on there, buddy.
You’re saying “Jesus didn’t force beliefs on anyone”, I’m saying He did.
How many times has He reprimanded and corrected those who would follow him, forcing them to either accept His sovereignty or be cast away. How’s that different from the Hl.Inquisition which seeked to reprimand and correct those Christians who would start to disregard what Christians are required to believe?

The Church can “cast them away” but that’s all it can do. When you say, ‘if possible, by force’ that’s where the problem is. Jesus did not “force” beliefs on anyone: they were free to accept or reject what he said.

The Inquisition was different because they questioned the “defendent” themselves, if they found the person to not be in line with the Catholic Church, they would accuse the person of being a ‘heretic’, and then turned them over to the authorities to avoid dirtying their own hands, because the secular authorities had the power to kill people. It’s the SAME thing: turning someone over to be killed is the same as killing them yourself. They could have just excommunicated and outcast the person, but instead, they handed them over to the authorities knowing full well those people would be tortured and killed.

No, I don’t see anything noble about the Church returning to that mess and turning people over to the authorities for not being in line with the Catholic Church. Thank God, the secular authorities don’t find the CC important enough to execute people over anymore and don’t cooperate with the CC anymore.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
No, God is not a democracy, Catholicism is not a democracy. But He gave everyone Free Will. Free to listen to the Good News of Jesus – or not. He never directed us to take ones Free Will away and force them to be Catholic – and yes, it would have to be by force. Yes, He and His entity and teachings are subject to personal preference. No where in the CCC does it say to force people to be Catholic. Being Catholic and following Catholic rules is a choice that one makes, not something to be imposed…especially by force.

I’m saying, it doesn’t matter to me, or you, what someone else chooses to believe or not believe, because it is their choice, determined by their free will, given by God. It is not my place, nor is it your place, nor the Catholic Church’s place, to determine what religion another person will follow. It is our place to teach people about Catholicism, when the opportunity arises, but not to enforce belief or to enforce that others follow it.

Once again, I should like to state that I am not desiring a crusade but a force uniting Christianity.

What kind of force? Can you give an example of an implementtaion of this force you are talking about? What do you mean ‘a force uniting Christianity’? Can you relate something specific?

That’s not quite the situation.
I am displeased with the struggles the Hl.Church is facing and resent the heretics for the role they played in it. Some sects have gone so far in confusing Christian faith that I execrate them.
That and the thereof resulting intolerance make me wonder if I am disregarding the commandment to love, which would be quite arrogant of me indeed.

You cannot be a heretic unless you claim to be a Christian.
Heresy is the rejection and/or corruption of certain doctrines of the faith while still claiming to practice.
Apostacy is rejecting religion altogether.

It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you are not just concerned about Catholics playing the ‘good Catholic’ but about all Christians being forced under one Church, the Catholic Church. Am I correct? It seem so me (correct me if I’m wrong), that you want to do away with all the other Christian religions, and have them annexed by the Catholic Church…by force?

 

[Rence]

Well, I see that there are still many who buy into the Protestant propaganda created during the Reformation AFTER the periods of inquisition. There was never an official “Office of Inquisition” The Church was never allowed to put anyone to death and never did. The “torture” of the church never mamed or killed anyone and, more times than not, the total torture session consisted of showing the accused the tools of torture, and never went any further. The purpose of the inquititions was to discover the truth, guide heretics to repentance and back to the Church. In the 350 years of all the periods of inquisition, less than 5000 people were executed and all of them executed by the state, not the church. In the 100 years between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I tens of thousands of Catholic Priests, religious, men, women and children were put to death in the name of heresy.

Much of what has been taught in history classes as facts have been disproved and the truth has been proven from documented court records of the time. When the inquisitions ended there were some people who cried for their return, the ecclesiastical court was seen as more fair and a better place to be tried than the civil courts, so much better that there were criminals who would purposely commit blasphemy in order to go to the ecclesiastical jail.

It might be time to update some of your history resources and don’t rely on information from those whose best interest is in keeping the myth going.

Well, I don’t know what others were taught in school, but I was taught that the Church would question the defendents, and then, because the Church had no power to put people to death, would hand them over to the authorities, knowing that they would be tortured and killed. They handed over innocent as well as “guilty” people. They indeed had a very big part in the torture and death of those who refused to be in line with the Church, they just didn’t dirty their own hands by actually killing them. They should have never had that power, and thankfully they don’t today, and I hope they never will again.

 

[Contarini]

Certainly.
However, when compared to the “original” Hl.Inquisition, the Congregation appears to have lost much of its efficiency in fighting heresy.
Also, the way I understand it (though, of course, I may be wrong), the Congregation is responsible for looking after the faith within the Holy Church, and within the Hl.Church only. Hardly comparable to what the Hl.Inquisition once was.
For all I know, the Hl.Inquisition died 1798.

Yes, so why did you say the “13th century” earlier?

I think what you are describing is an institution capable of handing people over to the civil authorities for punishment, right?

Actually, don’t Church courts still have that power? (If not, they should–the failure of bishops to do so was one of the major causes of the sex-abuse scandals.)

So what you are really calling for is the return of civil authorities willing to pass laws against heresy and Church courts willing to hand people over to them, right?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, I don’t know what others were taught in school, but I was taught that the Church would question the defendents, and then, because the Church had no power to put people to death, would hand them over to the authorities, knowing that they would be tortured and killed. They handed over innocent as well as “guilty” people. They indeed had a very big part in the torture and death of those who refused to be in line with the Church, they just didn’t dirty their own hands by actually killing them. They should have never had that power, and thankfully they don’t today, and I hope they never will again.

Distinguish: The Inquisition did use torture itself. People misunderstand torture, thinking it to be part of the punishment. (Poe’s “Pit and Pendulum” and similar horror stories are largely at fault here!) Of course many punishments did involve severe pain as a deterrent to those watching, so the confusion is understandable. But judicial torture was a means to extract a confession from someone against whom there was circumstantial evidence. The Inquisition used it, but had strict rules to prevent the infliction of permanent bodily harm (I don’t think these rules were always kept, but they were there).

Edwin

 

[Rence]

Distinguish: The Inquisition did use torture itself. People misunderstand torture, thinking it to be part of the punishment. (Poe’s “Pit and Pendulum” and similar horror stories are largely at fault here!) Of course many punishments did involve severe pain as a deterrent to those watching, so the confusion is understandable. But judicial torture was a means to extract a confession from someone against whom there was circumstantial evidence. The Inquisition used it, but had strict rules to prevent the infliction of permanent bodily harm (I don’t think these rules were always kept, but they were there).
Edwin

Oh I understand it quite well: they used torture to get the defendent to tell them what they wanted to hear, based on circumstantial evidence that might have included looking at someone crossed-eyed and having that someone ticked off enough to turn them in.

The fact is, the Church turned a blind eye to the horrors of the secular government’s penalties for being “guilty” of heresy, and in effect, not only condoned it but encouraged it. There was no separation of Church and State and the two overlapped. The Church had the power to, and could have, stopped the secular government’s vicious penalties (and some individual priests and bishops did), but as a whole they chose to look away.