The Inquisition

[FidesSpesCarita]

This was broken out of a thread on waterboarding:

Last post by bridge for sale:
Here’s another source on it -

One more step remained to be taken. By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.xii.ix.html

*Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It 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. *

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

These are both religious sources (the latter is a Catholic source). My original point was a comparison between waterboarding and inquisition torture practices. As you can see, obviously, the inquisition used torture (and its use enjoyed the express authorization of the pope and greater church). If you read the CCEL source document you’ll get an excellent picture of inquisition history. Not only did the use of torture enjoy papal approval, but it was often religious authorities (such as bishops) who authorized its use in individual cases (and even acted as magistrates).

There was also of course involvement by secular authorities, who taking the cue from the church became involved in many of the atrocities (obviously the distinction between state and church in those days wasn’t very sharp).

Some of the rules they promulgated give us an idea of how insane the inquisition was. For instance, pregnant women could not be executed while pregnant (only immediately after giving birth). We can therefore assume this rule was promulgated to mediate the practice of murdering pregnant women for merely dissenting to church doctrine (or even a scintilla of evidence to suggest they might be a heretic).

I imagine they also employed the use of torture to elicit a confession out of a pregnant woman who merely stood accused of heresy, since apparently torturing a pregnant woman wasn’t prohibited (and since the standard of evidence merely required a showing of a scintilla of evidence suggesting a person might be a heretic, I imagine this could include someone who didn’t like you, who may have had a friend who was a church authority, simply lying motivated by vindictive spite, which would result in the individual being arrested, tortured, and perhaps imprisoned for life or executed, possibly by burning).

Imagine living under such a dark theocracy? And look … this is after all the slippery slope of unchecked theism. We can see it in the world today (just look at the Taliban).

Thankfully our rebels were the rational thinkers, and they won! If there’s a god I thank him for that.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Here’s another source on it -

One more step remained to be taken. By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.xii.ix.html

*Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It 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. *

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

These are both religious sources (the latter is a Catholic source). My original point was a comparison between waterboarding and inquisition torture practices. As you can see, obviously, the inquisition used torture (and its use enjoyed the express authorization of the pope and greater church). If you read the CCEL source document you’ll get an excellent picture of inquisition history. Not only did the use of torture enjoy papal approval, but it was often religious authorities (such as bishops) who authorized its use in individual cases (and even acted as magistrates).

There was also of course involvement by secular authorities, who taking the cue from the church became involved in many of the atrocities (obviously the distinction between state and church in those days wasn’t very sharp).

Some of the rules they promulgated give us an idea of how insane the inquisition was. For instance, pregnant women could not be executed while pregnant (only immediately after giving birth). We can therefore assume this rule was promulgated to mediate the practice of murdering pregnant women for merely dissenting to church doctrine (or even a scintilla of evidence to suggest they might be a heretic).

I imagine they also employed the use of torture to elicit a confession out of a pregnant woman who merely stood accused of heresy, since apparently torturing a pregnant woman wasn’t prohibited (and since the standard of evidence merely required a showing of a scintilla of evidence suggesting a person might be a heretic, I imagine this could include someone who didn’t like you, who may have had a friend who was a church authority, simply lying motivated by vindictive spite, which would result in the individual being arrested, tortured, and perhaps imprisoned for life or executed, possibly by burning).

Imagine living under such a dark theocracy? And look … this is after all the slippery slope of unchecked theism. We can see it in the world today (just look at the Taliban).

Thankfully our rebels were the rational thinkers, and they won! If there’s a god I thank him for that.

Here is what newadvent has to say… and this is undoubtedly a trustworthy source (arguably more so than a calvinist site):

Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It 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. **Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces — i.e the torture is deceptive and ineffectual. **

If it was “not of [church] origin” then how could it be considered “of” the church? If Conscientious judges placed no weight on confessions extracted this way, then why was it used at all?

If you read the history of what was taking place at the time, you will find that Ferdinand and Isabella had just married and were trying to solidify their empire. The way they did this was by choosing to promote the Catholic faith, similar to what Constantine employed to solidify his rule of the Roman empire. To further this aim they began to promote the inquisition which was already taking place in many parts of what has now become Spain.

The inquisition originated from several things, primarily the influence of eastern mysticism and jewish mysticism being incorporated into Catholic doctrine. This is a blatantly heretical act, to change and/or teach false doctrines is an error which can be punished with excommunication, and the Church did not want people to lose their soul (trying to keep this brief, so please dont get too upset with my brevity ). Thus they began to find and weed out those who taught these things.

This again bears the question of "Why was torture practiced at all? Especially if it was so odious that priests were not allowed to be present at first “under pain of irregularity”.

continued below

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Continuation:

From what I have read, (cant cite sources, dont have my library with me) it was used as something of a “fear-mongering” tactic by BOTH the government at the time AND by wayward priests and bishops who were attempting to use the hierarchy and good intentions of the Church to further their own aims.

If you read the above quote, you will see that the papal bull allowing torture was to be used only when the suspect (couldnt think of a better word right now) already seemed “virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs”. This was not adhered to in most cases later in the history of the inquisition.

That being said, the widespread and vicious use of torture was NEVER allowed by the Church and was condemned when found (I will try to post citations tomorrow).

Another quote "It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. " Civil authority pressed the use of torture. This is not to lessen the culpability of some of the members of the Church in any way. There were many priests, clerics, and bishops in Spain at the time that did absolutely HORRENDOUS things. It was, however, never allowed by the Church to the extent it was used, and was in fact only allowed in very strict circumstances.

I cannot make excuses for this. It was wrong to authorize the use of torture (in my own personal opinion) but to say that the Church was the responsible agent of this is to ignore history as grossly as those who say that the Crusades were a war of aggression by a violent Church against a “peace-loving” moorish society.

FSC

 

[chessmane4e5]

From what I have read on the subject is that people that were questioned during the Inquisition, had the fate of death before them if they did not confess and repent of their heresies. But it was not the Church that was threatening death, it was the government (as was already mentioned, Church and State were not separated.)

So from what I read, the reason the Church took such an active role, even to the point of the Pope allowing “torture”, was to try and save these people from death. In fact, there is record that criminals wanted to be questioned by the Church, because they knew their life would be sparred if they confessed.

So the truth seems to be the opposite of what has been portrayed by Anti-Catholics. Doesn’t it make more sense that the Church as a whole (individuals were still responsible for certain horrible acts) was looking to preserve human life, as instructed by God and Jesus, and not looking for reasons to kill and torture people?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you read the history of what was taking place at the time, you will find that Ferdinand and Isabella had just married and were trying to solidify their empire. The way they did this was by choosing to promote the Catholic faith, similar to what Constantine employed to solidify his rule of the Roman empire. To further this aim they began to promote the inquisition which was already taking place in many parts of what has now become Spain.

The inquisition originated from several things, primarily the influence of eastern mysticism and jewish mysticism being incorporated into Catholic doctrine. This is a blatantly heretical act, to change and/or teach false doctrines is an error which can be punished with excommunication, and the Church did not want people to lose their soul (trying to keep this brief, so please dont get too upset with my brevity ). Thus they began to find and weed out those who taught these things.

One might quibble with this. Moorish power had, after centuries, finally been conquered in Spain by the Spanish monarchs. However, there were still lots of them around. Jews filled a niche in the Moorish organization. With the quashing of Moorish power, many who had filled high posts no longer had them. Many Moors and Jews then converted to Christianity. It was believed by the monarchy, rightly or wrongly, that some of them were “Trojan horses” in the structure of the state, and had only pretended conversion in order to regain positions. It was thought that in such positions they could endanger the new Spanish state.

Many ordinary Spanish Christians believed the same thing, and the belief was certainly encouraged by the Christians who had “new” opportunities opened to them by the victory of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many, many former Muslims and Jews who converted were accused of being deceitful in their conversions, and many, doubtless many of whom were entirely innocent, were accused by Spanish citizens.

The Inquisition’s purpose was to intervene in what would otherwise have been a summary and wholesale slaughter of the former Muslims and Jews. The Inquisition was the cause of the release of a lot more innocent people than the number of those whose “guilt” was confirmed. Interestingly, the Inquisition tribunals were the very earliest to require and even appoint lawyers to represent the accused.

It needs to be remembered that the Inquisition did not initiate charges. It also needs to be remembered that openly remaining a Muslim or a Jew was not the concern of the Inquisition, and people were not tried for that.

A lot of what one might believe about the INquisition depends on the source one uses. English histories (and those that derive from them) are generally very different from those of Spanish or Latin American origin. Since we’re English speakers, most of what we read comes, ultimately, from English sources. It must be remembered that England was, at the time, and for a long time after, the mortal enemy of Spain.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

One might quibble with this. Moorish power had, after centuries, finally been conquered in Spain by the Spanish monarchs. However, there were still lots of them around. Jews filled a niche in the Moorish organization. With the quashing of Moorish power, many who had filled high posts no longer had them. Many Moors and Jews then converted to Christianity. It was believed by the monarchy, rightly or wrongly, that some of them were “Trojan horses” in the structure of the state, and had only pretended conversion in order to regain positions. It was thought that in such positions they could endanger the new Spanish state.

Many ordinary Spanish Christians believed the same thing, and the belief was certainly encouraged by the Christians who had “new” opportunities opened to them by the victory of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many, many former Muslims and Jews who converted were accused of being deceitful in their conversions, and many, doubtless many of whom were entirely innocent, were accused by Spanish citizens.

The Inquisition’s purpose was to intervene in what would otherwise have been a summary and wholesale slaughter of the former Muslims and Jews. The Inquisition was the cause of the release of a lot more innocent people than the number of those whose “guilt” was confirmed. Interestingly, the Inquisition tribunals were the very earliest to require and even appoint lawyers to represent the accused.

It needs to be remembered that the Inquisition did not initiate charges. It also needs to be remembered that openly remaining a Muslim or a Jew was not the concern of the Inquisition, and people were not tried for that.

A lot of what one might believe about the INquisition depends on the source one uses. English histories (and those that derive from them) are generally very different from those of Spanish or Latin American origin. Since we’re English speakers, most of what we read comes, ultimately, from English sources. It must be remembered that England was, at the time, and for a long time after, the mortal enemy of Spain.

Thanks. Much better summary than my bumblings have created.

FSC

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

;6140768:

This was broken out of a thread on waterboarding:

Last post by bridge for sale:
Here’s another source on it -

One more step remained to be taken. By the famous bull ad exstirpanda, of 1252, Innocent IV. authorized torture as a measure for extorting confessions. The merciless use of this weapon was one of the most atrocious features of the whole procedure.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc6.iii.xii.ix.html

*Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It 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. *

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

These are both religious sources (the latter is a Catholic source). My original point was a comparison between waterboarding and inquisition torture practices. As you can see, obviously, the inquisition used torture (and its use enjoyed the express authorization of the pope and greater church). If you read the CCEL source document you’ll get an excellent picture of inquisition history. Not only did the use of torture enjoy papal approval, but it was often religious authorities (such as bishops) who authorized its use in individual cases (and even acted as magistrates).

There was also of course involvement by secular authorities, who taking the cue from the church became involved in many of the atrocities (obviously the distinction between state and church in those days wasn’t very sharp).

Some of the rules they promulgated give us an idea of how insane the inquisition was. For instance, pregnant women could not be executed while pregnant (only immediately after giving birth). We can therefore assume this rule was promulgated to mediate the practice of murdering pregnant women for merely dissenting to church doctrine (or even a scintilla of evidence to suggest they might be a heretic).

I imagine they also employed the use of torture to elicit a confession out of a pregnant woman who merely stood accused of heresy, since apparently torturing a pregnant woman wasn’t prohibited (and since the standard of evidence merely required a showing of a scintilla of evidence suggesting a person might be a heretic, I imagine this could include someone who didn’t like you, who may have had a friend who was a church authority, simply lying motivated by vindictive spite, which would result in the individual being arrested, tortured, and perhaps imprisoned for life or executed, possibly by burning).

Imagine living under such a dark theocracy? And look … this is after all the slippery slope of unchecked theism. We can see it in the world today (just look at the Taliban).

Thankfully our rebels were the rational thinkers, and they won! If there’s a god I thank him for that.

FidesSpesCarita The case against torture is not religious nor Catholic at all, the case we currently are processing is crimes against the Geneva Convention and against the Constitution of the USA which professes human rights as “inalienable”. The human rights violations perpetrated by our government in it’s past administration set our country up with the world as the “bad guy” in this effort to seek out it’s enemies. By elevating our intentions upward toward virtue we gain trust and respect not only throughout the world also within our own government and peoples. Without respect for human rights, our government looks like any other thug or criminal which opens us to attack from any source and seriously compromises our security and safety as a nation. Waterboarding stinks and so does any other form of torture.

 

[Ridgerunner]

FidesSpesCarita The case against torture is not religious nor Catholic at all, the case we currently are processing is crimes against the Geneva Convention and against the Constitution of the USA which professes human rights as “inalienable”. The human rights violations perpetrated by our government in it’s past administration set our country up with the world as the “bad guy” in this effort to seek out it’s enemies. By elevating our intentions upward toward virtue we gain trust and respect not only throughout the world also within our own government and peoples. Without respect for human rights, our government looks like any other thug or criminal which opens us to attack from any source and seriously compromises our security and safety as a nation. Waterboarding stinks and so does any other form of torture.

Perhaps one can be forgiven for quibbling with this a little.

This country is hardly elevating its intentions upward toward virtue. We have a government that supports abortion on demand and elevates homosexuality, even to the point of promoting it in front of children. We have a government that does not want to “waste” medical dollars on people too old to produce revenues.

Quite possibly some degraded peoples think of that kind of thing as an elevation toward virtue, but many do not, and rightly so. And frankly, if our dedication to extreme approaches to “human rights” are of a kind that prevent us from protecting our people or others from wanton murderers, even mass murderers, by means that inflict little or no lasting harm on the perpetrators, we are not likely to be respected, and don’t deserve to be respected.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

Perhaps one can be forgiven for quibbling with this a little.

This country is hardly elevating its intentions upward toward virtue. We have a government that supports abortion on demand and elevates homosexuality, even to the point of promoting it in front of children. We have a government that does not want to “waste” medical dollars on people too old to produce revenues.

Quite possibly some degraded peoples think of that kind of thing as an elevation toward virtue, but many do not, and rightly so. And frankly, if our dedication to extreme approaches to “human rights” are of a kind that prevent us from protecting our people or others from wanton murderers, even mass murderers, by means that inflict little or no lasting harm on the perpetrators, we are not likely to be respected, and don’t deserve to be respected.

Ridgerunner, The elevation toward virtue for everyone is a constant battle, even faithful Catholic through the Sacrament of Confession must work in that direction step by step. The Church is comprised of sinners, in fact the Scriptures state, “Anyone who says he has not sinned calls God a liar”. The current effort to elevate our national security measures toward virtue and human rights does not come as a complete conversion through revelation, rather small steps taken toward the direction of moral decency. Abortion and other crimes against humanity are not solved enmasse nor are they declared illegal without a struggle between the religious and the non religious. This is why it is said that God has patience with us as well as an entire nation. Who are we to condemn especially those who err when we ourselves have erred? The attainment of moral virtue is an ongoing and often painful process of distancing ourselves from our own personal sin. It is not Holy to condemn the process nor is it Holy to condemn those in error as that authority has been given to Christ. Our work is to constantly strive toward moral virtue and encourage those who try. Specific acts of moral degradation must be condemned as inhuman however while at the same time believing in the desire of all humanity to goodness.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, The elevation toward virtue for everyone is a constant battle, even faithful Catholic through the Sacrament of Confession must work in that direction step by step. The Church is comprised of sinners, in fact the Scriptures state, “Anyone who says he has not sinned calls God a liar”. The current effort to elevate our national security measures toward virtue and human rights does not come as a complete conversion through revelation, rather small steps taken toward the direction of moral decency. Abortion and other crimes against humanity are not solved enmasse nor are they declared illegal without a struggle between the religious and the non religious. This is why it is said that God has patience with us as well as an entire nation. Who are we to condemn especially those who err when we ourselves have erred? The attainment of moral virtue is an ongoing and often painful process of distancing ourselves from our own personal sin. It is not Holy to condemn the process nor is it Holy to condemn those in error as that authority has been given to Christ. Our work is to constantly strive toward moral virtue and encourage those who try. Specific acts of moral degradation must be condemned as inhuman however while at the same time believing in the desire of all humanity to goodness.

That it is our duty to struggle for virtue does not require us to blind ourselves to the descent of this nation into profound immorality. That we are all sinners does not require us to refuse to discern evil when we are confronted with it.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

That it is our duty to struggle for virtue does not require us to blind ourselves to the descent of this nation into profound immorality. That we are all sinners does not require us to refuse to discern evil when we are confronted with it.

Ridgerunner, Of course it is our duty to discern evil and it is also our duty to use restraint in deterring evil and correcting it. Insanity is a state of mind that occurs when one uses evil means to stop evil. Evil must be overcome by good and good intentions otherwise the intent is hypocritical and society declines to depravity.