Torture during the inquistion

[Pete_1]

Firstly:
Innocent IV authorised the use of torture during the inquisition in 1252 in his bull Ad exstirpanda to extract confessions but stated torture could not cause the loss of a limb or imperil life. 1]

The church’s position today:

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. 2]

My questions are; is Innocent IV’s Papal Bull regarded as infallible or is it counted as official teaching of the Church (doctrine) .

&

Have innocent’s actions been condemned by the church?

 

[Joe_5859]

Firstly:
Innocent IV authorised the use of torture during the inquisition in 1252 in his bull Ad exstirpanda to extract confessions but stated torture could not cause the loss of a limb or imperil life. 1]

The church’s position today:
2]

My questions are; is Innocent IV’s Papal Bull regarded as infallible or is it counted as official teaching of the Church (doctrine) .

&

Have innocent’s actions been condemned by the church?

I must say I’m not entirely familiar with the situation, but it would seem from the link that Innocent’s document was not a dogmatic document but a disciplinary one. In other words, he was not issuing a teaching on moral theology stating that torture is not sinful. He was issuing a disciplinary statement on what Inquisitor’s may do during their questioning of people. Therefore, infallibility would not apply as it was not intended to be a teaching document.

I’m not sure if there has been any more recent statement of the Church commenting on Innocent’s decree. I would say, though, that our idea of torture today could very well be much different from what Innocent IV meant by torture 800 years ago (and it could even be very different from what the Catholic Encyclopedia (your source) meant by the term 100 years ago. Not to try to make excuses, but just to offer another possible explanation.

 

[estesbob]

Firstly:
Innocent IV authorised the use of torture during the inquisition in 1252 in his bull Ad exstirpanda to extract confessions but stated torture could not cause the loss of a limb or imperil life. 1]

The church’s position today:
2]

My questions are; is Innocent IV’s Papal Bull regarded as infallible or is it counted as official teaching of the Church (doctrine) .

No

Have innocent’s actions been condemned by the church?

No

 

[Pete_1]

I found this interesting

rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

 

[Scoobyshme]

I would have to say that this pronouncement doesn’t fall into the realm of “faith and morals.” It sounds more like it falls in the area of discipline, so that means it is not an “infallible” statement.

With regard to the Spanish Inquisition, one must keep in mind that it was not run “by” the Church. The Church gave King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella permission to start an inquisition (actually a Roman invention) in order to find heretics who they suspected were part of the nobility’s rebellion at the time. There were many Muslim’s and some Jews who “converted” for other than honorable reason, and remained Muslims and Jews afterward.

The problem occurred when King Ferdinand, after receiving the Pope’s permission, refused to fund the inqusition. He said the inquisitors would have to extract the funds to run the operation from those they arrested and brought to trial, etc.

Now, keep in mind that the only people that the Inquisitors could arrest and bring to trial were Catholics. Those who were not Catholic did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. Those who were arrested under suspicion of heresy could provide the court with a list of “enemies.” None of the people on this list could be called to witness against them.

The first few years were very bloody, because the Inquisitors went after the riches nobility (to get funds?). After that, it was fairly mild. In fact, the Inquisitor’s jail was much preferred to the normal prison. In fact, if one blasphemed, one was automatically sent to the Inquisitor’s jail. So, fairly often, if someone was sent to the regular prison, he would blaspheme in order to be sent to the Inquisitor’s jail, where they received better treatment and better food. In fact, it was not unheard of for the Inquisitor jailer to come by in the mornings and ask the prisoners, “If I let you out for the day, do you promise to be back by dark?” And if they said, “Yes” he let them out for the day. If they didn’t come back that day, well, it was Spain…

During this time, the Reformation was going on in the rest of Europe, with huge, bloody battles between Protestants and Catholics. The population of Germany, for example, in one thirty year period, went from 18 million to 10 million due to these battles. And the Catholics were usually the victors of these battles. So, some Protestants took the opportunity to create pamphlets making incredulous claims about how bad the Inquisition was, claiming, for example, that “millions” were tortured and murdered by the Inquisition. Never mind that they had never been to Spain, or that the entire population of Spain was only around 100,000. It was good propaganda for them, though. Some of those lies have survived till today.

 

[Thomas63116]

I would have to say that this pronouncement doesn’t fall into the realm of “faith and morals”

How can torturing or killing someone because of their religious beliefs NOT be considered an area of faith and morals???

 

[CThomas]

Catholic friends, if I may follow up with another question or two. Is it true that Innocent IV or any other Pontiff did, indeed, express the view that torture based on religious views is permissible or a good thing, whether or not this was done infallibly or as a dogma?

And if so, does it disturb you that the head of the Catholic Church expressed such a view, even if it is not binding? I realize that there’s room for discussion on what counts as concerning faith and morals, what is deemed infalible, etc. But at a certain point, I wonder whether if I were a Catholic I would be concerned that heads of my Church, the leaders of the Christian faith and the Vicars of Christ on Earth, would condone people torturing others because of their religious views. I sincerely don’t mean this question as insulting or a sort of anti-Catholic “see how bad the Catholic Church has been” sort of point. I’m just wondering how Catholics here view the historical conduct of the Catholic Church in this regard and some others, and whether any think that any sort of “by your fruits you will know them” type argument is a legitimate thing to consider, however you come out on it at the end of the day.

Thanks, as alaways, for your thoughts in advance.

Best regards,

CThomas

 

[LilyM]

How can torturing or killing someone because of their religious beliefs NOT be considered an area of faith and morals???

Put it this way - for a Papal statement to be infallible it needs to be MORE than just a statement on faith and morals - it needs to also be intended to bind all Catholics all around the world and for all time.

Innocent clearly wasn’t saying here that in ALL circumstances, places and times then and forevermore it would be OK to torture heretics, just that it was permissible in the specific context of that particular Inquisition, in that particular place at that particular time. In other words he left wide open the possibility for a future Pope to rule differently.

 

[LilyM]

Catholic friends, if I may follow up with another question or two. Is it true that Innocent IV or any other Pontiff did, indeed, express the view that torture based on religious views is permissible or a good thing, whether or not this was done infallibly or as a dogma?

And if so, does it disturb you that the head of the Catholic Church expressed such a view, even if it is not binding? I realize that there’s room for discussion on what counts as concerning faith and morals, what is deemed infalible, etc. But at a certain point, I wonder whether if I were a Catholic I would be concerned that heads of my Church, the leaders of the Christian faith and the Vicars of Christ on Earth, would condone people torturing others because of their religious views. I sincerely don’t mean this question as insulting or a sort of anti-Catholic “see how bad the Catholic Church has been” sort of point. I’m just wondering how Catholics here view the historical conduct of the Catholic Church in this regard and some others, and whether any think that any sort of “by your fruits you will know them” type argument is a legitimate thing to consider, however you come out on it at the end of the day.

Thanks, as alaways, for your thoughts in advance.

Best regards,

CThomas

Are you not concerned that the Apostles that we all follow all, bar one, deserted Our Lord? That Peter denied Him and Paul persecuted His followers? That some of them thought and taught (prior to the Jerusalem council) that Christians must also be circumcised and abide by Jewish ritual law?

That non-Catholic religious leaders regularly swindle their congregations, get involved in political or sexual scandals, that some of them marry homosexually, that they abuse children at at least the same rate as Catholic priests, preach racism and all sorts of other abominations? How is the fruit of non-Catholics in any way better than ours? Especially their most notable fruit of division and disagreement on even the most central and fundamental beliefs of Christianity, like whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not?

Jesus told His apostles to obey the Pharisees because they occupy the seat of authority of Moses, but not to behave as they did, which was contrary to the truth they taught. All Christians would do well to take this attitude to their religious authorities, and distinguish the God-instituted office from the human and sometimes sinful person occupying it.

 

[Thomas63116]

Innocent clearly wasn’t saying here that in ALL circumstances, places and times then and forevermore it would be OK to torture heretics, just that it was permissible in the specific context of that particular Inquisition, in that particular place at that particular time.

How is this not a form of relativism?

 

[Thomas63116]

Catholic friends, if I may follow up with another question or two. Is it true that Innocent IV or any other Pontiff did, indeed, express the view that torture based on religious views is permissible or a good thing, whether or not this was done infallibly or as a dogma?

And if so, does it disturb you that the head of the Catholic Church expressed such a view, even if it is not binding?

Yes, it disturbs me a great deal.

 

[estesbob]

How is this not a form of relativism?

No There is no doctine of torture in the Church-never has been. Innocent was setting out terms for torture that were far more restrictive than was the norm of the times. The truth is that the iquisition couirts were considered so fair a mericful that people prefered to be tried in them rather than govt courts.

 

[Thomas63116]

No There is no doctine of torture in the Church-never has been.

It seems to me that may be the problem. . .perhaps there should be/should have been. It could be relatively simple. “Don’t torture people. Ever.”

Phrased with a more modern ring “Who would Jesus torture?”

Innocent was setting out terms for torture that were far more restrictive than was the norm of the times. The truth is that the iquisition couirts were considered so fair a mericful that people prefered to be tried in them rather than govt courts.

No offense, but this seems like an easy thing for someone who was never put on the rack to say 500 years after the fact.

 

[CThomas]

Hey, LilyM. I want to respond to your questions to me, because I think they do raise some good points. To me, though, there is a big difference in the sorts of conduct committed by the apostles, which tended to involve weakness of faith, confusion, or cowardice and the sort of thing where you support inflicting terrible conduct on others. I’m not sure whether the sins are “worse” or whether I could sustain this distinction analytically, but that’s my honest gut reaction. It’s one thing to be scared at the prospect of being killed and deny the Lord. That’s a terrible shortcoming, of course. But it just seems somehow different to be in a position of power and to encourage the torture of others. You’re right that the apostle Paul engaged in similar behavior, but that was before he was converted to Christianity, so I don’t think it really counts.

Anyway, that’s my response. I’m not trying to give you pat answers.

Regards,

CThomas

 

[Swan]

I would have to say that this pronouncement doesn’t fall into the realm of “faith and morals.” It sounds more like it falls in the area of discipline, so that means it is not an “infallible” statement.

With regard to the Spanish Inquisition, one must keep in mind that it was not run “by” the Church. The Church gave King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella permission to start an inquisition (actually a Roman invention) in order to find heretics who they suspected were part of the nobility’s rebellion at the time. There were many Muslim’s and some Jews who “converted” for other than honorable reason, and remained Muslims and Jews afterward.

The problem occurred when King Ferdinand, after receiving the Pope’s permission, refused to fund the inqusition. He said the inquisitors would have to extract the funds to run the operation from those they arrested and brought to trial, etc.

Now, keep in mind that the only people that the Inquisitors could arrest and bring to trial were Catholics. Those who were not Catholic did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. Those who were arrested under suspicion of heresy could provide the court with a list of “enemies.” None of the people on this list could be called to witness against them.

The first few years were very bloody, because the Inquisitors went after the riches nobility (to get funds?). After that, it was fairly mild. In fact, the Inquisitor’s jail was much preferred to the normal prison. In fact, if one blasphemed, one was automatically sent to the Inquisitor’s jail. So, fairly often, if someone was sent to the regular prison, he would blaspheme in order to be sent to the Inquisitor’s jail, where they received better treatment and better food. In fact, it was not unheard of for the Inquisitor jailer to come by in the mornings and ask the prisoners, “If I let you out for the day, do you promise to be back by dark?” And if they said, “Yes” he let them out for the day. If they didn’t come back that day, well, it was Spain…

During this time, the Reformation was going on in the rest of Europe, with huge, bloody battles between Protestants and Catholics. The population of Germany, for example, in one thirty year period, went from 18 million to 10 million due to these battles. And the Catholics were usually the victors of these battles. So, some Protestants took the opportunity to create pamphlets making incredulous claims about how bad the Inquisition was, claiming, for example, that “millions” were tortured and murdered by the Inquisition. Never mind that they had never been to Spain, or that the entire population of Spain was only around 100,000. It was good propaganda for them, though. Some of those lies have survived till today.

When someone uses the term “inquisition” I’ve noticed most folks assume they mean the Spanish Inquisition. This seems to ignore the what is termed the “Medieval Inquisition” which included the persecution of the Lollards/Wycliff/Has as well as Cathars, Albigensians (sp?) and others, as well as the witch hunts - various heretics and dissenters. Just wanted to mention that.

 

[LilyM]

How is this not a form of relativism?

It’s no different to saying that killing in genuine self-defence is OK, or killing while defending your country if you’re in the military, whereas killing for money or killing out of anger isn’t.

To say such things isn’t relativism, it’s just proper application of the moral law, some of which has to be applied on a situational basis.

 

[rwoehmke]

What bothers me is when we bring up subjects like this we almost always think of them in the context of present day values and practice. Even before Jesus died a lot of nasty stuff has gone over the dam with almost any organized group like a religion or a government. People were tortured in the inquistion, people were pressed to death in England. In Europe there are torture museums with thumb screws and even nastier devices on display and not just in what were “Catholic” countries. It was accepted practice across the board. Even our native Americans, noble savages, had some pretty fiendish practices to use on their enemies. Human beings have never had a problem finding an excuse to do violence to each other. One could point a finger at the group that beheads their enemies while the opposing group does nice stuff like water boarding.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I just looked up Inquisition in the Original Catholic Encyclopedia at the top of this page.

Works great!

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Inquisition

Very interesting reading.

[Does not mention waterboarding, which probably would have been considered sissy back in the 1500’s.]

 

[estesbob]

It seems to me that may be the problem. . .perhaps there should be/should have been. It could be relatively simple. “Don’t torture people. Ever.”

Phrased with a more modern ring “Who would Jesus torture?”

No offense, but this seems like an easy thing for someone who was never put on the rack to say 500 years after the fact.

The rack was not allowed per Innocents instructions

 

[CentralFLJames]

Firstly:
Innocent IV authorised the use of torture during the inquisition in 1252 in his bull Ad exstirpanda to extract confessions but stated torture could not cause the loss of a limb or imperil life. 1]

The church’s position today:
2]

My questions are; is Innocent IV’s Papal Bull regarded as infallible or is it counted as official teaching of the Church (doctrine) .

&

Have innocent’s actions been condemned by the church?

This was an administrative proclamation - it was not an infallible teaching.

People need to see this for what it really was. At this time the secular authorities (monarchs etc.) used hideous torture that we in our time would consider absolutely barbaric. We arrive to where we are now in a more civil world only through expansion of Christian virtues and civility. We have a lot of improvement to make though (especially in areas of abortion).

In those days 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. Innocent’s bull was less a matter of authorization as it was a matter of regulating the atrocities and abuses of those routinely using torture. Innocent did not have the political clout to ban torture it outright so he essentially hijacked it and placed rules around it to make it more humane. This was actually an incremental improvement in slowly transitioning the west away from the barbaric practises of the day. The Bull placed limits upon torture (it was not to cause the loss of a limb or imperil life). This was a HUGE improvement over standard practices. Further, torture was to be applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by plausible proofs. In general, this violent questioning was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted only when all other expedients were exhausted.

Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture (principal of duress).

At any rate, it pales in comparison to the methodology used by the English and Germans under Protestant rule. Those found disloyal to the King (e.g. not accepting them as legitimate rulers of The Church) were hung to near death through slow strangulation, disemboweled and forced to watch their entrails and sexual organs seared before their eyes on a hot grill, then drawn and quartered. Such then had their limbs scattered all over the kingdom or left suspended in public view in iron cages to rot indefinitely in stench up the public squares.

Pope JP II opened an inquiry into the so called inquisitions and let all historians have full access to the Vatican’s archives. What they found shows that compared to Protestant secular courts the Inquisition had orders of magnitude less deaths and most people preferred to elect Church Justice via the inquisition process over the secular courts due to much better treatment. In Lutheran Germany 25,000 women were burned at the stake for witchcraft or for heresies against Luther’s teachings.

See here:
Posted by Inquisition Symposium:

More Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II called for an “Inquisition Symposium”, and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. What they found discounted many exaggerated facts previously believed. It was learned that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women; 50,000 of them were burned, 25,000 in Germany, during the 16th century by the followers of Martin Luther.

Bottom line - the Church was not perfect but the negative press about the inquisitions is 95% Protestant propaganda and revisionist history. Further, the Catholic Church actually was trying to moderate and reduce the abuses of torture - not promote it.

James