Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Keikiolu]

If it were done with the foreknowledge that that person suffered from a condition in which such confinement would cause extreme mental or physical agony (ie placing someone who is severely claustrophobic in a small, windowless cell), for the purpose of extracting information, yes. If the cell were constructed in such a way as to preclude normal range of movement (such as the boxes used on prisoners of war that were too small to allow them to either lay or stand) or normal conditions (metal boxes in the full sun with no ventilation, wired to shock, extremely cold, etc) or some other condition existed, so that it was done with the foreknowledge that it would be intentionally as painful as possible in an effort to extract information not obtainable otherwise, yes.

You are correct in that there is indeed an element of relativity to what is torture and what is not, as there are circumstances under which actions that might in the normal course of things be considered torturous. … If it is done to someone whose arm or shoulder is already injured for the purposes of intensifying the pain in order to extract information, even if the desire to obtain that information is to do what someone considers good with it, then it is torture.

Torture, as defined as “always bad”, is always bad,… by definition.

Is “inflicting pain” always bad?

Is “spanking” always bad?

Basically it boils down to using methods that one knows will inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on another human being for the purposes of forcing them into saying or doing something that you desire in order to make the pain and suffering stop.

Coercion is sometimes necessary. As when we “coerce” a person to not be REALLY BAD by confining them to a jail cell.

Coercive “overkill” is neither “nice” nor effective,… but then it wouldn’t be called “overkill” if it weren’t unnecessary, would it?

Is minimum necessary coercion to effect a GOOD a BAD thing?

I realize that depends on the definition of “GOOD”, but assuming we agree that “GOOD” is an actual good, what is the answer to the question?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

My point about torture is to say people using the word often intend different things.

As for slavery the Church has always said chattel slavery was intrinsically wrong. But, I think other forms may be licit depending on circumstances:

Yes, words have various meanings in various contexts, and when my husband, the computer network admin, talks about a slave drive, I am pretty clear on whether he means a computer component or that he is out driving a chain of people to be sold at market.

It is disingenuous to argue that if one asked people about whether “slavery” is moral, that they would consider that you were discussing anything other than chattel slavery or when you use the word “torture” in the context of medieval dealings with heretics that they may mistakenly believe you mean “mild inconvenience” (unless you happen to be discussing a Monty Python sketch).

Indentured servitude, penal servitude, debt bondage (such as sharecropping), medieval serfdom or a slave hard-drive in one’s computer are not what the vast majority of English speakers intend when they use the word “slavery” in general conversation. Now we can, if you wish, start another thread on the morality of indentured servitude, debt bondage, the feudal system, penal servitude or the computer industry.

 

[Shiann]

So by this point, we are only one hundred or so years before the real start of the inquisition as we’ve been discussing it.

We’ve maintained that the Church had no reason to want to put people through torture nor execute them for their mere beliefs.

We’ve also maintained that the Church for some reason refused that strong of protection for a certain group of people WHILE AT THE SAME TIME protecting other groups.

This would lead us to believe there was something more sinister about the first group that went above and beyond mere belief and caused respected Church leaders to see them as more of a threat to the people.

But regardless, the Church still maintains its umbrella of protection toward all those of differing beliefs.

Then the secular governments decide they are the earthly protectors of the Church, and fell no hesitation in issuing death penalties to people they believe are harming the Church - EVEN when the Church protests such measures.

And finally, at this point, the public at large are frustrated with the lack of punishment toward heretics, and begin to take matters into their own hands in the name of the Church- again EVEN when the Church protests such measures.

 

[fix]

Yes, words have various meanings in various contexts, and when my husband, the computer network admin, talks about a slave drive, I am pretty clear on whether he means a computer component or that he is out driving a chain of people to be sold at market.

It is disingenuous to argue that if one asked people about whether “slavery” is moral, that they would consider that you were discussing anything other than chattel slavery or when you use the word “torture” in the context of medieval dealings with heretics that they may mistakenly believe you mean “mild inconvenience” (unless you happen to be discussing a Monty Python sketch).

Indentured servitude, penal servitude, debt bondage (such as sharecropping), medieval serfdom or a slave hard-drive in one’s computer are not what the vast majority of English speakers intend when they use the word “slavery” in general conversation. Now we can, if you wish, start another thread on the morality of indentured servitude, debt bondage, the feudal system, penal servitude or the computer industry.

Again, in your post you claimed slavery is always wrong, burning heretics is always wrong and seemed to imply the Church was wrong because She teaches moral absolutes then says they are not really absolutes.

I pointed out words must be defined correctly. Not all slavery is intrinsically wrong, putting people to death by the state is not always wrong, and torture is always wrong but we need to define torture objectively.

 

[Shiann]

In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. Among all the bishops of the period, so far as can be ascertained, Theodwin of Liège, successor of the aforesaid Wazo and predecessor of Adalbero II, alone appealed to the civil power for the punishment of heretics, and even he did not call for the death penalty, which was rejected by all. who were more highly respected in the twelfth century than Peter Canter, the most learned man of his time, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The former says (“Verbum abbreviatum”, c. lxxviii, in P.L., CCV, 231): Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, “De investigatione Antichristi III”, 42).

 

[Shiann]

During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race, and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings

 

[KarenNC]

** Is “spanking” always bad?**

If the medieval Church had confined itself to spanking heretics, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

**Coercion is sometimes necessary. As when we “coerce” a person to not be REALLY BAD by confining them to a jail cell.

Coercive “overkill” is neither “nice” nor effective,… but then it wouldn’t be called “overkill” if it weren’t unnecessary, would it?**

You and I both know that “2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure” not the same as simple coercion.

Is minimum necessary coercion to effect a GOOD a BAD thing?

If that “minimum necessary coercion” involves the infliction of intense pain and suffering, then yes, it is a bad thing.

Desiring that my child clean her room is good. Denying my child access to television for a period of time to coerce her into cleaning her room if she refuses is one thing and reasonable. Burning her with cigarettes when she refuses to clean her room would be a different thing altogether and is bad, whether I consider that the “minimum necessary coercion” to get her to comply or not.

 

[Shiann]

And so the Inquisition was born.

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.

 

[Shiann]

And then things get ugly:

Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented – first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation​

Certainly this was not acceptable and went against the methodology of the Church.

 

[Shiann]

It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. Frederick II, though always boasting of his zeal for the purity of the Faith, abused both rack and Inquisition to put out of the way his personal enemies. The tragical ruin of the Templars is ascribed to the abuse of torture by Philip the Fair and his henchmen. At Paris, for instance, thirty-six, and at Sens twenty-five, Templars died as the result of torture. Blessed Joan of Arc could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant, if her judges had not been tools of English policy.

 

[Mirdath]

I kinda hate to do this, but I must, for honesty’s sake – .

Any time you analyze history or any human movement, ‘follow the money’ is a good lead. Not every time, but mostly it holds true, and far more in the big picture.

This thread has been on the point of fracture many times. Let’s not do that, I’m liking this milieu just fine, good discussion and ideas.

 

[Keikiolu]

I kinda hate to do this, but I must, for honesty’s sake – .

Any time you analyze history or any human movement, ‘follow the money’ is a good lead. Not every time, but mostly it holds true, and far more in the big picture.

Can’t argue with that…!!

It’s a pretty good trail-indicator indeed, for those bad evil sinner types.

“…follow the yellow-brick road,… follow the yellow-brick road…”

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Zooey]

What is lacking is proper definitions and proper context. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. It may be used. Even certain forms of slavery are not intrinsically evil. Torture may be intrinsically evil, but that too needs to be defined before it is condemned.

The problem I have with this thread is people paint the inquisition period with a broad brush, redefine things, then condemn it based on their redefinitions.

Exactly my point, as well…
When people want to find a reason to call Catholics names, they always go back to to the inquisition, and treat it as if it were the worst, and even the only, thing that the Catholic Church has ever done.
Redfining terms is particularly pernicious, because it allows for, and even encourages, the repetition of lies, damned lies, & statistics, under the guise of “honesty”…all to attack. And all for no other cause than to make the Christians of the Middle Ages sound like monsters.
I have heard about “Bloody Mary” Tudor forever; none of the people who are doing the talking, ever mentioned the atrocities of “ Good Queen Bess”, because she was persecuting Catholics…which is apparently OK in many quarters.

So one must ask, Why would St. Augustine on one had condemn the bloodshed of those who “simply believe in a different religion than us”, and on the other hand maintain the Donatists as a group worthy of such punishment? Perhaps the Donatists were indeed a criminal group and they needed to be attended to. Perhaps they were attempting to seek refuge for their crimes under the guise of ‘religious freedom’. Perhaps not. But St. Augustine was a wise man, and there has to be a logical explanation for the seeming incongruence of his comments.

This is precisely why I am here in this thread, trying to inject some reason, and some consideration for the times in question, into the discussion.
It is particularly interesting (& depressing) to me, as an American of Irish ancestry, that I have yet to hear one person, who is so loudly condemning the inquisition, say one word in condemnation of the Siege of Drogheda, which I referenced early on.
People are delighted to condemn those who executed Cathars (who were not just heretics, but political traitors). Yet none of these “high-minded” folk have the slightest problem with their beloved Elizabeth I ordering the slaughter of men, women, & children in Ireland… But of course, the Irish are only poor Celts, trying to subsist under one of history’s most brutal regimes. Oh, I forgot: Bess was Church of England; condemning **her **wouldn’t win any brownie points in an attack on Catholics. My bad…*NOT!!! *

 

[LJN21]

Zooey -

!

 

[BelFarfalla]

Exactly my point, as well…
…
It is particularly interesting (& depressing) to me, as an American of Irish ancestry, that I have yet to hear one person, who is so loudly condemning the inquisition, say one word in condemnation of the Siege of Drogheda, which I referenced early on.
People are delighted to condemn those who executed Cathars (who were not just heretics, but political traitors). Yet none of these “high-minded” folk have the slightest problem with their beloved Elizabeth I ordering the slaughter of men, women, & children in Ireland… But of course, the Irish are only poor Celts, trying to subsist under one of history’s most brutal regimes. Oh, I forgot: Bess was Church of England; condemning **her **wouldn’t win any brownie points in an attack on Catholics. My bad…NOT!!!

Maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread bringing out things like the Siege of Drogheda, the protestant inquisitions, the Lutheran witch burnings and on and on. My bet is that most people do not even know these things happened.

 

[KarenNC]

Oh, I forgot: Bess was Church of England; condemning **her **wouldn’t win any brownie points in an attack on Catholics. My bad…NOT!!!

If it helps you feel better to feel that you are being persecuted for being a Catholic because folks are saying that burning people alive over religion is immoral, it’s up to you. The majority of the folks on here that I have read who have been condemning burning heretics have been doing so regardless of who was doing the burning–Protestants, Catholics, Romans, etc

And bear in mind neither Mirdath nor I are either Protestant nor Catholic, so it isn’t a matter of preferring Catholics being killed over Protestants.

 

[Zooey]

If it helps you feel better to feel that you are being persecuted for being a Catholic because folks are saying that burning people alive over religion is immoral, it’s up to you. The majority of the folks on here that I have read who have been condemning burning heretics have been doing so regardless of who was doing the burning–Protestants, Catholics, Romans, etc
And bear in mind neither Mirdath nor I are either Protestant nor Catholic, so it isn’t a matter of preferring Catholics being killed over Protestants.

First of all, I am, as it happens, Methodist. I did mention, at least once, that I was speaking as such. I even mentioned, that if all the anti-Catholic propaganda here was true, that **I **would have been liable to end up as one of the ones being burnt.

Whenever this subject comes up, & I participate in it, that there are always people assuming that “Zooey must be Catholic, and complaining about how she’s persecuted”…The fact is, I was making a point about the evil doings of a **Protestant **queen, and nobody who had been condeming Catholics had anything to say…It was never even acknowledged .
:crying: Pressing a:crying: pregnant Margaret of Clitherow to death for the sole crime of being a Catholic in Elizabethan England is apparently somehow OK, because it was the CofE doing it.

Burning the Cathars for crimes against the state, on the other hand…
As far as I can tell, the whole argument seems to be summed up as “Killing other people is evil if you’re Catholic; but if you happen to be killing other people for being Catholic…Hey, have at 'em, & good luck to you!”.
It’s an obvious double standard. :nope: Not fair,:nope: not right, :nope:not just. I am far from the only person who has made this point. The most any of us has gotten for our efforts has been, “Bad, bad, naughty, naughty, don’t do it again…now, as I was saying, those perfectly horrible Catholics…”
I don’t get it. I really don’t. All I can figure, is that hatred for Catholics really is, as has been said more than once, the “last acceptable prejudice”. **I don’t, by the grace of God, suffer from it… **
But hey…That’s just me… sadly…

 

[Zooey]

Maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread bringing out things like the Siege of Drogheda, the protestant inquisitions, the Lutheran witch burnings and on and on. My bet is that most people do not even know these things happened.

I think you’re probably right…At least, I hope that it’s just ignorance…Not the fact, that people just plain don’t care.

 

[Mirdath]

Whenever this subject comes up, & I participate in it, that there are always people assuming that “Zooey must be Catholic, and complaining about how she’s persecuted”…The fact is, I was making a point about the evil doings of a **Protestant **queen, and nobody who had been condeming Catholics had anything to say…It was never even acknowledged .
:crying: Pressing a:crying: pregnant Margaret of Clitherow to death for the sole crime of being a Catholic in Elizabethan England is apparently somehow OK, because it was the CofE doing it.

Thing is, we’re talking specifically about Catholic persecution of heretics and non-believers, not Anglican. Nobody has said that the latter and other religious persecutions didn’t happen or weren’t horrifying; they did and they were. It’s simply not relevant in a discussion of the crimes of the medieval Catholic Church.

There is no double standard, merely a focus on one particular religion’s actions – and it started with the first post. If you’d like to discuss the moral failings of other sects, feel free to do so in a thread devoted to that. This one isn’t and has never been so.

Burning the Cathars for crimes against the state, on the other hand…

What crimes against the state? And what crimes had the non-Cathar Catholic population of Beziers – some 8,500 to 8,800 out of 9,000 – committed, to be marched against in a Crusade?

 

[Zooey]

You just made my point!!