Who is My Brother?

[Shiann]

Further, the terrible burnings, and torture without due justice is also a terrible “Inquisition Myth”:

Despite the compelling Gothic fictions, the evidence leads us to a wholly different conclusion. The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were theological experts who followed the rules and instructiones meticulously, and were dismissed and punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Gregory IX.

Maycock, The Inquisition, 128-29

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

In 1252, Innocent IV (1243-1254) sought to put an end to heresy by inscribing his papal bull, Ad extirpanda, which some acknowledge as the beginning of the Medieval Inquisition, though it hadn’t yet attained its full height. In the bull, Pope Innocent IV prescribed torture as a means of obtaining confessions from those suspected to be heretics. He only granted that this method be put to use once, yet he left this so ambiguous that Rome’s Inquisitors interpreted it in a number of ways (as I will show later). None of this was kept secret but was a practice taught openly in the Inquisitorial manuals.

Concerning torture, Prof. Kamen recently said, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.”

“The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition,” BBC documentary, Nov. 6, 1994

Admittedly, you are focusing on the Medieval Inquisition. But if you use that as an argument against it’s validity in terms of the Medieval Inquisition, I ask you why the Church would do LESS torture against a more prevalent problem of heresy (during the Spanish Inquisition) than they would during medieval times?

 

[estesbob]

Shiann:

Further, the terrible burnings, and torture without due justice is also a terrible “Inquisition Myth”:

Despite the compelling Gothic fictions, the evidence leads us to a wholly different conclusion. The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were theological experts who followed the rules and instructiones meticulously, and were dismissed and punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Gregory IX.

Maycock, The Inquisition, 128-29

There is a lot of misinformation about the Inqusition. I have read estimates that 1 to 9 milllion peple died as a result of it. Those numbers are incorrect. A thorough examination of all the records, done by both Catholic and non-catholic scholars, puts the death toll for the 500 years the inquisition existed at aprox 6,000. Thats Six thousand-nothing to be proud of, of course, but that works out to about 12 deaths a year.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

At this point, I wish to allow the reader a lengthy quotation from an EWTN article granting a somewhat detailed account of the procedures chosen by Inquisitors:

The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These mere then cited before the judges — usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities — and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, “Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser”, Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

• fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;
• more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food;
• visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
• torture, which will be discussed below. . . .

The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an “infamous”, was worthless before the courts. But in its destination of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long established practice, and of accepting a heretics evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. . . . Even prior to the establishment of the Inquisition the names of the witnesses were sometimes withheld from the accused person, and this usage was legalized by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. Boniface VIII, however, set it aside by his Bull “Ut commissi vobis officii” (Sext. Decret., 1. V, tit. ii ); and commanded that at all trials, even inquisitorial, the witnesses must be named to the accused. There was no personal confrontation of witnesses, neither was there any cross-examination. Witnesses for the defence hardly ever appeared, as they would almost infallibly be suspected of being heretics or favourable to heresy. For the same reason those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and mere therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull “Si adversus vos” forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe in them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way”. . .

As an example of this, in 1532, Dominican cardinals famously tried heretics without legal counsel.

The meaning full statements here are those which I highlighted.

In other words: Those people who were wrongly accused and were NOT HERETICS- were released WITHOUT PUNISHMENT.

And what part of “I love the True Church of Christ- and condem any other religion.” needs legal counsel? (I am admittedly a bit flippant here, but only because these arguments seem quite empty when regarded in their true light- from the perspective of that time.)

It was those individuals who were determined to speak against the True Church which were indicted. The would, of course, be excommunicated first (for that period of one year) all the while being offered a chance to repent or convert. It was only after this period of due process when the Church would turn the heretics to the secular authorities for punishment.

 

[Shiann]

estesbob:

There is a lot of misinformation about the Inqusition. I have read estimates that 1 to 9 milllion peple died as a result of it. Those numbers are incorrect. A thorough examination of all the records, done by both Catholic and non-catholic scholars, puts the death toll for the 500 years the inquisition existed at aprox 6,000. Thats Six thousand-nothing to be proud of, of course, but that works out to about 12 deaths a year.

And from what we are comming to realize- it was undoubtedly individuals who PROFESSED a claim against the Church.

:yup:

 

[estesbob]

Shiann:

And from what we are comming to realize- it was undoubtedly individuals who PROFESSED a claim against the Church.

:yup:

Unfortunately most critics of the Church always want to dwell on the Crusades and the Inquistion. And of course the American Catholic Bishops gave our critics even more ammunition with their handling of the homosexual Priest abuse scandal.

What seems to get lost in all the arguments is that the Church was the center of learning for nearly 1500 years. Most of the great insititution of learning were founded by the Church. During the so called Dark Ages western Knowledge and literature was nutured and protected in the monasteries and convents of the time. The Monks spent imesurable time tediously copying the great classics so they could be passed on to generations to come. The Church encouraged science, Copernicus was a Catholic Priest, Gallileo and Michaelangelo were devout Catholics.

And through all this time , a time where there were no printing presses and almost universal illiteracy it was the Church that kept providing the Word of God to the people. Regardless of ones status they could here Sciprture proclaimed every day in a Catholic Church.

Yes there are some things we needed to atone for but in the end The Catholic Church has been the most positive force for good that the world has ever seen.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Thank you so much, Shiann, for reading and offering feedback on some of the research I’ve brought forward… I must say, however, that I think you have mangled some of what I wrote just a bit. You’ve made it appear that I have some explaining to do. First, you brought forward the quotation from Lateran III that I used and then offered another which can be found merely a few lines further up the page which, supposedly, clears away the problems within the quote I offered. Obviously, if I missed such vital information only a few lines above my quote (which is not likely) then I am a veritable dunce. Yet, I had not missed that. I chose not to provide it. Why would I purposely choose not to provide information on the supposed violent activities of these heretics which allegedly instigated the crusade declared by the council? Was I being dishonest?

Rather, it is because the groups you cited were not heretical groups at all, but mercenaries who hailed from different provinces. If you’d look up at the top of the page and read the notes that stand as an introduction to the canons of the third Lateran Council, you’d find the following:

. . .heretics called Cathars were excommunicated and likewise were the bands of mercenaries, or rather criminals, which were causing utter destruction in some parts of Europe; it was declared, and this seems an innovation, that arms should be taken up against them (canon 27). . .

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN3.HTM

Let’s look again at the part of the quote from Lateran III you offered that is most in question:

“With regard to the Brabanters, Aragonese, Navarrese, Basques, Coterelli and Triaverdini {17}, who practise such cruelty upon Christians that they respect neither churches nor monasteries, and spare neither widows, orphans, old or young nor any age or sex, but like pagans destroy and lay everything waste. . .”

Look carefully at those names, Shiann. Brabanters are men who come from the province of Brabant, in northeast Belgium. Aragonese hail from the kingdom of Aragon. Navarrese arise from the province of Spain known as Navarre (Henry of Navarre was a famous English monarch). The Basques are a separate people who I believe still exist and have the oldest known language. Coterelli was, at that time, a name for “a kind of peasantry who were outlaws, robbers” (icresource.com/LegalResearch/PDF/LexiconLegal&BankingTerms.pdf). Around this time, King Henry II used “coterelli” as mercenaries in his Welsh campaign. (deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/latimer.htm) Though I must admit that I do not know what Triaverdini were.

I wasn’t hiding this information. There is nothing here to hide. It was not the “Cathars” who were destroying and laying waste but bands of mercenaries. The term “Cathar” is a general category for a number of sects or groups of heretical dualists who had adopted Gnostic views. I do not and have never denied that Cathars were true heretics. That really wasn’t my point and I was not trying to argue that they held beliefs which might make them “separated brethren” or anything like that… But did they teach violence?

Let’s take a passage from their religious teachings, which also refers to the refusal of oaths:

And if you wish to receive this power you must keep all the commandments of Christ and the New Testament according to your ability. And know that He has commanded that man shall not commit adultery or murder or lie, that he must not swear any oath, that he shall not seize or rob, nor do to others what he would not have done to himself, that man must forgive whoever wrongs him and love his enemies, pray for his detractors and accusers and bless them; and if anyone strike him on one cheek, turn to him the other also, and if anyone takes away his cloak, to leave him his coat also. . .

fordham.edu/halsall/source/cathar-traditio.html

Sound like rather dangerous people… But, in all seriousness, in spite of teachings like this, some of the Cathar heretics had, by this time, been persecuted so long, even suffering cruel tortures (like branding of the forehead and even death) that they resisted with force certain civil and church authorities who were violent toward them. I did not bring this up in my series of posts because the extreme violence that arose among the clergy was not in accordance with canon law at the time and, thus, these were the activities of cruel men and not reflective of the decrees of the Roman church. At the same time, Rome was not “DEFENDING” itself from these people. Some of the Cathars certainly took to defending themselves. Even then, many of them, including the Bogomils, were pacifistic and would not even defend themselves by force. They were slaughtered in the crusade anyway.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

The point I was trying to make, originally, is simply that the crusade against the truly heretical Cathari was clearly poorly discriminating, as history shows and as Lateran III expected it would be. When the ecumenical council decreed that “Those who in true sorrow for their sins die in such a conflict should not doubt that they will receive forgiveness for their sins and the fruit of an eternal reward,” the council was saying in a nice sort of way that even those falsely suspected of obstinate heresy would be killed and that none should fear that GOD would know His own well enough to sort them out. Was it right to deal with heretics through hiring crusaders to slaughter them with the sword (without adequate trial proceedings)? Crusades are not guided by courtrooms.

You must try to grasp the magnitude of the heretical population that existed at that time. It is well known that faithful Roman Catholics died in that crusade as whole cities were attacked. Cathars would, many of them lying out of fear, claim to all be faithful to the Roman church. The Crusaders did not bring these people to court and try them all, each one in turn. There were too many of them. Even Lateran III did not expect them to do so and expected that some who were slain would be truly repentant and faithful. Yet, it is not so much the faithful who died that I am trying to bring to the forefront of this discussion but ONLY the expectation that truly repentant sons and daughters of the church would be killed.

I will not try to prove that faithful Roman Catholics were killed. Anyone who wishes to read the history of that crusade can see that for themselves. There were many families of Cathars and it is well known that children were killed with their parents. They were to be “exterminated,” after all. What I am focusing upon, however, is only the decree of the ecumenical council and its expectation that “truly” repentant people who wish to turn to Rome would, nonetheless, be killed because they cannot be discerned with confidence from those who are lying. Am I wrong in thinking that this decree is an open admission that Christ’s people would be killed by this crusade called to action by Rome?

As for the reference to the oath… I apologize for the lack of clarity in my post. I had not said that the Cathars were considered heretics because they refused to take an oath. That would be absurd. What I said was that many who were suspected of being heretics were convicted of being so on the grounds that they refused to take an oath. For instance, in the fourth Lateran Council, we read:

But if any of [those suspected] by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

This was one of the supposed means of identifying “genuine” Cathars because the Cathars taught against the taking of oaths. Therefore, anyone who refused to take an oath was suspected and, often enough, convicted on these grounds as a genuine Cathar heretic.

Now, just as you have warned me about being careful with context, so too must I prevail upon you not to forget the context of the case. This is part of the problem that assails a multi-part post, I suppose. My case itself is meant to be taken as a whole. I am trying to show, as well as space allows, the general development of methods officially advocated by Rome in identifying heretics and how those methods made it inevitable that innocent people should suffer and be killed. One small part of all this is the reference to suspecting and even convicting someone as having revealed themselves guilty of heresy on the basis that they refuse to take an oath. By itself, this may seem small to some here, until you grasp its significance in the pattern of development of methodology used to deal with and identify heretics.

Now, to discuss your argument concerning the quote of the fourth Lateran Council…

…continued…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

You brought up an aspect of the decree of the fourth Lateran Council in which those assumed guilty until proven innocent did have an entire year in which to clear their names (unless, for example, they were counted as heretics for refusing an oath). This, it seems you are trying to say, gives us every confidence that justice was done. Of course, I quoted this for all to see and did not try to hide it…

Why, then does it not seem to have the same affect on me as it appears to have on you? Well, there are two reasons. First, as I said earlier, this is meant to be a cumulative case. It was never my intention to base my entire case on this single reference from Lateran IV (though I think Lateran III could probably stand on its own). Rather, I was quoting from an ecumenical council to prove that Rome had officially made the assumption of guilt mandatory. Moving on from there, one would examine the later use of torture to elicit confessions, learn of the refusal to allow the accused legal counsel, for instance, and along with other evidence, after putting 2 and 2 together, would realize that people who were merely assumed guilty were tortured to elicit confessions and killed.

But, though this was not the thrust of my original series, I would say that, even standing alone, this quote from Lateran IV is still rather damning. A whole year may sound like a rather long time to clear one’s name, until… one realizes what this entailed. As I tried to explain, legal counsel was officially refused to heretics for sometime, based upon the precedent of a number of papal bulls. Nor could the accused cross-examine or even know the name of those who accused him or her. Often, imprisonment was part of the ordeal, which would make it difficult to gather evidence, and others were unwilling to come forward in defense of an accused heretic out of fear of association, lest the same punishments be their fate. Let us say, for instance, that we have the following hypothetical situation…

A man, let us say a faithful Roman Catholic, is accused by a group of others who know him of being a heretic (either by mistake or out of malice). The Roman authorities take him and then demand that he swear an oath that he is not a heretic. If he is a humble or ignorant man who truly is unwilling to swear, having been taught that such is against the command of Christ, he will be automatically guilty, as decreed by Lateran IV. Or, as is more likely, let us say that he swears the oath willingly but, through the abounding testimony against him (perhaps he’s had dealings with heretics before out of kindness or ignorance on his part) the court does not believe his testimony and suspects him. Remember, they’ve been instructed to work under the principle of assuming guilt until the accused can prove himself innocent. Now, his unwillingness to confess makes him guilty before the eyes of the court and he is given one year to either confess or recant or prove himself innocent. He is a man with little or no family to speak of and what friends he had will not testify for him (or they, too, have already been suspected as heretics and are in the same state as he) and those who have accused him are respected members of the community. What can he do?

Well, you might say, he could simply worship after the Roman manner and attest to his belief in all the teachings of Rome. But, let us say that any one of the following might be required of him that he is unwilling to do…

1. Now that he is professing faith, he is required to sign a statement confessing his sin of heresy and that he has now recanted. This he is unwilling to do because he never was a heretic and, upon signing, he will have basically destroyed his good name.
2. He is asked to embrace and swear fealty to the current Pope and he is, personally, disgusted with the immorality of the present church and the Pope, in particular. He is unwilling to sign anything or swear to anything which would basically accuse him before Christ of vindicating the evil of the present man who falsely sits in and defiles the chair of Peter.
3. He is required to sign a confession of his own heresy and a document which attests that certain of his known friends or family members who are also accused are themselves heretics. This he will not do because he knows them not to be heretics and to sign such a document would be to sign their death warrant.

The list could go on… The point here is that the decree that those suspected of heresy are guilty until proven innocent makes it more likely that innocent people will suffer. But, as I said before, I listed that particular decree of Lateran IV, not so that it could stand on its own, but as an important part of the progression of the teachings of Rome which (some standing alone but most) taken cumulatively lead to the death of innocent people.

…continued…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Further, the terrible burnings, and torture without due justice is also a terrible “Inquisition Myth”

So, it is your position that the article on the Inquisition from EWTN, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia (ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/INQCATEN.HTM)), which outlines precisely that torture without due process which you deny, is a false document without any real substantiation? And you think that the heart of your alternative quote, avoids all this:

The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were theological experts who followed the rules and instructiones meticulously, and were dismissed and punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Gregory IX.

Shiann, what is being said here? Indeed, the Inquisitors were punished when they showed too little regard for justice. But how is justice defined if not by papal bulls and canon law? All of these defined, at the time, what was “just” as withholding legal counsel, torture to elicit confessions, which was not rare and was broadly defined, denying the accused any right to know or question their accusers, etc. Nor do I believe that the Inquisitors were “gleefully” administering torture or thought themselves to be doing anything but administering justice. It was seen as necessary, important and, in a way, rather useful and ordinary for the time. Ordinary is defined for most people by the common practice and opinion of their day.

If you can live in a day where so many countless thousands can see abortion as perfectly ordinary and even talk about it as the most moral (even humane) choice, if you can understand that Nazi torturers had normal lives and returned home from their day of work and played with their children and kissed their wives and thought and acted like normal fathers, then I don’t know why you would have a problem fathoming that Rome could think an Inquisitor (as the Inquisitor thought himself) perfectly normal and moral and careful as he administered “justice” through excruciating pain. How, on earth, your quote answers anything I’ve argued, you’ll have to explain to me.

I’ve never said that Inquisitors were all these sadistic, twisted men who “gleefully” enjoyed their work a little too much. I’ve usually conceived them as using torture purely as a tool, as believing that they were rigidly following a code of integrity. I haven’t come to a problem with Rome because Rome advocated “willi-nillie” torture. Of course, Rome punished a madman like Robert of Bourger. Of course, Rome disciplined its members not to get “out of line.” Rome’s concept of “out of line” was much broader really than mine… and I hope yours also, yet not even this is the issue. The issue is whether Rome’s methods made it likely that some of the victims on the rack who testified against themselves were innocent and burned nonetheless, on the basis of that false testimony.

Consider this, from the EWTN article:

But one of the difficulties of the procedure is why torture was used as a means of learning the truth. On the one hand, the torture was continued until the accused confessed or intimated that he was willing to confess, On the other hand, it was not desired, as in fact it was not possible, to regard as freely made a confession wrung by torture.
It is at once apparent how little reliance may be placed upon the assertion so often repeated in the minutes of trials, “confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum” (the confession was true and free), even though one had not occasionally read in the preceding pages that, after being taken down from the rack (postquam depositus fuit de tormento), he freely confessed this or that.

Is this information taken from trial records and documented on an official Roman Catholic site all fabricated? I imagine that these men recorded the statement that the confession provoked by torture was “true and free” precisely because the opinions of their peers and the liberties granted by Rome allowed them to believe this. If Rome sanctioned and furthered this way of thinking to the detriment of innocent people, is she guilty?

All this talk about the fact that Rome did not allow Inquisitors to become little sadists who “gleefully” enjoyed their work and abused their power misses the entire point. That, in itself, cannot be our standard. Christ did not merely say that His Church would not support the sadistic enjoyment of murder. . . there’s more to it than just that.

…continued…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

You brought up an important resource, next, when quoting from a Prof. Kamen:

Concerning torture, Prof. Kamen recently said, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.”

“The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition,” BBC documentary, Nov. 6, 1994

First, let’s take a look at this just as it is stated for a moment, without any correction. Two percent of 7000 is 140 people. One hundred forty people we can be sure were tortured around fifteen minutes… Do you know how long it would take, by a trained professional, to elicit a confession from you, Shiann? Do you think you could last fifteen minutes under torture by an Inquisitor? How about if you suffered through the torture described in that document I provided giving a sample case? If you didn’t catch it, you can find it here:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/clareno-inq.html

However long you think you could last, the Inquisitors didn‘t just stop the torture because they felt sorry for the person on the rack. They stopped administering it because they received from the accused either a confession or a promise of a confession…

But, perhaps more importantly, this information seems extremely misleading. Allow me to explain why, again returning to the official article I’ve used so often. According to Prof. Kamen, the use of torture is recorded very infrequently (in Valencia) and that for only fifteen minutes. What does the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, made available at EWTN, say of this?:

However, it is not of greater importance to say that torture is seldom mentioned in the records of inquisition trials — but once, for example in 636 condemnations between 1309 and 1323. . .

ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/INQCATEN.HTM

That’s very few recorded instances of torture. Why wouldn’t this be important?

. . .this does not prove that torture was rarely applied. Since torture was originally inflicted outside the court room by lay officials, and since only the voluntary confession was valid before the judges, there was no occasion to mention in the records the fact of torture.

Remember, this is not my argument or the argument of an anti-Catholic website. This is the fair testimony of an official Roman Catholic source that has studied the actual trial documents. What of Prof. Kamen’s remark about the fact that, according to the records he has examined, he never found torture occurring more than twice?

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 (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; “quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur.”

You might argue that the legislation of several Popes had been mishandled here and that this is merely the cruelty of a few men. However, there is also, I believe, a reasonable response to that. It must be remembered, as the article explains:

The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage.

None of this was done in secret. It was well known what occurred and the same Popes who had written the legislation and left it open to such interpretation had also remained silent in the midst of this open practice. Indeed:

From the popes silence it was concluded that a witness might be put upon the rack at the discretion of the inquisitor. Moreover, if the accused was convicted through witnesses, or had pleaded guilty, the torture might still he used to compel him to testify against his friends and fellow-culprits.

Therefore, I can only assume that the Popes thought their words were adequately understood and applied by their Inquisitors. Do we know that they were not? It certainly was a different mindset in that day. All of these practices makes it seem certain that innocent people were finally turned over to be burned. Again, there may be an answer to this problem but the historical facts seem uncomfortably disturbing.

…continued…

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

The meaning full statements here are those which I highlighted.

In other words: Those people who were wrongly accused and were NOT HERETICS- were released WITHOUT PUNISHMENT.

And what part of “I love the True Church of Christ- and condem any other religion.” needs legal counsel? (I am admittedly a bit flippant here, but only because these arguments seem quite empty when regarded in their true light- from the perspective of that time.)

It was those individuals who were determined to speak against the True Church which were indicted. The would, of course, be excommunicated first (for that period of one year) all the while being offered a chance to repent or convert. It was only after this period of due process when the Church would turn the heretics to the secular authorities for punishment.

Shiann, I believe you may have hurried through the readings. It seems to show a bit in your misunderstanding of the text. Let me quote the portion which I believe you misread:

The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These were then cited before the judges — usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities — and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused.

Shiann, the article is not speaking about people who were wrongly accused. It is saying that, if the heretic freely confessed their heresy of their own accord, then a suitable penance was done. The court is not asking a “suitable penance” from a person who is falsely accused and innocent. Second, if the person did not confess freely, then the trial began. If the accused at once made a “full and free confession,” then the affair was concluded “and not to the disadvantage of the accused.” That last phrase is rather ambiguous.

The truth is, however, that this rarely happened, for the article goes on to say, “But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating.” Why was a simple “testimony” incriminating? Because the accused was officially seen as guilty until thoroughly proven innocent and sometimes was officially counted as guilty straight away for simply denying to take an oath, which was taken as proof of secret heresy (see Lateran IV).

You are right, however. You are being extremely flippant when you talk in terms of offering a simple phrase about loving the true Church and condemning any other religion. This is EXACTLY what the accused heretic was always saying. Every accused heretic said something like this. The court did not allow this to mean much because the accused was seen as guilty based upon testimony from witnesses (some of which had themselves been tortured to elicit testimony against others, as the EWTN article reveals). A simple denial of this testimony was not seen as proof of innocence but as stubborn and obstinate heresy. A CONFESSION WAS REQUIRED. Of course, an innocent person is not going to confess to something he is not guilty of and, thus, torture is used to procure that confession, which is then labeled as “true and free” in the court record. Even after this, they may be tortured further to procure from them testimony against their friends or family.

What is worse, if the confession is then retracted (because it was obviously false as it was forced), the one who had confessed is labeled a “relapsed heretic” and burned at the stake for this. It was not the individual “determined to speak against the True Church” who was always indicted, Shiann. It was the person who refused to indict himself that was indicted by others even without any solid proof.

If this is what you call “justice” and “due process” … be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn’t wish such “justice” on my worst enemy.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

the council was saying in a nice sort of way that even those falsely suspected of obstinate heresy would be killed and that none should fear that GOD would know His own well enough to sort them out.

Thank you for letting us know what the council really meant to say.

 

[mercygate]

Eden of Mind:

If this is what you call “justice” and “due process” … be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn’t wish such “justice” on my worst enemy.

Due process?

This entire discussion must now take a detour down the avenue of mediaeval jurisprudence and the ordo iudicarius. For by the introduction of a legal term unknown to the period (due process), a concept still under development at the time, our lens must focus upon those features of the history if we are to pass judgment on the ecclesiastical role in the prosecution of heresy and heretics.

I haven’t the expertise or time. I hope somebody else has.

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

The point I was trying to make, originally, is simply that the crusade against the truly heretical Cathari was clearly poorly discriminating, as history shows and as Lateran III expected it would be.

I completely understand that is the point you are trying to make, but your evidence has fallen short of proving that the Catholic Chruch was poorly discriminating. As far as the Lateran III statement:

When the ecumenical council decreed that “Those who in true sorrow for their sins die in such a conflict should not doubt that they will receive forgiveness for their sins and the fruit of an eternal reward,” the council was saying in a nice sort of way that even those falsely suspected of obstinate heresy would be killed and that none should fear that GOD would know His own well enough to sort them out.

It is equally as probably that the Church simply meant that if a heretic decided at the moment of his death that he was truly sorrowfull for their sins against God’s Church- that God would no doubt welcome them to the flock.

This seems to be the most probable interpretation as this is a doctrine that has endured since the time of Christ. Salvation is instantaneous to those who are repentent of their sins.

Was it right to deal with heretics through hiring crusaders to slaughter them with the sword (without adequate trial proceedings)? Crusades are not guided by courtrooms.

Holy Wars are generally not fought in the courtroom.

You must try to grasp the magnitude of the heretical population that existed at that time.

Rather than me trying to “grasp the magnitude” from thin air- how about some good evidence…

It is well known that faithful Roman Catholics died in that crusade as whole cities were attacked.

What??? I have provided evidence that there were a HANDFULL of actual inquisitors- AND evidence that any possible heretics were to be put through the inquisition process laid out by the Church. You have not put forth evidence of Church sponsored “attack on whole cities”.

Cathars would, many of them lying out of fear, claim to all be faithful to the Roman church. The Crusaders did not bring these people to court and try them all, each one in turn. There were too many of them.

So say you… And are you speaking of the Crusades to the Holy Land? Because if we have now moved from Midieval Inquisition to Crusades- I think we are getting sidetracked.

Even Lateran III did not expect them to do so and expected that some who were slain would be truly repentant and faithful.

On your interpretation of that quote… but I discussed this above.

Again, if a person who has chosen to cut themselves off from God (by commiting mortal sin), repents at the moment of death- that person is welcomed into Heaven. True when Christ was on earth, True during the Inquisition (all three of them), and True today.

Yet, it is not so much the faithful who died that I am trying to bring to the forefront of this discussion but ONLY the expectation that truly repentant sons and daughters of the church would be killed.

The Church HOPED people would repent. If the person denied Christ- up to the moment of death- how is that the Church’s fault?

 

[Shiann]

I will not try to prove that faithful Roman Catholics were killed. Anyone who wishes to read the history of that crusade can see that for themselves. There were many families of Cathars and it is well known that children were killed with their parents.

They were to be “exterminated,” after all.

In response to the severity and frequent brutality with which the northern French waged the Albigensian Crusade, in which many heretics were killed without formal trial or hearing, Pope Innocent III set in motion a process of investigation to expose the secret sects. Another problem confronting the papacy was the willingness on the part of the laity to take the most severe steps against heresy without much concern for the heretics’ conversion and salvation. The real father of the medieval institution is considered to be Pope Gregory IX, friend of both St. Francis and St Dominic. He would call upon the newfound mendicant orders to assume the dangerous, arduous, and unwanted task of inquisitors.

What Pope Gregory IX instituted was an extraordinary court to investigate and adjudicate persons accused of heresy. The unprecedented growth of the Albigensians in southern France surely played into his decision. In northern France as well, the Church was facing sporadic mob violence that often fell on the innocent. The practice of putting heretics to death by burning at the stake was assuming the force of an established custom. The Pope was also concerned about the reports coming from Germany about a sect known as the Luciferians, a secret society with fixed rituals that profaned the Sacred Host.

Maycock, The Inquisition. pp. 77, 52-53; Walsh, Characters of the Inquisition, 41-3.

It appears that the violence you speak- was perpetrated in spite of the wishes of the Church- not because of it. And that the Church established the formal hearing TO SAVE heretics from unjust activity by the laity.

What I am focusing upon, however, is only the decree of the ecumenical council and its expectation that “truly” repentant people who wish to turn to Rome would, nonetheless, be killed because they cannot be discerned with confidence from those who are lying. Am I wrong in thinking that this decree is an open admission that Christ’s people would be killed by this crusade called to action by Rome?

Yes you are quite wrong. With all the evidence provided and when viewed through the perspective of the time.

As for the reference to the oath… I apologize for the lack of clarity in my post. I had not said that the Cathars were considered heretics because they refused to take an oath. That would be absurd. What I said was that many who were suspected of being heretics were convicted of being so on the grounds that they refused to take an oath.

But that is logical! It is a good indicator that person was a Cathar. But even so, suspecting one is Cathar only gets them into an inquisition trial- not burned at the stake. If they, in addition, publicly refuse to acknowledge Christ and the True Church he established. Then that person is a heretic, and able to be turned over to secular authorities for punishment.

This was one of the supposed means of identifying “genuine” Cathars because the Cathars taught against the taking of oaths. Therefore, anyone who refused to take an oath was suspected and, often enough, convicted on these grounds as a genuine Cathar heretic.

No one was convicted without proper testimony by that person.

Now, just as you have warned me about being careful with context, so too must I prevail upon you not to forget the context of the case. This is part of the problem that assails a multi-part post, I suppose. My case itself is meant to be taken as a whole. I am trying to show, as well as space allows, the general development of methods officially advocated by Rome in identifying heretics and how those methods made it inevitable that innocent people should suffer and be killed.

Indeed, as is my defense against such claims. Though you have failed to provide evidence that the Church acted against innocents as you claim. In fact, evidence shows they went out of their way to provide every opportunity available to them, to allow an accused a way to show their innocence or prove their conversion.

One small part of all this is the reference to suspecting and even convicting someone as having revealed themselves guilty of heresy on the basis that they refuse to take an oath. By itself, this may seem small to some here, until you grasp its significance in the pattern of development of methodology used to deal with and identify heretics.

See above…

 

[wgsullivan]

Hello all and what a thread!

Correct me if I’m wrong… If we use particular ecumenical councils to alledgedly prove the apostasy of a particular faith then mustn’t we throw out all other councils of said wayward church? If it never was the one true church, then the Bible it approved in councils and protected must be thrown out as well? Then we don’t have the problem of killing brothers and heretics as well as no debate.

In Christ,

wg

 

[Mickey]

In France and Spain especially, the Cathar heretics were a danger not just to the Church, but to the state, and to all. In 1229 a council at Toulouse required that everyone in Languedoc, where most of the Cathars were, to take an oath and renew it every other year, to remain a good Catholic, and to denounce heretics. But Cardinal Frangipani heard testimony from a former Cathar, William of Solier, who said that to make such names public would endanger the lives of the informants. Out of this grew the Inquisition, established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 to be staffed by Dominicans. The Cathars then were as dangerous as terrorists today, and brought fear, cruelty, bloodshed and war wherever they had sufficient numbers. In southern France it took the full armed power of the King of France to overcome them.

But then they went underground. Persons accused by the Inquisition were not allowed to know the accusers, to protect the accusers—this sort of thing happens in protection of witnesses in U. S. courts today. But the person arrested was to make a list of his personal enemies and none of their testimony would be used against him. What modern court allows such a thing? Torture was used, but quite infrequent, and not lasting in its effects. In the 50 years of the operation there were no more than 5000 executions, which was small in comparison to the total executed for other crimes in the same period. Some Inquisitors did abuse their power, but they were promptly and strongly curbed by Pope Gregory IX. In 1242 the Cathars murdered ten of the Inquisitors.

Fr William Most

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

You brought up an aspect of the decree of the fourth Lateran Council in which those assumed guilty until proven innocent did have an entire year in which to clear their names (unless, for example, they were counted as heretics for refusing an oath). This, it seems you are trying to say, gives us every confidence that justice was done. Of course, I quoted this for all to see and did not try to hide it…

Why, then does it not seem to have the same affect on me as it appears to have on you? Well, there are two reasons. First, as I said earlier, this is meant to be a cumulative case. It was never my intention to base my entire case on this single reference from Lateran IV (though I think Lateran III could probably stand on its own). Rather, I was quoting from an ecumenical council to prove that Rome had officially made the assumption of guilt mandatory.

That sir, is the nature of the Inquisitorial System of judicial review.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties…

…Until the Medieval inquisition in the 12th century, the legal systems used in medieval Europe generally relied on the adversarial system to determine who could be tried for a crime and whether they were guilty or innocent. Under this system, unless a person were caught in the act of committing a crime, they could not be tried for a crime until they had been formally accused, either by the voluntary accusations of a sufficient number of witnesses or by an inquest (an early form of grand jury) convened specifically for that purpose. A weakness of this system was that because it relied on the voluntary accusations of witnesses, and because the penalties for making a false accusation were severe, would-be witnesses could be hesitant to actually make their accusations to the court, for fear of implicating themselves. Because of the difficulties in deciding cases, procedures such as ordeal or combat were accepted, though it is generally agreed nowadays that these procedures are not acceptable ways of finding truth or settling a dispute.
Beginning in 1198, Pope Innocent III issued a series of decretals that reformed the ecclesiastical court system. Under the new processus per inquisitionem (inquisitional procedure) an ecclestiastical magistrate no longer required a formal accusation to summon and try a defendant. Instead, an ecclesiastical court could summon and interrogate witnesses of its own initiative, and if the (possibly secret) testimony of those witnesses accused a person of a crime, that person could then be summoned and tried. In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran affirmed the use of the inquisitional system. The council also forbade clergy from conducting trials by ordeal or combat. As a result, in parts of continental Europe, the ecclesiastical courts operating under the inquisitional procedure became the dominant method by which disputes were adjudicated. In France, the parlements — lay courts — employed inquisitorial proceedings…

 

[Shiann]

…Administrative proceedings in many common law jurisdictions may be similar to their civil law counterparts and be conducted on a more inquisitorial model. A good example are the many administrative boards such as the New York City Traffic Violations Bureau: a minor tribunal that deals with traffic infractions where the adjudicator also functions as the prosecutor and questions the witnesses; he or she also renders judgment and sets the fine to be paid.

These types of tribunals or boards can be found in most modern democracies. They function as an expedited form of justice where the state agents conduct an initial investigation and the adjudicator’s job is to confirm these preliminary findings through a simplified form of procedure that grants some basic amount of due process or fundamental justice in which the accused party has an opportunity (sometimes futile) to place his or her objections on the record.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

This would be similar to the point in a criminal investigation where the police bring you in as a suspect. They “SUSPECT” you of a crime for some reason- even as slight a reason as you were the last person to see the victim before the crime occured. It is up to you to place yourself in a position away from the crime. At that point, you are guilty- until you prove your innocence.