What About Torture?
The Inquisition & the Church
Yes, it is true. While the accused was not imprisoned during the inquiry period, if he refused to confess his guilt and his accomplices, sometimes the authorities resorted to torture. It was not classified as a form of punishment, merely a means of eliciting the truth. "It was not of ecclesiastical origin and was long forbidden in the ecclesiastical courts" (p. 29). It was first sanctioned by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda of May 15, 1252. The torture was not, however, to cause the loss of a limb or to imperil life. It could be applied only once, and not even then unless the accused seemed dubious in his statements and the weight of evidence leaning heavy toward conviction. All other means had to be exhausted first. Dr. O'Brien writes:
If this papal legislation had been followed in practice, many of the abuses which have justly aroused such resentment against the Inquisition would have been avoided. In the beginning, torture was considered so odious and so contrary to the spirit of the Gospels that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity.
Using many different instruments of torture, the rule about resorting to it only once was circumvented. While the severity of torture has often been exaggerated, it must be admitted that there were cases of terrible excess. Such was often the case when civil authorities leaned on Church officials for results. Using his seal for the faith as an excuse, Frederick II abused the Inquisition and the rack to eradicate his personal enemies. "St. Joan of Arc was sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant largely because her judges were tools of English policy. Moreover, the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, . . .were chiefly traceable to the influence of the secular arm" (O'Brien, p. 31).
Most Inquisition penalties were mild and intended to assist the person to grow spiritually. Good works were required, like church visitation, a religious pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or Mass vessel, the participation in a crusade, fines, mortification of the flesh, etc. The worst punishments were incarceration or excommunication from the Church. If the Church felt that she could not appropriately punish the misdeeds, she would hand them over to the secular authorities. Imprisonment could be severe, but the vast majority lived a rather monastic life with a communal form of life-- taking meals with others, living with their spouses, and enjoying freedom of movement within the set buildings and grounds. Catholic friends were even allowed to visit them and to bring them food, wine, and clothing from outside. As for the more severe imprisonment, it often took the form of solitary confinement and chains. The popes were eventually able to do much to improve the conditions for this latter group. The chains were removed, friends and outside food was permitted, etc. The Papacy, so often blamed for the Inquisition, showed itself as a influence to make the situation more humane.
Yes, it is true. While the accused was not imprisoned during the inquiry period, if he refused to confess his guilt and his accomplices, sometimes the authorities resorted to torture. It was not classified as a form of punishment, merely a means of eliciting the truth. "It was not of ecclesiastical origin and was long forbidden in the ecclesiastical courts" (p. 29). It was first sanctioned by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda of May 15, 1252. The torture was not, however, to cause the loss of a limb or to imperil life. It could be applied only once, and not even then unless the accused seemed dubious in his statements and the weight of evidence leaning heavy toward conviction. All other means had to be exhausted first. Dr. O'Brien writes:
If this papal legislation had been followed in practice, many of the abuses which have justly aroused such resentment against the Inquisition would have been avoided. In the beginning, torture was considered so odious and so contrary to the spirit of the Gospels that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity.
Using many different instruments of torture, the rule about resorting to it only once was circumvented. While the severity of torture has often been exaggerated, it must be admitted that there were cases of terrible excess. Such was often the case when civil authorities leaned on Church officials for results. Using his seal for the faith as an excuse, Frederick II abused the Inquisition and the rack to eradicate his personal enemies. "St. Joan of Arc was sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant largely because her judges were tools of English policy. Moreover, the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, . . .were chiefly traceable to the influence of the secular arm" (O'Brien, p. 31).
Most Inquisition penalties were mild and intended to assist the person to grow spiritually. Good works were required, like church visitation, a religious pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or Mass vessel, the participation in a crusade, fines, mortification of the flesh, etc. The worst punishments were incarceration or excommunication from the Church. If the Church felt that she could not appropriately punish the misdeeds, she would hand them over to the secular authorities. Imprisonment could be severe, but the vast majority lived a rather monastic life with a communal form of life-- taking meals with others, living with their spouses, and enjoying freedom of movement within the set buildings and grounds. Catholic friends were even allowed to visit them and to bring them food, wine, and clothing from outside. As for the more severe imprisonment, it often took the form of solitary confinement and chains. The popes were eventually able to do much to improve the conditions for this latter group. The chains were removed, friends and outside food was permitted, etc. The Papacy, so often blamed for the Inquisition, showed itself as a influence to make the situation more humane.
posted by Father Joe Jenkins at 1:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home