Bede

This is still a work in progress, but I have been working on an inquisition FAQ. References have not been copied through but if you want a specific one, then let me know.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

What does the word ‘inquisition’ mean?

Inquisition is the English term for a legal process called inquisitio in Latin which originates in the first century BC. This has no particular connotations with the church or heresy and was a widely used procedure in Europe. It still forms the foundation of, for instance, the French criminal justice system. What happens is that a magistrate, usually a professional jurist, is assigned to investigate an allegation of criminality by calling for witnesses and collecting evidence. Once he has done this, he can decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to bring a suspect to trial. The trial is conducted in the appropriate court for the crime with the magistrate usually acting as prosecutor or judge. This differs from the Anglo/American system where crimes are investigated by the police who take no part in any resulting court proceedings except as witnesses.

What is meant by ‘The Inquisition’

There never was a single monolithic office of ‘The Inquisition’ except in later legend. Instead, in the Middle Ages there were independent inquisitors who travelled around giving their support to local tribunals and occasionally acting independently. Later on in the Renaissance, particular circumstances caused Inquisitions to be set up in Spain, Portugal, Venice, Rome, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Most of these were independent except for nominal control by the papacy. The way these local tribunals were run was culture specific and depended on their political support and the strength of competing sources of judicial control. The fact that the Inquisition, in particular, was named after the inquisitio legal system that was used in much or Europe is simply a historical accident.

How did the church get involved?

Canon law was substantially enhanced in the Middle Ages and as the papacy became the ultimate arbiter of disputes a more streamlined legal system was required. Innocent IV introduced the inquisitio as a much needed reform to handle the increased bulk of appeals. It dealt with everything from heresy and adultery to property disputes and divorce proceedings. Before long it was also used by the courts of individual bishops in their dioceses and became the dominant form of clerical legal business.

Who were the first inquisitors?

Cases of heresy were tried before the court of the local bishop with appeal to Rome but in some areas it was felt that back up was required. Consequently, inquisitors were appointed by the pope to carry out independent investigations as special circumstances demanded. The inquisitor was usually a member of one of the mendicant orders, either a Franciscan or a Dominican monk who did not have any specific powers except those already enjoyed by the local bishop. However, it is likely that they held considerable moral authority as they were well educated men with a mandate from Rome that would have helped ensure co-operation.

Where did the inquisitors operate?

Although they travelled all over Western Europe, most of their activity was directed at Southern France and Northern Italy. Their attention was devoted to clearing up the Cathars in the aftermath of the Albigensian crusade and hunting down the Beguins and spiritual Fransicans after these groups were condemned by Pope John XXII. Later, the Spanish Inquisition worked under the auspices of the Spanish crown and operated through out their empire with off shoots in the Netherlands and New World. The Roman Inquisition, founded in the sixteenth century was largely restricted to Italy.

Did the inquisitors enforce orthodoxy among academics?

The medieval universities had a great deal of freedom to police themselves and outside inquisitors were rarely involved. If an academic produced a work felt to be heterodox then he could expect it to be enquired into by his peers. If he was found guilty the punishment was negligible and it might to even effect his career prospects too adversely (Giles of Rome was condemned by the University of Paris but ended his career as an Archbishop). The academic’s book would be glossed to mention the error rather than suppressed so that it could be used as an example in future disputes. Outside authorities would only become involved in cases where the academic was trying to disseminate his ideas outside the university environment, after repeated infringements or if there was an appeal made to a higher court.

How often was torture used?

Inquisitors were allowed to use torture, after the papal bull of Innocent IV, subject to various restrictions (unlike secular authorities that had greater freedom in this department). It was rarely resorted to but inquisitors often found that the threat was sufficient to extract the information that they were after. Cases of abuse occurred, however, and Nicholas Eymeric, in his manual for inquisitors of 1376, said that torture could be continued for more than one day. The later Spanish and Roman Inquisitions used torture very rarely and were sticklers for legal procedure and recognising the rights of the accused.

What kind of punishments were inflicted?

Church courts of the middle ages had a deserved reputation for being far more lenient than there secular equivalents and this caused tension when the jurisdictions crossed. Henry II of England was particularly displeased about this in his dispute with the church that led to the murder of St Thomas á Beckett. For instance, the secular punishment for sodomy and bestiality was death right up to the nineteenth in most European countries but a church court was more likely to send the miscreant off on a pilgrimage. Various other kinds of penance could be imposed from saying the rosary to wearing special clothes for public repentance. Imprisonment in a monastery was the most common serious punishment. Inquisitors were always more concerned with reconciliation to the church through confession that retribution.

How often was the death penalty imposed in the Middle Ages?

The death penalty was only imposed on cases of unrepentant heretics or those found guilty of relapsing. A death sentence could also be imposed in absentia when the accused had fled as it was assumed in such cases that they were unrepentant. We do not possess many figures for the numbers of burnings but some statistics are available. For instance, Bernard Gui convicted 700 over a period of ten years in Toulouse of which 40 were executed.

Why were heretics burnt?

Burning was the penalty under ancient Roman law for treason after crucifixion had been abolished in the fourth century. It was consequently used by the Holy Roman Empire to deal with traitors and heresy was widely seen as a particularly serious kind of treason. Although the church never specifically sanctioned burning once a heretic had been ‘relaxed’ to the secular arm, it was always perfectly well aware that this would be the result. If the heretic confessed after sentence had already been passed then it was usually commuted to strangulation by the executioner before the pyre was lit. In any case the victim often suffocated before the flames reached them although a skilled executioner could prevent this if instructed.

Why were inquisitors so keen to get confessions?

The desire for confessions was in great part not motivated by the need for convictions for which other evidence could always be found, but rather because of what inquisitors saw as their pastoral duty. Odd as it may sound, they wanted the accused to confess so that they could also receive absolution for their sins.

Were there ever acquittals and were appeals allowed?

Contrary to popular belief, it was possible to appeal from the inquisitor’s tribunal and there are many cases of appeals being heard by synods or the Vatican. Some of these appeals were even successful. However, there also exist documents that forbid appeal under certain circumstances and it was not always easy to get it heard. Acquittals also occurred, sometimes with entire investigations being thrown out such as the Basque witch hunt in the 1610s. The confusion over acquittals is a result of inquisitors records only recording a case once sufficient evidence had already been gathered to obtain a conviction.

Why was the Spanish Inquisition founded?

Islamic Granada and much of the rest of Spain had been a comparatively tolerant place until the late Middle Ages. At that point, when the peninsula was entirely in ruled by Christians, resentment against Jews and Moslems grew. Most of the later fled to North Africa, but this was less of an option for Jews who found themselves subject to widespread anti-Semitism. Many converted to Christianity but this merely changed prejudice against them from religious to racial and raised the problem of those who had only pretended to convert while continuing to practice their old faith behind closed doors. The Spanish Inquisition was formed to ensure that these conversos stayed converted but swiftly moved on to other areas rather than restricting itself to converted Jews.

Who ran the Spanish Inquisition?

The Spanish monarchy had asked the pope to set up the Inquisition but kept a firm hold on its activities. They nominated the Inquisitor General and remained personally involved as well. The first Grand Inquisitor was the notorious Thomas Torquemada who was in charge from 1483 until 1498. In this period, the Inquisition was at its bloodiest with an estimated two thousand executions up to 1504. Most of the victims were conversos whose faltering allegiance to Christianity was seen as making them dangerous to the regime and who were also subject to racist anti-Semitism. In time, concern about conversos diminished and the Inquisition turned its attention to moral matters of the sort that church courts had been dealing with for centuries. Cardinal Ximenez, who was Grand Inquisitor from 1506 to 1517 instituted widespread reform to correct the abuses that had taken place in earlier years.

How many were executed by the Spanish Inquisition?

By most standards, the records of the Spanish Inquisition are spectacularly good and a treasure throve for social historians as they record many details about ordinary people. Nothing like all the files have been analysed but from the third looked at so far, it seems the Inquisition, operating through out the Spanish Empire, executed about 700 people between 1540 and 1700 out of a total of 49,000 cases. It is also reckoned that they probably killed about two thousand during the first fifty years of operation when persecution against Jews and Moslems was at its most severe. This would give a total figure of around 5,000 for the entire period of its operation.

What was an auto de fe?

This was the public act of repentance that those whom the Inquisition had convicted were required to make. This involved a public confession, the reading of sentence and the penitent being packed off on their pilgrimage, confinement or whatever. Those who were to be executed were then handed over to the secular wing.

When did the Spanish Inquisition end?

After about 1700 it was a feeble shadow of its former self but limped on for over another hundred years until 1835 when it was suppressed for the last time. The various other Inquisitions of Sicily, the New World and Venice disappeared in the decades around 1800.

Which Inquisition tried Bruno and Galileo?

Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 as a relapsed heretic and Galileo placed under house arrest in 1636 for disobeying an order not to teach Copernicism as a true fact. Both these men were tried by the Roman Inquisition or Holy Office which was an arm of the Vatican bureaucracy. The historiography of both these trials is notoriously complicated (not least because the records of Bruno’s trial were lost in the Napoleonic Wars) but modern historians are unanimous that they should not been seen as simple conflicts between science and religion.

What was the Inquisitions’ involvement in Witch hunts?

Inquisitors did have some involvement in formulating the demonology that led, in part, to the witch hunts of Europe, especially the Malleus Maleficiarum published in 1486 by two Rhineland inquisitors. However, as the witch hunts progressed the Inquisition became much less heavily involved. Most fatal witch trials took place in secular courts in Germany and Switzerland where they had no great influence. It was not that the Inquisition did not believe in witches but rather that by insisting on exacting standards of proof, rarely using torture and preferring non-capital sentences, they never started the kind of craze that afflicted areas they did not control the process.

Amos

Catholic is just opposite to Christian in that Catholics are sinners ans Christians are not (to be set free from the law is to be free of sin, 1jn.3:9). The Catholic religion as a means to the end means that when Catholics become Christian they are no longer Catholic but Christian.

Christianity was introduced by the reformation when protestants wanted to be counted among the righteous and assured a place in heaven after they died. The problem the Catholic church has with this that our God is a God for the living and not for the dead. This kind of means that we are to enjoy heaven while alive on this earth and not after we die when it is too late.

Butters

LOL! You can say they were tried and executed in a "secular Jurisdiction" all you want, WHAT were they charged with again?

MortalWombat

Umm... secular witchcraft? consorting secularly with the devil?

Fr.Andrew

(Bede): "For instance, the secular punishment for sodomy and bestiality was death right up to the nineteenth in most European countries but a church court was more likely to send the miscreant off on a pilgrimage.
(Fr Andrew): In light of the current atmosphere, you could have picked a better example.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that sodomy was first a sin punishable by death...then a secular crime.

Perhaps the most ferocious laws against homosexual activity actually enforced in medieval times were those promulgated by a council of lords and bishops in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The First Crusade had captured the city in 1099 [Yikes!! That reminds me that it's tax season!]. The crusaders slaughtered most of the city's inhabitants, burned it's mosques and synagogues, and founded upon the carnage a Christian kingdom under the rule of Godfrey of Bouillon. In 1120 Baldwin II, the Norman king of Jerusalem, along with his patriarch and his bishops convened the Council of Nablus The sermon that opened the proceedings attributed recent local calamities, including earthquakes and continued attacks by the Saracens, to the sexual promiscuity of Baldwin's subjects. In response the council passed twenty-five canons, condemning all manner of carnality. Four addressed sodomy. The first read: "If any adult shall be proved to have defiled himself vonuntarily by sodomitical vice, whether actively or passively, let him be burnt.""--Byrne Fone in Homophobia-A History p141

Thanks for all the info, btw. You really do your homework.

Family Man

History being a passion of mine, I decided to check a few websites. For the most part, Bede's description is accurate, though he left out a number of points that demonstrate that the system wasn't quite as fair minded as he'd like us to think. The sites I visited are listed at the end of this post are either from educational or Catholic sites.

What presumption did the accused face entering the system?

The accused was presumed guilty and had to prove his innocence.

Did the accused have the right to face or question his/her accuser?

No, though the accused was allowed to give the judges names of his enemies as a way of protecting the accused of personal vendettas. How much this weighed is unclear.

Did the accused have the right to counsel?

At the beginning, legal representation was prohibited. Later, this rule was relaxed. However, lawyers were not allowed to defend their clients vigorously. If a lawyer defended a person who was "obviously guilty", and he couldn't persuade the client to confess his guilt, then he was required to discontinue the defense on pain of being accused himself. Rarely did the accused have legal counsel as it was far too dangerous for the lawyers.

Did the accused have to testify against himself?

Yes.

Who could testify against the accused?

Criminals, persons of bad reputation, the excommunicated, and heretics. However, those demonstrated to have given false testimony were severely punished.

Was there a church body that supervised the inquisitions?

In 1542, Pope Paul III established the Congregation of the Holy Office (later Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) as part of the Curia to supervise local Inquisitions. (The last website listed describes the Inquisition more or less how Bede does, so I'd like to see an examination of what that Office exactly was.)

Who were the Inquisitors of the Church?

Cardinals, appointed by the pope. Later, in Spain, they were appointed by the King. It is unclear to me whether the Spanish inquisitors were clergymen.

Could the accused call witnesses on his behalf?

Yes, but this was extremely rare as the witness risked being accused himself.

Conclusions

For the most part, the terror of Inquisition was more in its mind control than its punishments. Most accused escaped major punishments by simply acknowledging their sins -- real or not --and accepting minor punishments. Those, however, who refused faced a system that was so stacked against them that the few safeguards afforded them were pretty much, though not entirely, ineffectual. That pretty much explains why most took the quick confessional route.



http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo...quisition.html http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/procedure.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inquisition1.html

Butters

Way to go FM! Nice post.

For Bede,
Since you want to make sure that no evil rumors are being spread about Christianity, Can you tell me what is false in this site?URL=http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html][/URL]

Sojourner553

Bede makes an artificial distinction between secular authorities and Church authorities regarding persecuting heretics -- because there was often a UNDERSTOOD PARTNERSHIP with one institution supporting the other. For: In exchange for holding secular kings as “God’s representatives on Earth”, they were expected to champion the Church against its threats – both external (like the Crusades, Cathars) and internally (killing off heretics. And Kings were only too happy to comply with the latter because they could conveniently knock of local political dissidents under the guise of them being religious heretics, and therefore enemies of Christianity.)

By this, I presume you meant the Church tended to “merely” punish early heretics via excommunication (effectively making them pariahs in their community) and confiscating their property. So the heretics merely starved to death instead of being tortured/executed.

To clamp down on heretics, the Church forbade vernacular translations of the Bible beginning around 1080. Official bans on Bible translations occurred during synods at Toulouse (1229) and Beziers (1246). In 1369, Charles IV, after obtaining the consent of Pope Urban V, forbade anyone outside of the church to use translations of Bibles in the common language.

Any group who did not acknowledge the sole authority of the Church on biblical interpretation and doctrine were labeled as "heretics"! These later edicts came in response to individuals who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church as the head of Christianity.

The problem for the Church was that heresies grew despite these measures. That is why the Inquisition determined to purify itself internally AND mete out harsher punishments to heretics.


I agree. The primary concern of the Inquisition was not about witch craft – just maintaining a monopoly of power for the Catholic Church against any competing religious group! The witchcraft hysteria followed in the aftermath of defining all heretics as evil, (and if they are evil, does it not “logically” follow that they are from the Devil?)

The Church first “merely” tried to stamp out all versions of the Bible other than their own:

Around 1080--in the aftermath of the delayed Second Coming—the Catholic Church forbade not only vernacular translations of the Bible, but any Mass books as well. Official bans on Bible translations occurred during synods at Toulouse (1229) and Beziers (1246). In 1369, Charles IV, after obtaining the consent of Pope Urban V, forbade anyone outside of the church to use translations of Bibles in the common language.

Any group who did not acknowledge the sole authority of the Church on biblical interpretation and doctrine were labeled as "heretics"! These later edicts came in response to individuals who challenged the authority of the Catholic Church as the head of Christianity. Unfortunately for the Church, good, well-respected individuals were also becoming attracted to some of the new heresies.

The Inquisition was really begun in an effort for the Church to reform itself of internal corruption AND stamp out these new heretics:

Here I will focus on the latter:

Just prior to the Inquisition:

* By 1163, the Council of Tours stated that it was the clergy's duty to
hunt down heretical sects, confiscate their possessions, and to imprison their
leaders.

*In 1179 the Third Lateran Council under Pope Alexander, called on Catholic princes to use force.-- They gave those who rose up in arms against heretics the status and privileges of crusaders.

* In 1184, the Council of Verona under Pope Lucius III, issued legislation to deal with a wide range of heretical activities.--These included anyone who dared to preach without Papal or episcopal permission, or dared to believe doctrines not approved by the Church. Anyone who assisted heretics could be equally punished. Bishops were ordered to personally investigate all rumors of heretical activities. (Failure to do so could
lead to charges of their own complicity with the heretics).

I agree this was made up of multiple jurisdictions. But that is a technicality. For they did follow, in the main, MONOLITHIC Laws within their juristdictions:


Following the growth of heretical groups such as the Cathars: In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council was called under Pope Innocent III, which set down a grand plan for the re-Christianization of society. It was at this council, that the laws that would become the basis for the Inquisition were formally establish:

* The populace was ordered to attend church and confess their sins to a
priest. To guarantee the obedience of the flock, every church member was
ordered to participate in confession and communion once a year at Christmas.

* The Fourth Lateran Council instituted the Inquisition, whereby accused
heretics could be arrested in secret trials, conducted by ecclesiastical
tribunals. [Familyman did an outstanding job breaking this down in more detail]

Special provisions were added to deal with heresy:

* Heretics were to lose all their property and to be excommunicated from
the Church.

* All secular office holders were ordered to take an oath to exterminate
heresy--upon penalty of being excommunicated themselves.

* A crusading indulgence was granted to all men who took up arms to banish
heretics.

* There was a ban on all new religious orders

Any "Deviate" Activity from Christianity was Closely Regulated.

* Jews and Moslems were ordered to wear clothing that clearly identified
them as non-Christian, such as badges or signs. Jews adopted a yellow
felt circle for their badge.

*Prostitutes and lepers were also ordered to wear distinctive clothing.
Prostitutes wore a red chord, and lepers carried a rattle or bell.

* The Third Lateran Council (1179) had already imposed stiff penalties on
homosexuals. Homosexual activity was to be punished by deposition and
imprisonment within the clerical ranks--and excommunication for everyone
else. The Fourth Lateran Council upheld the previous council's rulings,
and threatened life deposition for anyone who participated in any Church
services after being suspended.

Sojourner553

Yes, but the “cause” of this might be due to the fact there was less of a perceived threat of ORGANIZED heresy in Italy and Spain.

Per Jeffrey Richards, SEX, DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION--MINORITY GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, London and New York, 1990, p 70:

In general, organized heretical groups did NOT develop a strong base
in those areas where authority was concentrated--such as England, northern
France, and southern Italy.--For there, secular authorities cooperated with
the Catholic Church in quickly stamping out any movement that was perceived to
be a threat. However in the Lowlands, southern France, and northern Italy--
where overpopulation, industrialization, wealth reserves, and travel were
more prevalent--heresy told hold and became a potential threat to the Catholic
Church's monopoly on Christianity.


Torture

In 1252, Pope Innocent IV decreed that heretics were thieves and murderers
of the soul, and therefore deserved the same treatment as ordinary thieves and
murderers. At first, Inquisitors were not allowed to torture. However, this
changed by 1256, after the pope gave Inquisitors the authority to absolve each
other for employing torture--and to grant dispensations to allow their
colleagues to torture.

Thus, torture became a justifiable means for stamping out heresy in the
community. Religious heretics (whose views on sex were often more strict than
that of the Church) were nevertheless accused of participating in religious
orgies and in sodomy. Jews were said to be agents of the Devil, to have
abnormally large sexual organs, and to be lustful after Christian virgins.

Methods of Torture

The early Inquisition employed six basic methods of torture: (1) the ordeal
by fire, (2) the ordeal by water, (3) the strappado (or pulley torture),
(4) the wheel, (5) the rack, and (6) the stivaletto.

The ordeal by fire involved applying fat or grease to the feet area of
the accused. The victim was then literally fried over a fire, until the
proper confession was obtained. A fire screen was used to interrupt torture
for a new round of questioning, and was also allowed during periods of
fainting.

The ordeal by water had different variations.--Typically a piece of
cloth was placed down the throat of the accused. The nose was then
blocked, and the mouth was forcibly propped upon by an iron ring to allow
water to drop in slowly. This caused the victim to be slowly choked to
death. The quantity of water applied is what distinguished the "ordinary"
from the "extraordinary" ordeal.--In Italy, this was five litres for the
ordinary, and ten litres for the extraordinary torture.

The strappado, or pulley torture, involved tying the prisoner's hands
behind his back, which were then further tied to a rope run overhead on
a pulley. The prisoner was then hoisted into the air via his wrists, sometimes
with iron weights attached to his feet. In this painful position, the
prisoner was interrogated and sometimes further whipped. If the accused heretic
still failed to confess, then he could be given the full strappado. This
involved pulling up the accused on the rope until s/he reached the ceiling.
The rope was then allowed to fall slack. Just before the prisoner would
hit the floor, the rope was pulled taunt, causing terrible strain on
the prisoner's body that could lead to agonizing dislocations.

Other creative "devices" were built to torture heretics. The wheel
torture tied the prisoner to a large wheel, which beat the accused with
hammers or clubs as it revolved around. The rack torture placed the prisoner
on a rack and "stretching" him through the use of rollers. The strivaletto
form of torture involved crushing or splintering the prisoner's bones through
the use of boards and rope which were driven by four wedges for the "ordinary"
torture and eight wedges for the "extraordinary" torture. (Edward Burman,
THE INQUISITION, HAMMER OF HERESY, Dorset Press, New York, 1984)

I think the above would scare off many people from wanting to avoid it. (It worked with Galileo)!




The clergy typically did not directly apply the torture or the executions(of heretics OR witches!) Instead the convicted heretic was always referred to the civil magistrate with a plea for mercy.--However it was understood that if mercy were ever given, then the magistrate would be excommunicated as a heretic himself. (Roland H. Bainton, CHRISTIANITY, American Heritage Houghton Mufflin Company, p 201)



By the way, you tone down such a horrendous period of torture and expulsion of all the Jews.

Ever tour Toledo and see some of the old Jewish homes and synagogues they were expelled from?

Was not Hitler trying to deal with the “Jewish problem” in a similar matter? he just couldn't get any country to take them in as refugees, so only then it became necessary to kill them.

No. Neither I nor anyone else I think accuses you of this.

Although you do seem to go soft on the “necessity” of the Catholic Church cracking down on heresies sometimes.
On this, I have not been able to glean what methods you think were acceptable (now or then) for this goal (which you appear to share).

Truly you have shown a sincere distaste for such methods. ..

But isn’t the real question: whether you would “tolerate” such methods for the “greater good”? You see, I would hold that most of the Catholic inquisitors really “meant” well/ were good people too-- but, alas, believed torture/executions was a lesser evil than allowing heresy to spread.

Sojourner

NOGO

This statement is rather strange.

Plenty of evidence for what? Witchcraft?

So if there was "plenty of evidence" for something that does not exist then they tortured people in order to get them to admit to a non-existing crime.

AND THEN this brilliant conclusion ...

"Effectively, a utilitarian ethic." ?????

:banghead: :banghead:

Torture is effective in getting information but is useless in getting a truthful confession. Any utilitarian should appreciate this.