Many anti-Catholics on the Internet speak of the Inquisition as if it just happened last Tuesday. They stereotype the Catholic Church as an inherently oppressive and perverse institution. These Fundamentalist and/or church-cults, having no history of their own, nevertheless, attack various elements in the long history of Catholicism, assaulting "Christianity" itself. Distorting the truth, they become the very thing they seek to ridicule.
A wonderful booklet on this issue, and the main source for this page, was published back in 1950, The Truth About the Inquisition by John A. O'Brien and published by The Paulist Press. He writes:
In their efforts to discredit religion and disparage the Church, Nazi propagandists resurrected long buried incidents of the Inquisition and decked them out in lurid and gruesome colors and paraded them before the people. We recall standing before a book store window on Maria-Hilfenstrasse in Vienna in July, 1939, when the Nazi propaganda was in high gear, and seeing the bloodcurdling display of posters and pictures of imaginary scenes from the Inquisition. "See thee," Goebels was saying, "that is what will happen to you if we do not rescue you from the Church." (O'Brien, p. 5)
Well, there it is. The similarity goes much deeper, however. Kindred to these masters in hate, the anti-Catholic bigot makes a scapegoat of the Church, twisting the facts and the truth to their advantage, and even resorting to the BIG LIE. Name the issue, we see it repeated.
Dr. O'Brien delineates five areas where moderns misunderstand medieval Christendom (pp. 7-8):
Repudiating the punishment of stoning as dictated for defilers of faith in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 13:6-9 and 17:1-6, the Apostles and their more immediate successors adopted an entirely pro-life stance:
It is here that the problems start. The emperor legitimized Christianity
with the Edict of Toleration in 325 AD. Almost immediately, the emperors,
viewing themselves as the divinely established guardians of the temporal
and material affairs of the Church, they also intruded into spiritual matters.
Eventually the Catholic Church and the Christian faith would become the
religion of the empire. As such, it would be seen as the GLUE of the empire.
Such a mind set quickly led to aggressive measures in stamping out heresy.
It is here that there is a radical shift in the Church's dealing with heretics toward more serious penal measures. It is here that anti-Catholic bigots treat church history in the same piece-meal way they regard the bible. Matters are taken out of context and real threats are made light of or cast in the pallor of the Protestant/Catholic debate. Let us look at things honestly.
Dr. O'Brien succinctly tells us what happened:
In the second half of the twelfth century, however, the Albigensian or Catharan heresy spread through Europe in an alarming fashion; it menaced not only the Church's existence but also the very foundations of Christian society and orderly government. In answer to this grave menace there grew up in Germany, France and Spain a kind of prescriptive law which visited heresy with death at the stake, a form of capital punishment common at that time. Against that action of the Christian state to defend itself the Church did not protest; indeed, she felt called upon to sanction the severe penalties of the secular authority and to co-operate with the state in their enforcement, for her very existence was likewise threatened" (O'Brien, pp. 16-17).
Who were the Albigensians? How did this heresy threaten both the Church and State?
*PLEASE NOTE that the three points highlighted in this list are teachings shared with many, if not most anti-Catholic fundamentalists.
A. L. Maycock, in his work The Inquisition, states that the ENDURA was responsible for more deaths in Languedoc than the stake or the Inquisition! (p. 42). E. Vacandard in his work by the same title, reports, "Everyone who reads the acts of the tribunals of the Inquisition of Toulouse and Carcassone must admit that the endura, voluntary or forced, put to death more victims than the stake or the Inquisition" (p. 72). Even many non-Catholic historians admit, that orthodoxy in faith and civilization itself was at peril. The Albigensians were revolting, not only against the Church and the state, but against man' mastery over nature.
Dr. O'Brien tells us the following:
During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as an institution, was not yet in existence. Up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or pre-supposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 is the first law in which death by fire is expressly stipulated as the unqualified punishment.
There is no evidence that Pope Honorius III had any hand in drafting that ordinance; the burning of heretics in Germany was no longer rare and the ancient Roman Law that punished high treason with death, and Manicheism in particular with the stake, was not unknown to the emperor, Frederick II. The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231 and were soon applied at Rome. It was then the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being. It was probable, as Lea conjectures, that Gregory had no intention of establishing a permanent tribunal but was simply taking measures to meet an emergency" (O'Brien, p. 24).
The institution of the Inquisition headed off the growing encroachment of Frederick II into Church affairs. It would also give the Church some hand in controlling situations where there was a history of abuse and incompetence. Special and permanent judges were appointed to deal in the Pope's name with offenses against faith. Established rules of canonical conduct with set penalties were to be followed. The rule of law was to be imposed upon the madness of the mob. The task of this Inquisition was not simply to hold secret interrogations and then to make charges; nor were they fanatics to implement torture, something which would not be allowed for many decades; nor were they to render wholesale sanctions, imprisonment, the confiscation of assets, or to impose the stake-- they were simply papal judges who were commissioned to seek out heretics and to reconcile them, if possible; or to pronounce the usual spiritual penalties if stubborn, and deliver them over to the secular power.
Gregory IX turned to the Franciscans and the Dominicans to supply theologically competent and holy men for this role. They worked closely with the bishops and had to submit their findings to them for approbation. Many times the popes warned them against being overzealous and severe. Innocent IV in 1254 renewed the prohibition against perpetual incarceration or death at the stake without consent of the bishops. Boniface VIII and Clement V declared all judgments without episcopal approval to be null and void.
The inquisitor would preach a solemn sermon of faith. Assisted by the local faithful of varying status, those suspected of heresy would be summoned. The would be required to promise total obedience to the commands of the Church; otherwise, they would stand prosecution under the given statutes. Dr. O'Brien lists these features of the inquisitorial procedure (pp. 27-28):
. . . the time of grace, the denunciation of suspects, the trial, the imposing of sentence upon repentant heretics and the abandonment of the recalcitrant ones to the secular arm. During the time of grace all who freely confessed and abandoned their errors were either dispensed from all penalties or were given only a secret and very light penance; those whose heresy had been openly manifested were exempted from the penalties of perpetual imprisonment and death. This time should not, however, exceed one month; after that began the Inquisition. When the heresy was considered to be stamped out, the inquisitors moved on to another locality.
The use of an advisory board of laymen and priests were often used to insure a fair and impartial verdict. A council of other standing judges assisted, too. Unfortunately, and it must be admitted, many of the safeguards for the protection of the rights of the accused, which we cherish today, had not yet evolved.
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.
Very few people, when we look at the numbers, suffered the extreme penalty of death. This changes the complection of the Inquisition from that surmised by popular culture and hailed by anti-Catholics. Dr. O'Brien astutely observes:
Hence it is evident that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the administration of justice and therefore in the general civilization of mankind; it substituted court procedure for mob action and lynch law. Far from being a failure, the Inquisition succeeded in its gigantic task of stemming the Albigensian heresy which like a black plague was devastating Christendom. In spite of its shortcomings not only Christianity but also human civilization owe no small debt to the work of the Inquisition (p. 34).
Here the legacy of the Inquisition becomes a real mess. After a 780 year conflict with the Moors, Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the Saracens and in 1501 ordered them either to convert or to leave. Their Catholic faith and nationalism were focused into one reality. When many of the Moors apostatized or tainted Christianity with Moslem practices, the situation was ripe for the Inquisition. The Spanish people saw this as a means to cement their national identity. This also set the stage for terrible abuse. The Inquisition was established in 1480, but along royalist lines and not according to the Medieval form. Pope Sixtus IV became so concerned that he arrested the Spanish ambassador. Ferdinand retaliated in kind. Rome relented.
The Inquisition in Spain ignored Rome's protests, and did not hesitate to initiate proceedings against bishops and archbishops. Intimate with the crown, it even declared decisions of the Roman Congregation of the Index only to be valid if countersigned by Madrid's Holy Office. It even attacked Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, placing his book on the Catechism of Trent, on the Spanish Index-- even though it had Rome's approval! It was only after Carranza had suffered eight years of imprisonment and a threat to excommunicate the monarch that he was released and sent to Rome. The Spanish Inquisition twice imprisoned St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. St. Theresa of Avila was denounced and one of her works, Concepts pf Divine Love, was placed on the Index. Fortunately, she was rescued by the personal influence of Philip II. Unfortunately, the state often unjustly manipulated and interfered with the Spanish Inquisition. Some would thus contend that it was a political and not an ecclesiastical institution. Others would insist that the Church was too involved here to be entirely absolved. Dr. O'Brien writes: "The Church must, therefore, bear her share of responsibility for the proceedings of this tribunal, so many of whose actions were marked by cruelty and savagery. They have left black stains on the pages of history and their somber shadow falls upon both crown and papacy and shows their occupants were the children of their day" (O'Brien, p. 41).
The Holy Father has the gift of infallibility regarding faith and morals (given certain parameters); however, he has no guarantee of perfection in the mechanics of running a government or insuring the absolute justice of earthly courts. Further, he is not impeccable; a point most important when we recall the abuses which result from sin and the poor decisions which are derived from human weakness. Further, his is a moral authority. As history shows, often this was not enough to move others to listen to him in acting with mercy and compassion. We can only hope that there has been a real development in our consciousness of religious liberty, the freedom of one's conscience, and the Gospel of Life.
Yes, there is more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths?
Return to INDEX