HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE INQUISITION?

If your were raised as a Roman Catholic and attended parochial schools for the first 12 years of your education, chances are good that you have heard very little about the Inquisition, or perhaps nothing at all. The Inquisition is a historical event that the Roman Catholic hierarchy would like to forget. It is practically ignored in Catholic high school histories, and when the subject is addressed in question and answer columns in Catholic papers and periodicals, it is very briefly explained away. A classic example of what I am talking about occurred in the Question Box column of the May 10, 1956 issue of the "Tidings." Here is the question and answer. The answer is by Rev. J.V. Sheridan, a Catholic priest.

"Question: "As a potential convert I am interested in some specific information (not mere generalities) on the real and official attitude of the Catholic Church towards not-Catholics, as well as a comment on the following questions: 1. Does your Church claim, or has she ever claimed, the right to punish or persecute dissenters such as lapsed Catholics, Protestants or non-religionists? 2. If your reply is in the negative, how can you explain the frightful atrocities of the Inquisition or the harshness of the Church today in Italy and Spain toward Protestants? Answer: 1. The Church does not claim, nor has she ever claimed the right to punish or persecute religious dissenters because of their beliefs. Her concept of faith as a gift from God and not the mere product of fear, force or theological research should be sufficient proof of this statement. 2. Underlying many of the customs and laws of countries like Spain and Italy is the Catholic philosophy of life. The ordinary citizenry (not the church) formed in such a philosophy is bound to react harshly against the intrusions of those whose subjectivistic theology, if not outright anti-Catholic, endorses divorce, contraception and euthanasia - ideas that are repugnant to traditional Christian doctrine and discipline."

As you can see, there is no explanation given of the Inquisition, no admittance of wrong. Actually, the impression was given that what did occur in the Inquisition was the result of the outrage of good Catholic people. When the truth is known, good Catholic people recoil in horror at what their Church, led by the infallible popes, did in the name of God. Let's examine the historical development of this dark time in history, and perhaps we can understand why this major event is left out of, or barely mentioned in, Catholic history textbooks.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? The name, Inquisition, is derived from the Latin "inquirere" (to inquire), and it "signifies the form of procedure used, that of searching out heretics and other offenders instead of waiting for charges to be made" (Encyclopedia Americana, v. 15, p. 191). This procedure is of utmost importance because it lies at the heart of the Inquisition and reveals much about the nature and character of it. Let's allow the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 7, p. 537, describe the procedure for us. You can draw your own conclusion as to the fairness of it and whether or not it displays the "Christian" spirit.

"The inquisitorial procedure was a departure from the traditional forms of accusation or of denunciation, which had been ill suited to the repression of heresy. According to the new procedure the judge could, ex officis, bring suit against any individual who might even vaguely be the object of public rumor. The inquisitus became his own accuser. When questioned on the charge brought against him, he was obliged to take an oath to tell the truth…This judicial process, which in time became normal, underwent a number of modifications as a result of various apostolic constitutions, especially those of Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. The accused did not know the witnesses for the prosecution and was thus deprived of any opportunity to challenge and confront them. This precaution can be explained by the need to protect informers from reprisals by relatives and friends of the accused. Faced by nameless accusers, the defendant's only recourse was to reveal the names of his principal enemies. Factors that normally disqualified a witness from testifying were eliminated: testimony was accepted from criminals, infamous person, the excommunicated, and heretics. It was even considered an obligation for heretics to become informers. Blood relationship did not dispense one from testifying. Lawyers and clerks, moreover, were not able to offer their services to the accused, for they would then become accomplices."

This was the heart of the Inquisition, the method, or procedure of "inquiry." All people, especially all Catholics, have a right to know how this grew into the full-blown institution that it became. A good question to consider as we look at this historical development is, "How did a church guided by an 'infallible' leader (and heresy is certainly within the realm of faith and morals) institute and sanction such an unholy thing as the Inquisition?"

HOW AND WHY IT BEGAN As early as the 11th century we can read of heretics being put to death by secular rulers, and it appears that at that time the Catholic Church did not officially support such actions. However, by the middle of the 12th century, Catharism and other heresies had spread so rapidly that Henry II of England and Louis VII of France pressed Pope Alexander III to take strong steps against heretics. He agreed, and in 1163, at the Council of Tours, he commanded the clergy to search out heretics. Heretics were considered to be enemies of the human race, and this was the first general papal legislation against heresy.

The hierarchy didn't respond too energetically to this command and heresy continued to flourish. In 1179 Alexander issued stronger commands concerning heretics at the Third Lateran Council.

Even more severe was the legislation of Pope Lucius III from Verona on Nov. 4, 1184. Pope Innocent III pushed the purge of heresy even further, authorizing a crusade against the Albigensians of southern Franc in 1207-1208. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 confirmed previous measures and commanded secular princes to assist. Pope Innocent III considered the heretic to be guilty of "spiritual treason." The importance of that is that if civil treason was punishable by death, how much more severe a punishment did treason against Jesus Christ deserve?

However, it was Emperor Frederick II who, in 1224 legislated that the impenitent, heretical Cathari of northern Italy should die by fire as punishment for their heresy. "In 1231, Pope Gregory IX adopted the imperial legislation, and from 1231 to 1235 he formally established and defined the procedures of the medieval Inquisition. Abandoning the use of special legations, the Pope sent first Dominicans and the Franciscans to establish the Inquisition in France. In 1235 he named Robert le Bougre as inquisitor for the entire realm… The same pattern was soon extended to Germany, northern Italy, and Spain, usually at the request of the secular authority. It was, therefore, Gregory IX who established the Inquisition as a papal tribunal appointed to suppress heresy through procedures established in the canon law: inquisition haereticae pravitatis" (encyclopedia Americana, Vo. 15, p. 192).

The Inquisition continued to grow throughout the middle ages. In 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture by the Inquisition. In the latter part of the middle ages, the Inquisition was taken over by the civil authorities.

Perhaps the most infamous of all was the Spanish Inquisition. Responding to the request of the Catholic monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, on Nov. 1 1497 Pope Sistus IV established the Inquisition in Castile, giving the monarchs the right to appoint the inquisitors, with Rome retaining the right of approval. In October of 1483, Tomas de Torquemada was appointed inquisitor general of Spain, and his appointment was approved by the papacy. The Inquisition was abolished in Spain in 1808 by Joseph Bonaparte.

One other very interesting fact about the Inquisition and the attitude that allowed it to develop is this. In 1542 Pope Paul III established the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or the Holy Office. This tribunal is probably most noted for their persecution of Galileo in 1633. However, on Dec. 7, 1695 this "Holy Office" was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine in faith and morals. It still is in existence today.

A FURTHER LOOK AT THE INQUISITION As the institution of the Inquisition progressed, there was a gradual development of a procedure that was to be followed in the search for, and punishment of, heretics. Few can read accounts of this procedure in action, along with the punishments given as part of it, without wondering how something like it could have been done in the name of the Lord Jesus. It is even more reprehensible by the fact that those who authorized it claimed to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. These things were sanctioned by the "infallible" popes of Roman Catholicism. The description of how the Inquisition functioned is supplied by the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 15, p. 192 and 193. This would be the normal procedure in the 13th century.

"Arriving at a town or village, the inquisitor convoked clergy and people to a solemn assembly. There he delivered a sermon touching upon the evils of heresy and summoned the guilty to voluntary confession of their crimes… Following the solemn assembly and it summons to confession and repentance, a period of grace ranging between 15 and 30 days was allowed. Those who appeared, confessed their guilt, and abjured their errors were treated lightly. With the expiration of the period of grace, the inquisitor then demanded that the faithful denounce those suspected of heresy and, with the aid of reliable members of the community, began a systematic search for suspects. The sworn testimony of two witnesses sufficed to commit the accused to prison, where hunger, lack of sleep, and various constraints gradually reduce his will to resist. Summoned before the tribunal, the accused was told of his alleged crimes, but he was never confronted by those who had laid the charges… The accused was not allowed any legal defense, a practice justified by the ingenious argument that if the accused was innocent he had nothing to fear, and therefore, he had no need of a defender. If he was guilty, it was the duty of his advocate to persuade him to admit his guilt. Any advocate as foolish as to attempt to genuinely defend the accused would be rendered infamous… Defenseless, then, the accused confronted the tribunal. There followed a subtle interrogation by the Inquisitor. Artifice and deception might be used to trap the accused into an admission of guilt. The Inquisition soon found these devises insufficient. Torture was practiced by the civil tribunals of the Middle Ages, and in 1252 Pope Innocent IV authorized its use by the Inquisition." (This authorization was set forth in the Papal Bu.., "Ad Extirpanda" ("In Order to Exterminate"), issued by Innocent IV on May 15, 1252. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 34, "the aforesaid bull 'Ad Extirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV, Nicholas IV, Boniface VIII, and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under the pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake.")

PUNISHMENTS - SENTENCES FOR THE GUILTY We now refer back to the ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA: "The interrogation concluded, the inquisitor now sought to reach a judgment by scrutinizing all records and consulting his advisers… The decision of the Inquisition were then made public in a solemn religious ceremony. Held always on a Sunday, it began with a procession of the ecclesiastical and civil dignitaries and the accused. The latter were often dressed in special costume. The procession provided the assembled populace with a striking display of pageantry and religious observance that veiled, but thinly, the grim seriousness of the occasion.

Following a sermon, the decisions of the Inquisition were read out, public abjurations were received, and sentences were pronounced. All sentences were final; there are only a few recorded instances of an appeal to Rome. (The New Catholic Encyclopedia supports this with a statement on p. 537 of Vol. 7, "the right to appeal to the Apostolic See was denied by the constitution Excommunicamus of Gregory IX." The sentences ranged from light ones - fines, the wearing of a distinctive costume for a stated period of time, penances, pilgrimages, the assumption of the crusader's cross, infamy (with its attendant civil disabilities), and flagellation - to the utmost terrible. For convicted heretics who abjured their crimes, the customary punishment was imprisonment for life. (Of prison life for these unfortunates, the New Catholic Encyclopedia says on p. 539 of Vol. 7, "The prisoner's diet consisted of "the bread of sorrow and the water of tribulation," but certain prisoners were allowed supplementary food. The usual imprisonment was at least tolerable for the incarcerated; but stricter immuration, i.e. murus strctus, involved solitary confinement, with no regard to health."). For the convicted and impenitent, as well as for those who have relapsed into their former errors, the practice was to abandon them to the secular arm with a prayer for moderation in inflicting mutilation or death. The formula was pure fiction, designed to absolve the church from participation in the shedding of blood. After the conclusion of the ceremony, these unfortunates were burned to death in a place reserved for these executions, a punishment sanctioned by church and state and approved by the learned and the holy. Those who abjured at the stake were often strangled before the fire was lighted, a small concession to humanity. Those executed or condemned to life imprisonment were deprived of goods and property, thus condemning their descendants to a life of penury. The arm of the Inquisition reached even into the grave. The bodies of those convicted of heresy posthumously were exhumed and burned. The goods of their descendants were confiscated."

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONFISCATED GOODS? According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 539, Vol. 7, "A portion of the confiscated property was payable to the inquisitors. In Italy, as early as the time of Innocent IV, this portion was set at one-third of the total." In almost all instances, the inquisitors were authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.

HOW MANY? It is indeed difficult to determine exactly how many people were killed by the inquisitors. The Encyclopedia Americana tells us that as the result of the work of just one man, the Inquisitor General of Spain, Torquemada, 2,000 were executed out of 100,000 trials. In The Age of Faith, by Will Durant and published by Simon and Schuster, NY, 1950, on page 783 Mr. Durant writes: "Compared with the persecutions of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the prosecutions of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries agter Christ was a mild and humane procedure."

Actually, it is not important for us to know the exact number of those murdered. The fact that any died by the authority of a man who claimed to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, the representative of He who died for all men and who said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" as He hung on the cross, is almost outside the realm of belief. It does no good to excuse it by saying it was a product of the times, or to seek to justify it on the basis of its historical context. It was, and is inexcusable, and it renders the claim of infallibility and the claim of being the one true Church ridiculous.

My prayer is that Catholics will demand an explanation of these historical atrocities and consider what they mean to Roman Catholic claims.

CATHOLIC VIEWS OF PROMINENT FIGURES OF THE INQUISITION Our examination of the Inquisition thus far has shown it to have been a reprehensible event, worthy of only condemnation. If one were to search to find official Catholic positions concerning what took place during the Inquisition they would find it labeled as "indefensible." This much is stated in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 541, where we find, "But even when Roman, Byzantine, and emerging national legal precedents are recalled and when due consideration is given to the manipulation of this tribunal for reasons of state, the excesses attendant upon its procedures, especially in southern France and in Spain, make the Inquisition, as it evolved in practice, indefensible."

This is a noble admission and one that we would agree with. However, upon closer examination, we find that the New Catholic Encyclopedia did not tell the whole story. Perhaps we can better tell how the Catholic hierarchy has viewed the Inquisition by determining how some of those people who were prominent in the Inquisition itself. How do they view those responsible for setting forth the principles that allowed the Inquisition to develop? How do they view some of those responsible for putting those principles into bloody practice? These are the questions we will try to answer.

THOMAS AQUINAS The most authoritative philosopher and theologian of the Roman Catholic Church even to this day, was Thomas Aquinas. He was a Dominican and is still held in the highest possible esteem. Again, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, this time Vol. 14, p. 190, "…in 1918, St. Thomas became an institution in the Church with his being mentions in the Code of Canon Law - this is the only name in the Code - with the injunction that the priests of the Catholic Church should receive their philosophical and theological instructions 'according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor.'" His most famous work, the Summa Theologica was, and is, very influential. As a matter of fact, Pope Leo XII, in describing the influence of Aquinas on the Council of Trent, said, "the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar, together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the supreme pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw council, reasons, and answers" (New Cath. Ency. Vol. 14, p. 110).

A summary of how the Catholic church feels about Thomas Aquinas is found once again in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It says, "…And the Church approves him before all others because in his writings, as in no others, the totality of truth has found a unique expression, an expression of exemplary value. Thomas himself professed no doctrinal particularity; he belonged to no school; he was content with no existing synthesis. He undertook, rather, the grandiose project of choosing everything, of seeking the deeper intentions of an Aristotle and of an Augustine, of probing the ultimate meaning of both human reason and divine faith. He knew the limitations of human minds, his own included. And yet he searched for a wisdom that would transcend all earthly knowledge, confident that such wisdom was to be found in the bosom of his Church. With reason, perhaps, that same Church finds in him the outstanding exemplar of the Catholic saint and scholar, and has never hesitated to recommend his study to her children."

These are truly marvelous words of praise for a prominent Catholic theologian and a prominent figure behind the principles of the Inquisition. How did the "exemplar of the Catholic saint and scholar" view the Inquisition? Thomas Aquinas wrote, "I reply that, with regard to heretics, two considerations are to be kept in mind: (1) on their side, (2) on the side of the Church. (1) There is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be shut off from the world by death. For it is a much more serious matter to corrupt faith, through which comes the soul's life, than to forge money, through which temporal life is supported. Hence if forgers of money or other malefactors are straightway justly put to death by secular princes, with much more justice can heretics, immediately upon conviction, be not only excommunicated but also put to death. (2) But on the side of the Church there is mercy, with a view to the conversion of them that are in error; and therefore the Church does not straightway condemn, but after a first and a second admonition, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. iii. 10). After that, if he be found still stubborn, the Church gives up hope of his conversion and takes thought for the safety of others, by separating him from the Church by sentence of excommunication; and, further, leave him to the secular court, to be exterminated from the world by death…" (Summa Theologica, ii. Q. xi, Article III, "Whether heretics should be tolerated").

How can the Catholic Church call the Inquisition "indefensible" and then turn around a call a man who taught the very principles that allowed it to happen, "the outstanding exemplar of the catholic saint and scholar?" In an encyclopedia published in 1966 they wrote that "the church approves him before all other because in his writings, as in no others, the totality of truth has found a unique expression." Was the right of the Catholic church to have people put to death because they did not agree with them, to confiscate their property, to imprison them for life, part of the "totality of truth?" How can they call it "indefensible" and raise to such a high position one who defended it?

IGNATIUS LOYOLA Another prominent and authoritative voice of Roman Catholicism which was heard during the time of the Inquisition, and is still greatly esteemed today, was Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jusuits. About him the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 351, says, "St Ignatius, who so often received visits from the Lord, always kept to himself his nostalgia for the luminous abysses of the trinity; but he know he had been chosen more to transmit the divine light than to enjoy it. God called him to the work of redemption, to the service of the Lord in the establishment of the kingdom. Thus he chose to be a soldier under the standard of the cross. Above, and at the same time the source of both contemplation and action, there is "love." However, thought loving action often demands that one renounce the pleasures of contemplation, these are not lost without compensation in the holy gifts and spiritual favors for the lord. Such a spirituality reminds one of St. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, 'urged by a love of Christ' and living in the intimacy of the Spirit."

Again, we see marvelous words of praise and commendation for a prominent thinker, teacher, and worker - Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits.

Here is what "St." Ignatius, who reminded the writers of the New Catholic encyclopedia so much of Paul and who lived in the "intimacy of the spirit" according to them, had to say about heretics and the punishment of them as practiced in the Inquisition. Ignatius wrote, "It would be greatly advantageous, too, not to permit anyone infected with heresy to continue in the government, particularly the supreme government, of any province or town, or in any judicial or honorary position. Finally, if it could be set forth, and made manifest to all, that the moment a man is convicted or held in grave suspicion of heresy he must not be favored with honors or wealth but put down from these benefits. And if a few examples could be made, punishing a few with the penalty of their lives, or with the loss of property and exile, so there could be no mistake about her seriousness of the business of religion, this remedy would be so much more effective…" (Obras Completas de San Ignacio de Loyola, Translated by Dwight Cristoanos; Madrid; 1952, p. 880)

Why call the Inquisition "indefensible" and then canonize an individual, comparing him to the Apostle Paul, who advocated the very "indefensible' things?

TORQUEMADA The Spanish Inquisition has the reputation of having been extremely vicious. The Grand Inquisitor General of Spain was a man named Torquemada. According to the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 26, p. 863, "During his term of office, tens of thousands were hauled before its courts and at least 2,000 perished at the stake."

As hard as it is to believe the New Catholic Encyclopedia defends this man. It says on p. 540 of Vol. 7, "Legend has transformed Torquemada into a cruel monster, but he was actually an energetic, uncouth religious, utterly devoid of ambition who succeeded in giving his own austere character to the new institution." Torquemada was not just "an energetic, uncouth religious." Two thousand people, at least, were burned at the stake during his reign. Why defend a man who played a major role in an "indefensible" action and institution?

FERDINAND III This was a Spanish king who so pleased the Roman Catholic Church by his vigorous and vicious actions against heretics that he was made a "saint" in 1671 and had words of praise for him inserted into the Breviary. The Breviary is a book of daily readings and prayers for the priests and this is what it says, "He permitted no heretics to dwell in his kingdom, and with his own hands brought wood to the stake for their burning" (The Stability and Progress of Dogma, by Cardianl Lepicier, p. 202, 1910).

Why call the Inquisition "indefensible" in a book that the public might very well read, and then praise an inquisitor for his killing of heretics in a book commonly read only by Roman Catholic priests? It is an interesting question.

IS IT REALLY "INDEFENSIBLE?" During his consecration, every Roman Catholic bishop takes an oath of allegiance to the Pope. This is contained in it, "With all my power I shall persecute and make war upon all heretics, schismatics and those who rebel against our Lord (the Pope) and all his successors….So help me God and these the holy gospels of God." (Pontificale Romanum Summorum Pontificum, Belgium, Mechlin, p. 133.)

Just what is the official position of the Catholic hierarchy concerning the inquisition? It certainly seem inconsistent to condemn the Inquisition and to praise those who nurtured it and were a part of it.

Ask your priest and ask for proof; you have a right to know.