From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Inquisition (was: Crusades (Re: RELIGIOUS CONCEIT))
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:31:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

This discussion could get quite interesting as I too am quite well read on the
subject of Inquisitions.  In fact I a reasonably large and good quality
library on the subject.  I would also point out that the Catholic Church of 
today is not made up of the same people who did the Inquisitions, and is not 
responsible for them.

Now I would strongly agree with Tim that there were several inquisitions.  For
example there were the Spanish, Roman, Medieval, and Dominican among others
(Actually the Dominican Inquisition is a misnomer since Rome, very early on,
gave the Dominicans full power to conduct Inquisitions, in fact I believe
there is still an obscure and impotent office of the inquisition still
existing today).  Thus I would wish to be specific on which Inquisition we
were discussing, and thus avoid bringing in extraneous facts.  I would also
point out that the Inquisition against witches of the 1300's through the
1600's were directed by the Dominicans.  In fact the "Maleus Maleficarum"
(Hammer of Witches), which was written by two Dominican Monks, and was
officially recognized and enforced by the Church, became the official witch
hunting guide for several hundred years (It even came to be used by
protestants). 

As to Tim's statements:

> Similarly, the Inquistion could not torture anyone, but,
> since medieval usually based guilt on confession rather than evidence alone, 
> a criminal (including a heretic) who did not confess when confronted with 
> what the tribunal considered to be damning evidence could be handed over
> to be tortured. 

While accurate, that is not as far as it goes.  Torture was done under the
specific direction of the Inquisitors.  Further Inquisitors always questioned
in pairs.  This is significant as the Inquisitors had been granted the ability
to immediately absolve any other inquisitor of any sin except heresy.  This
means that any Inquisitor could actually torture as much as he liked without
any fear of mortal sin. 

Here is a list of conditions which differentiated heresy trials from normal
trials:

	1. No witnesses were allowed on behalf of the accused, nor was
	the accused's good reputation taken into account (this is very
	important as the accused was assumed guilty until proved innocent). 

	2. The accused was permitted no council since the lawyer would thereby
	be defending heresy.

	3. Witnesses were not identified, and their accusations not made known 
	to the defendant (Pope Innocent IV granted the accusers anonymity in
	1254).

	4. Witnesses not allowed to testify for other offenses were allowed 
	and even encouraged to testify against heretics.  This includes 
	convicted perjurers, convicts, toddlers and excomunicants.

	5. If a witness admitted to perjury, his perjurous testimony would 
	stand, but the witness would be tried for perjury (Although the 
	Inquisitor Nicholas Eymeric (1360) stated that it was allowable for 
	the judge to accept the second testimony if it were more damning than 
	the first).

	6. Men could be drafted by the Inquisition to testify against a
	heretic, and if they refused, they themselves could be tried as
	heretics.

	7. Legal Torture was authorized and could be repeated as many times as 
	necessary for the heretic to both confess and allow his confession to 
	stand. The accused knew that if he didn't allow his confession to
	stand, he would be tortured again.  Torture was officially sanctioned 
	by Pope Innocent III in 1252 (a mere 20 years after the Dominican 
	Inquisition was created).
	
	8. All possessions of the heretic were confiscated. Usually only the
	property used in a crime was allowed to be confiscated, or at least the
	children and spouse were left their own belongings.  The sole exception 
	to this rule being treason.  Before the late 12th century, the 
	"faithful" children and spouse of a heretic were allowed to keep the 
	estate in question, but at that time the Church found the profit in 
	confiscation, and Pope Innocent III declared that heresy was a form of 
	treason to God.

The above information comes from H. C. Lea's "History of the Inquisition", Prof
R. H. Robbins' "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology", and "The Maleus
Maleficarum".

As to Tim's statement:

> The executions were not 
> carried out by the Inquisition, since heresy had been made a civil crime by
> the agreement of most European rulers at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

While technically true, this was so much legal fiction.  The secular arm of
the government burned who the Inquisition told them to burn.  I'll have to
search around a bit, but I am quite sure that I have specific references to
secular judges who were themselves threatened with charges of heresy for
attempting to ignore an order to burn a heretic. 

I would also disagree with Tim's statement:

> The Inquistion was more concerned with 'religious error' and 'heresy', though
> the most common punishments they meted out were penances.  More serious
> offences were punished with imprisonment and only leading heretics, outspoken
> heretics and relapsed heretics tended to find themselves at the stake.  

I have not seen evidence that only the "leading heretics" were so treated.  In
fact, as there was much to be gained from a conviction (all the possessions of
the victim, and increased intimidation factor), I see no motivation for
stopping short of a full conviction.  I can give references to private letters
from a particularly well renouned physician which accuses the Dominican of
blackmailing several families with the threat of an accusation of heresy
(specifically witchcraft). 
 
I am always more than willing to discuss the Inquisition as I invariable learn
of new references on the subject.  So Tim, if you are willing to put in some
work into this topic (I promise to do the same), we could produce a real
quality discussion on the Inquisitions. 

				Later,

				Dave Butler

    ... but as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can
    easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed
    and were a scourge to mankind.  The evidence (including confession)
    upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was
    without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable.  The judges' decisions based
    on it were sound in logic and in law.  Nothing in any existing court
    was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and
    sorcery for which so many suffered death.  If there were no witches,
    human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.
				Ambrose Bierce, 
				"The Devil's Dictionary"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism