| |
; |
|
The principle of the Inquisition was
murderous ... The popes were not only murderers in the
great style, but they also made murder a legal basis
of the Christian Church and a condition for salvation.
|
|
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
|
The term Inquisition is somewhat misleading in that over the
centuries there have been a number of inquisitions. They have
been directed against all of the groups we have looked at —
pagans and supposed witches, dissenting sects, Cathars, Muslims,
Jews and members of other religions. They have also been directed
against freethinkers, apostates, atheists and blasphemers.
In 1184 Pope Lucius III and the Emperor Frederick formulated
a programme for the repression of heretics. This document, Ad
abolendum, is sometimes known as the charter of the Inquisition,
because it set the tone for future developments. The Fourth
Lateran Council in 1215 ordered all bishops to hold an annual
inquisition, if there was a suspicion of heresy in their See.
But these episcopal inquisitions were found to be inadequate
for the task.
The Medieval Inquisition
  A
roving papal Inquisition was set up in 1231 by Pope Gregory
IX. He extended existing legislation against heretics and introduced
the death penalty for them — indeed for anyone who dissented
from his views. Initially intended to be temporary, this Inquisition
was used to extirpate surviving Cathars in the Languedoc. Anyone
accused or "defamed" was treated as guilty, and no
one once defamed got off without some punishment. After 1227
inquisitorial commissions were granted only to the friars, usually
to the Dominicans. The Inquisition was now the "Dominican
Inquisition". Dominic Guzmán's threats of slavery
and death for the citizens of the Languedoc were fulfilled for
a second time. First the massacres, now the Inquisition. The
Bishop of Toulouse marked the canonisation of St Dominic on
his first Saint's Day (4 th August 1234) by burning a woman
for her Cathar beliefs. She had confessed to him as she lay
sick in bed with a fever. She was carried to a field, still
on her sickbed, and consigned to the flames*.
All of the legal apparatus of the Inquisition was developed
during this period. Elsewhere, courts followed at least the
basic rules of justice: the accused knew their accusers, they
were allowed legal representation, in some places judgement
was delivered by a jury composed of peers of the accused. The
old bishops" inquisitions had been public hearings, but
these papal inquisitions were different: now secret hearings
took place before clerical judges and prosecutors. Guilt was
assumed from the start. There were no juries, and no legal representation
for the accused. There
was no habeas corpus; no disclosure of any evidence
against the accused, and no appeal. Inquisitors were allowed
to excuse each other for breaches of the rules — which
meant that in effect there were no rules*.
There were secret depositions and anonymous accusations, torture
and unlimited detention in appalling conditions for those who
failed to confess. Dead people were tried along with the living.
When found guilty their children were disinherited. At least
half the estate generally went to the Church — so that
the Church had a direct material interest in a guilty verdict.
Children and grandchildren of those found guilty were all debarred
from any secular office.
Gregory IX's immediate successor died before assuming
the reins of office, but the next pope, Innocent IV, made the
Inquisition into a permanent institution. In
1252 he issued a bull Ad extirpanda, which explicitly
authorised the use of torture, seizure of goods and execution,
all on minimal evidence. Torture was to be administered by the
secular authority, but when this proved impractical the inquisitors
were allowed to administer it themselves (and to absolve each
other for doing so). Thereafter it was an exceptional man, woman
or child who could not quickly be convinced of his or her heresy.
In theory torture could be applied only once, and could not
be such as to draw blood, to cause permanent mutilation or to
kill. Boys under the age of 14 and girls under 12 were excused.
In practice there was no one to enforce any of these safeguards,
and they were all ignored. The accused were imprisoned, often
for many months, before being examined. They were often kept
in solitary confinement, in insanitary conditions, in a dark
dungeon, and without adequate heating, food or water. This was
deliberate, and designed to ensure that most of the accused
would already have broken by the time of the first examination.
Only the strongest characters were able to face a tribunal of
hooded figures who claimed to have heard witnesses and seen
incriminating evidence. Most were prepared to admit anything,
even though they did not know what the accusations were. Those
who failed to admit their crimes were taken to the torture chamber
and shown the instruments of torture. This too was designed
to terrify and break them — the dark chamber, the horrifying
instruments, the torturer-executioner dressed and hooded in
black. If they still failed to admit their guilt they were then
subjected to torture: men, women and children alike. Some people
were tortured for years before confessing. Only the most exceptional
could resist. Every day they risked being tortured to death*.
 Tortures
varied from time to time and place to place, but the following
represent the more popular options. Victims were stripped and
bound. The cords were tied around the body and limbs in such
a way that they could be tightened, by a windlass if necessary,
until they acted like multiple tourniquets. By attaching the
cords to a pulley the victim could be hoisted off the ground
for hours, then dropped. Whether the victim was pulled up short
before the weight touched the floor, or allowed to fall to the
floor, the pain was acute. This was the torture of the pulley,
also known as squassation }. It was also called the
strappado, (by which name we have already encountered it being
used at Bamberg). John Howard, the prison reformer, found this
still in use in Rome in the second half of the eighteenth century*.
 The
rack was a favourite for dislocating limbs. Again, the victim
could be flogged, bathed in scalding water with lime, and have
their eyes removed with purpose designed eye-gougers. Fingernails
were pulled out. Grésillons (thumbscrews) were applied
to thumbs and big toes until the bones were crushed. The victim
was forced to sit on a spiked iron chair that could be heated
by a fire underneath until it glowed red-hot. Branding irons
and red-hot pincers were also used. The victim's feet could
be placed in a wooden frame called a boot. Wedges were then
hammered in until the bones shattered, and the "blood and
marrow spouted forth in great abundance". Alternatively
the feet could be held over an open fire, and literally roasted
until the bones fell out; or they could be placed in huge leather
boots into which boiling water was poured, or in metal boots
into which molten lead was poured. Since the holy proceedings
were conducted for the greater glory of God the instruments
of torture were sprinkled with holy water.
Whole families were accused. Family members would often be
induced to incriminate each other in order to minimise the suffering
of their loved ones. Minor heretics who confessed might escape
with light sentences, whereas denial invited trouble. The inquisitor
Conrad of Marburg burned every victim who claimed to be innocent.
Hearings of the Inquisition denied every aspect of natural justice,
and became ever more prejudiced as time went on. They were held
in secret, generally conducted by men whose identities were
concealed. In the Papal States and elsewhere, Dominicans acted
as both judges and prosecutors. By papal command they were forbidden
to show mercy. There was no appeal. The evidence of embittered
husbands and wives, children, servants and persons heretical,
excommunicated, perjured and criminal could be used, secretly
and without their having to face the accused, their charges
being communicated to the victim only in summary form.
No genuine defence could be sustained. For example, if a husband
provided an alibi, saying that his wife had been asleep in his
arms when she was alleged to have been attending a witches"
sabbat, it would be explained to him that a demon had adopted
the form of his wife while she was away. The husband had been
duped. There was no way for him to prove otherwise. Spies were
employed with the incentive of payment by results. Perjury was
pardoned if it was the outcome of "zeal for the faith"
— i.e. supporting the prosecution. Loyalties were over-ridden
so that obedience to a superior was forbidden if it hindered
the inquiry, and those who helped the inquisitors were granted
the same indulgences as pilgrims to the Holy Land. Any advocates
acting for and any witnesses giving evidence on behalf of a
suspect laid themselves open to charges of abetting heresy.
No one was ever acquitted, a released person always being liable
to re-arrest and a condemned person liable to a revised sentence
with no retrial, at the discretion of the inquisitor. In theory
torture could be inflicted only once, but in practice it was
repeated as often as necessary on the pretext that it was a
single occurrence, with intervals between the sessions. Confessions
were virtually guaranteed unless the victim died under torture.
Then came the sentence, and execution of the sentence:
...The obdurate and relapsed were taken outside the church
and handed to the magistrates with a recommendation to mercy
and instruction that no blood be shed. The supreme hypocrisy
of this was that if the magistrate did not burn the victims
on the following day, he was himself liable to be charged
with abetting heresy*.
Almost everyone fell within their jurisdiction. People were
executed for failing to fast during Lent, for homosexuality,
fornication, explaining scientific discoveries, and even for
professional acting.
In order that no blood be shed, the favoured methods of execution
did not involve the cutting of flesh. So it was that burning
was popular, the stake having been inherited from Roman law.
The estates of those found guilty were forfeit, after the deduction
of expenses. Expenses included the costs of the investigation,
torture, trial, imprisonment and execution. The accused bore
it all, including wine for the guards, meals for the judges,
and travel expenses for the torturer. Victims were even charged
for the ropes to bind them and the tar and wood to burn them.
Generally, after paying these expenses, half of the balance
of the estate went to the inquisitors and half to the Pope,
or a temporal lord. This proved such an efficient way of raising
money that it became popular to try the dead as well as the
living. Bones were dug up and burned, even after many years
in the grave. As in trials of the living, there were no acquittals,
and the heretic's property was forfeit. In practice this
meant that the heirs of the deceased were dispossessed of their
inheritances.
The trial of the Knights Templar demonstrates how unjust the
Inquisition could be. The charges of heresy against them were
almost certainly fabricated. No real evidence was ever produced
to support the accusations. The best that could be managed was
hearsay evidence such as that of a priest (William de la Forde)
who had heard from another priest (Patrick de Ripon) that a
Templar had once told him, under the inviolable seal of confession,
about some rather improbable goings on*.
Inquisitors obtained the most damning evidence through the use
of torture. In countries where torture was not permitted, the
Templars denied the charges, however badly they were otherwise
treated and however long they were imprisoned. As soon as torture
was applied the required confessions materialised*.
Inquisitors refused to attach their seals to depositions unless
they included confessions*,
so that only one side of the case appeared in official records.
In France, where torture was applied freely, there were many
confessions, and also many deaths under torture. Accused persons
who retracted their confessions faced death at the stake as
relapsed heretics.
Under torture, the Templar Grand Master himself, Jacques de
Molay, confessed — though it is likely that his confession
was fabricated or at least added to, since he was dumbfounded
when it was read out to him in public. When he tried to mount
a defence on behalf of the Templar Order, he was told that "in
cases of heresy and the faith it was necessary to proceed simply,
summarily, and without the noise of advocates and the form of
judges"*. Since all
of the Order's assets had been seized there was in any
case no way for him to mount an effective defence. By asking
to do so he invited death at the stake, as a number of churchmen
pointed out at the time.
When no English Templars could be induced to confess, the Pope
insisted that torture be applied (see page 340). When the Archbishop
of Mainz delivered a verdict favourable to the Templars at a
provincial council, the Pope simply annulled it*.
When it looked as though the Templars in Cyprus might be acquitted,
the Pope ordered a new trial backed by torture*.
When the fate of the Templars was considered at the Council
of Vienne late in 1311 the cardinals had "a long dispute"
as to whether a defence should be heard at all*.
In the event no defence was heard and the Pope enforced the
King of France's demand that the Order be suppressed.
Templar assets were divided up between Church and State, and
interest in the fates of individual Templars immediately subsided.
Jacques de Molay retracted his confession knowing what the consequences
would be, and was roasted alive, slowly, over a smokeless fire
on 18 th March 1314.
The activities of the Medieval Inquisition were so terrible
that the memory of them has survived throughout Europe to the
present day. Some Christians acknowledge that this body was
one of the most sinister that the world has ever known, and
now attribute its work to satanic forces. On the other hand
there are many others prepared to defend its record.
The Spanish Inquisition
The Medieval Inquisition was established in Barcelona in 1233.
Five years later its authority was extended to Castile, Leon
and Navarre. This was essentially an extension of the Inquisition
established to extirpate the remnants of Catharism. Over 200
years later another inquisition was to appear : the Spanish
Inquisition. Their Roman Catholic Majesties, Ferdinand
and Isabella, established it in 1479, with the explicit sanction
of Pope Sixtus IV, who in 1483 also confirmed the Dominican
friar Thomas de Torquemada as Grand Inquisitor for Aragon and
Castile. The Inquisition was initially directed against Jewish
and Muslim converts who were suspected of returning to their
own religion, and thus being guilty of apostasy. (Many had converted
to Christianity only under threat of death.)
The process was much the same as that of the Medieval Inquisition,
and indeed was deliberately modelled on it. It too was manned
mainly by Dominicans. They copied the methods of arrest, trial,
punishment, staffing, and procedure, even down to the blessing
of the instruments of torture.
There were a few differences from the Medieval Inquisition,
for example there were cases where people were able to mount
a defence and were acquitted. Better records were kept. Some
inquisitors seem to have been relatively enlightened and were
suspicious of accusations motivated by the self-interest of
accusers. Prisons seem to have been better than most ecclesiastical
prisons — there are cases of people committing minor heresies
in order to get themselves transferred from ecclesiastical prisons
to those of the Inquisition. On the other hand, this may say
more about ecclesiastical prisons than Inquisition prisons,
for even in the latter many died before their cases were heard.
In the early days the accused were able to appoint their own
defence counsel, but by the mid-sixteenth century this had changed.
If advocates were permitted they had to be abogados de los
presos, officials of the Inquisition, dependant upon the
inquisitors for their jobs. It is fair to assume, as their clients
did, that these court officials were aware of their employers"
expectations and of the dangers of doing their jobs too well.
It was widely accepted that the Inquisition existed only to
rob people, as people openly affirmed*.
Both rich and poor knew that it was the rich who were most at
risk. The fact that the Inquisition funded itself from the property
it confiscated meant that in effect it burned people on commission.
Individual inquisitors also funded themselves, acquiring great
wealth during their careers. Some inquisitors were known to
have fabricated evidence in order to extort money from their
victims, but even when discovered they received no punishment*.
Similarly their staff of helpers, called familiars,
were free to commit crimes without fear of punishment by the
secular courts*. After
1518 this was formalised. Familiars enjoyed immunity from prosecution
similar to benefit of clergy or modern diplomatic immunity.
This provided another cause of popular scandal, along with their
exemption from taxation.
The activities of the inquisitors were resented by all sections
of society, and the papacy was obliged to interfere from time
to time, although the inquisitors were powerful enough to ignore
it on many occasions. Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull on 18 th
April 1482 protesting that
in Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca and Catalonia the Inquisition
has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and
the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth, and that many
true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies,
rivals, slaves and other lower and even less proper persons,
have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular
prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived
of their goods and property and handed over to the secular
arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious
example, and causing disgust to many*
When someone was arrested all of his or her property was seized.
This was then sold off as required to pay for the upkeep of
the person arrested. This might go on for years until the property
was all sold off. The families of the accused were not supported,
so they also suffered hardships. In some cases the children
of rich parents starved in the streets*.
Others survived by begging. The King, Ferdinand, intervened
from time to time, and later, in 1561, provision was made to
support dependants — although the effect was to use up
the sequestered assets that much faster.
The accused were invited to confess their crimes but not told
what these crimes were. Sometimes it was difficult to guess,
as any of the following were considered serious crimes: changing
bedding on a Friday, not eating pork, dressing in certain ways,
wearing earrings, speaking in foreign languages, owning foreign
books, casual swearing, criticising a priest, or failing to
show due reverence to the Inquisition. Three methods of torture
were popular, the garrucha, the toca and the
potro. The garrucha was the strappado (see
page 378) under another name. The toca was a water
torture. A linen strip was forced down the throat of the accused
and water poured down it until the stomach was distended. The
potro was a form of rack combined with tourniquets.
Surviving records of these torture sessions make harrowing
reading*. As the torture
progressed the victims were soon ready to admit to anything.
They would admit to having done whatever they were accused of.
But since they did not know the specifics of the accusation
they could not admit to them item by item. More torture was
applied. They admitted to whatever their accusers had said,
but again they could not be specific because they did not know
what their accusers had said. More torture was applied. They
begged for clues. They begged for mercy. They were told to confess.
They confessed to crimes, real or invented, apparently whatever
they could think of. They asked what it was the inquisitors
wanted and offered to confess to it whatever it was — still
not good enough. More torture was applied. And so it went on,
sometimes until they went mad. Sometimes they died under tortured.
Many died in prison. Others committed suicide. Of the survivors
some were disabled for life.
The lucky ones got off with penance, whipping or banishment.
Others were condemned to slow deaths in prison or in the galleys.
As the writer George Ryley Scott noted in his book A History
of Torture:
Of all the punishments which the Inquisition inflicted in
the name of God, for sheer long-continued cruelty, nothing
ever rivalled the treatment of the galley-slaves, who were
flogged very nearly every day during the period they laboured
at the oars…It was a fate worse than death. For, as
everyone knew, it meant a life of the most terrible hardship
man could possibly endure and yet continue to live; it almost
inevitably entailed death long before the sentence was completed.
It meant, in the majority of instances, that the victim was
gradually whipped to death*.
Others were condemned to public execution, but this was rarely
a simple matter of dispatching the victim. Even those who confessed
immediately were tortured. Execution was not the sentence
— it was an additional sentence. At the end of
the trial a public ceremony was held called an Auto-da-fé
(Portuguese for Act of Faith). The victim was dressed
in a penitential tunic ( san benito) painted with a
design. Impenitents wore tunics painted with pictures of their
wearers burning in Hell with devils fanning the flames. On their
heads they wore 3-foot-long pointed pasteboard caps (corozas),
also painted. Around their necks they wore nooses, and in their
hands they carried candles. Anyone judged likely to speak out
against the Inquisition was gagged. After a procession came
a Mass and sermon, in which the Inquisition was praised and
heresy condemned. The sentences were read aloud and then carried
out. As usual the secular authorities were obliged to burn victims
on the Church's behalf on the grounds that ecclesia
non novit sanguinem — the Church does not shed blood.
Burning generally took place on Sundays or festivals in order
to attract the largest possible audience. Participation was
a meritorious act — so for example any persons who helped
collect firewood would earn a remission of their sins.
A slow roasting was considered preferable to quick incineration.
Victims were tied high up on their stakes, partly to give the
crowds of faithful a good view, partly to prolong the agony.
Sometimes there was further torture before the fire was lit.
For example Protestants who refused to recant had burning sprigs
of gorse thrust into their faces until they were burned black.
The whole event was a popular festival for the devout, who enjoyed
the spectacle and ridiculed the victims in their death agonies.
The events were closely linked to royal spectacles. The king
was obliged by his coronation oath to attend these mass burnings.
Such burnings were even held to help celebrate royal marriages.
Children and grandchildren of the condemned were prohibited
from becoming priests, judges or magistrates, lawyers, notaries,
accountants, physicians, surgeons, or even shopkeepers. They
could not become mayors or hold other public offices. Some penalties
passed from generation to generation without limit. Under statutes
of limpieza de sangre, the descendants of heretics,
like those of Jews and Moors, suffered civil disabilities because
of their "tainted blood". San benitos worn
by heretics were hung up in local churches as an eternal badge
of shame so that no one should forget their heretical ancestors.
The Spanish Inquisition continued its work for centuries, and
exported its practices to the New World. The Portuguese exported
similar practices to their colonies, not only to the New World
but also east to countries like Goa. The fact that few of the
indigenous people of the New World could be induced to convert
should have meant that there was little recidivism, and therefore
little heresy. In fact many hundreds of heresy trials were conducted
in South America.
The Spanish Inquisition continued to execute its victims into
the nineteenth century. When the French army invaded Spain in
1808 the Dominicans in Madrid denied that they had torture chambers
in their building. The soldiers searched and found that they
did. The chambers were full of naked prisoners, many of them
insane. Similar discoveries were made throughout the country.
While it existed, the Spanish Inquisition was regarded with
horror, even by Roman Catholics from other countries who witnessed
its activities. It was abolished by Joseph Bonaparte in 1808,
but it was reintroduced by Ferdinand VII in 1814, and finally
ended by government decree on 15 th July 1834.
The Roman Inquisition
The Roman Inquisition, more correctly the Congregation
of the Inquisition, was set up in 1542 by Pope Paul III
to help eradicate Protestantism from Italy. It was composed
of cardinals, one of whom had proposed its establishment in
the first place. He later became Pope himself, taking the name
Paul IV. A keen opponent of the free exchange of ideas, he enjoys
the distinction of having put even his own writings on the Index.
Procedures of the Roman Inquisition were no more just than
those of earlier inquisitions, and executions became more common
than in Spain. Freethinkers and scientists were added to the
existing categories of victim for torture and execution. It
was this inquisition that was responsible for burning the foremost
philosopher of the Italian Renaissance, Giordano Bruno, in 1600;
and for inducing the foremost scientist, Galileo, to recant
under the threat of torture.
Book burning was as popular as elsewhere, but political repression
added a new dimension. This persecution too continued for centuries,
until the papacy became too far out of step with the rest of
Western Christendom. Eventually the Church decided to change
its ways, or at least give the appearance of changing them.
Pope Pius VII purported to forbid the use of torture in 1816,
although in practice it continued to be used for decades to
come. Public burnings became something of an embarrassment too.
The answer was not to abandon executions but to carry them out
more discreetly. Pius IX, in an edict of 1856, sanctioned "secret
execution". In the Papal States things had changed little
since the Middle Ages — it was for example still a crime
to eat meat on a feast day. Political trials were conducted
by priests, whose power was absolute. Again, the accused were
not permitted legal representation, nor were they allowed to
face their accusers. All this came to an end only in 1870, when
the Papal States were seized. The last prisoners of the Inquisition
were released , and the Pope became a self-confined prisoner
in his own palace.
In 1908 the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Inquisition
changed its name to the Holy Office. In 1967 it changed
it again, this time to the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith. It still functions from a large building
near the sacristy of St Peter's in Rome. Since 1870 its
dungeons have been converted into offices. Despite the name
change, there is no apparent embarrassment about its history.
On the contrary it still conducts heresy trials according to
rules that breach what are elsewhere regarded as elementary
rules of natural justice.
Despite the methodical destruction of Church torture chambers
in modern times there is still evidence of their existence —
not only medieval records but the testimony of early penal reformers
like John Howard (1726—1790 ). Other reliable witnesses
also recorded the horrors they encountered. The Victorian architect
who saved the Cit é of Carcassonne found not only chains
in the bishop's prison, but human bones still attached
to them*. Museums throughout
Europe display instruments of torture carefully designed to
inflict the maximum of pain over prolonged periods without shedding
blood (a Papal requirement).
Because so many records have been lost, no one knows how many
men, women and children were tortured or burned to death over
the centuries by the various inquisitions. Similarly undetermined
is the number of families dispossessed, children orphaned, communities
destroyed. All we can say with certainty is that the pain and
suffering that was caused is incalculable. Even sources sympathetic
to the Roman Church accept estimates in excess of nine million.
One irony is that the Medieval, Spanish and Roman Inquisitions
would all have burned Jesus as a persistent heretic if he had
appeared before them. They might each have done so on different
grounds: for example for advocating absolute poverty, for practising
Judaism, and for criticising St Peter.
|
|
