The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church — John Shaqi
The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the ChurchVacandard, E. (Elphège)
History
The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church
Vacandard, E. (Elphège)
Inquisition -- History
"Their courage," he replies, "arose from mere stubbornness; the devil
inspired them with this constancy you speak of, just as he prompted
Judas to hang himself. These heretics are not real but counterfeit
martyrs (_perfidiæ martyres_). But while I may approve the zeal of
the people for the faith, I cannot at all approve their excessive
cruelty; for faith is a matter of persuasion, not of force: _fides
suadenda est, non imponenda_."[1]
[1] In Cantica, Sermo lxiv, n. 12.
On principle, the Abbot of Clairvaux blames the bishops and even the
secular princes, who through indifference or less worthy reasons fail
to hunt for the foxes who are ravaging the vineyards of the Savior.
But once the guilty ones have been discovered, he declares that only
kindness should be used to win them back. "Let us capture them by
arguments and not by force,"[1] i.e., let us first refute their
errors, and if possible bring them back into the fold of the Catholic
Church.
[1] Ibid., n. 8.
If they stubbornly refuse to be converted, let the bishop
excommunicate them, to prevent their doing further injury; if
occasion require it, let the civil power arrest them and put them in
prison. Imprisonment is a severe enough penalty, because it prevents
their dangerous propaganda:[1] _aut corrigendi sunt, ne pereant; aut,
ne perimant, coercendi_.[2] St. Bernard was always faithful to his
own teaching, as we learn from his mission in Languedoc.[3]
[1] _De Consideratione_, lib. iii, cap. i, n. 3.
[2] Ibid.; cf. Ep. 241 and 242. For more details, cf. Vacandard, _Vie
de Saint Bernard_, vol. ii, pp. 211-216, 461-462.
[3] Cf. Vacandard, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 217-234.
Having ascertained the views of individual churchmen, we now turn to
the councils of the period, and find them voicing the self-same
teaching. In 1049, the Council held at Rheims by Pope Leo IX declared
all heretics excommunicated, but said nothing of any temporal
penalty, nor did it empower the secular princes to aid in the
suppression of heresy.[1]
[1] Cf. Labbe, _Concilia_, vol. ix, col. 1042.
The Council of Toulouse in 1119, presided over by Calixtus II, and
the General Council of the Lateran, in 1139, were a little more
severe; they not only issued a solemn bull of excommunication against
heretics, but ordered the civil power to prosecute them: _per
potentates exteras coerceri præcipimus._[1] This order was,
undoubtedly an answer to St. Bernard's request of Louis VII to banish
Arnold from his kingdom. The only penalty referred to by both these
councils was imprisonment.
[1] Council of Toulouse, can. 3, Labbe, vol. x, col. 857; Council of
Lateran, can. 23, ibid., col. 1008.
The Council of Rheims in 1148, presided over by Eugenius III, did not
even speak of this penalty, but simply forbade secular princes to
give support or asylum to heretics.[1] We know, moreover, that at
this council Éon de l'Etoile was merely sentenced to the seclusion of
a monastery.
[1] Can. 18, Labbe, _Concilia_, vol. x, col. 1113.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account