Posts like this are why I read this blog every day.
Have you gotten anywhere with that book about the Church's take on torture that you were talking about a couple of months ago?
I am confused as usual -
Professor Schweiker writes in part:
“King Ferdinand declared that drowning—called the third baptism—was a suitable response to Anabaptists”.
To the best of my knowledge King Ferdinand predated the Anabaptists. The Royal Inquisition of Spain had authority only over professed Catholics – not Anabaptists. The Anabaptists were located, in the main, in central Europe – not Spain. The Royal Inquisition of Spain did not use water boarding.
Did I misread the Professor’s article? Did I miss something here?
Thank you.
Richard W. Comerford
Then join me in voting for McCain--he schooled Romney on this issue last night.
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
[Scroll down to Question 22]
Chris:
Sadly, no. Not yet. Writing a book takes time and I have to use my time writing articles to keep bread on the table in the absence of an advance.
Dale Price:
Thank you for the link.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Mr. Comerford:
There have been many Ferdinands, and I suspect he meant the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I, son of Charles V of Spain.
Er, "brother of Charles V of Spain."
Habsburgs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fer...y_Roman_Emperor
"that we could infallibly know that someone had vital information that would in fact save millions"
Just to pick the nits that others more indifferent to torture will pick, "infallibly" isn't ever the level of certainty at which government agents proceed. As I understand its proponents, "justified" torture would be wielded in circumstances similar to when a policeman shoots a suspected gunman, or when a judge issues a warrant, when certainty is reasonable but not indubitable.
The history on the piece seems a bit sketchy, I wish there were more references.
Dale Price:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I think you are right! Did this Ferdinand employ an inquisition and did it have authority over Anabaptists?
God bless
Richard
Mr. Comerford:
You are welcome--on both items.
As to your question, I have no idea. The only reason I know anything about this particular Ferdinand is that I have been reading about the military history of the period lately.
16th century military history. There's light reading for you.
Dave G:
Well, yeah, it is. 
Dale Price:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I think the reason that I am confused is that the good professor mentioned Ferdinand, Anabaptists, water boarding and Spanish Inquisition all in apparent relation to each other and all in the same eight paragraph article.
Now it is easy to confuse me. And you would think that a college professor would know that a dummy like me might read his article and therefore would be a bit more careful.
We English speakers know very little as to what really went on during the European wars of religion. I suspect that much of what has come down to us has been influenced by English Protestant writers who were somewhat biased. This is a shame because it is my guess that there were men of good will on all sides who could shed some much needed light on our present situation.
BTW are you reading about the war wherein one side used wagons as a base to fight from?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Dale,
I know
I majored in history, esp. military (though I never got into the 16th century for some reason).
Mr. Comerford:
The wagons (wagenburg) would be the Hussite Wars (15th Century, but very advanced tactics). Really fascinating, but no, not that one. At least not yet.
I've been reading up on the wars with the Ottoman Empire, which Ferdinand I was smack in the middle of.
Dave: A fellow addict! Always nice to meet one.
I'd like to make one 16th Century recommendation: "Victory of the West" by Niccolo Capponi. A great history of the lead up to the Battle of Lepanto, and the battle itself.
Dale Price:
Thank you for your kind reply. Using wagons was smart, very smart.
BTW have you read Henryk Sienkiewicz Trilogy about the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and its wars in the 16th 0 17th Centuries against, among others, teh Ottoman Empire? It has almost a Tolkein flavor about it.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Dale,
Thaniks, I'll look that up. I am rather rusty on that time period. I like to jump from the Middle Ages and go straight to Napoleon and beyond. Cliche I know, but that's what got me interested all those years ago.
Mark:
Why wouldn't the Church's centuries-old approval of torture and execution of heretics constitute an infallible act of the ordinary Magisterium?
And if the Church was wrong then, what's to stop her being wrong now in her condemnation of the torture and execution of heretics (or anyone else for that matter)?
Note: I do not endorse the torture and execution of heretics. (Or the torturing of anyone, for that matter.)
But it seems to me that the Church's allowance of torture (supra) would constitute just as solemn and infallible an act of the ordinary Magisterium as, say, her consistent condemnation of abortion, contraception, chattel slavery, etc.
No?
This is one of those questions I struggle with as a Catholic.
Mr. Shea,
The comparison between torture and slavery is simply misleading. You are right, the church did tolerate slavery, however it never commanded anyone to own slaves. At the time of the inquisition the church positivly commanded the torture of suspected heretics. Now while the church has never claimed that all its prudential descicions are wise, it is quite another thing to claim the church can command something intrisically evil, that is simply to overthrow the claims of indefecability.
Also, I have to say, the attitude exihibited here is very different from the attitude you show with regards to the liturgy. With the liturgy, its always if the chuirch aporves it, its ok with me" now suddenly, you seem willing to admit that, in its prudential judgements, the church can be wrong.
Don;t worry, I understand tha treasons for your inconsistenct. I;m bisexual and i know fully well that as long as the church coninues to call people like me disordered so you dont have to feel tha your manhood is threatened by having to treat us gays as equal human being then you dont much care what else the church teaches.
The Church calls homosexual INCLINATION intrinsically disordered. It does not call individuals intrinsically disordered. It can't. The category doesn't apply to people. If you're going to try for snarkiness, at least aim for accuracy first. It makes the overall effect more dramatic.
Eric G.:
Forgive me for butting in regarding the post wherein you wrote in part:
“Why wouldn't the Church's centuries-old approval of torture and execution of heretics constitute an infallible act of the ordinary Magisterium?”
It is my understanding, and I am not a scholar, that the Church has always taught and still teaches to this date that the state has the authority to employ capital punishment in the cause of justice. However, as you know, JP II discouraged the employ of capital punishment cause of justice in modern times.
I am unaware of any primary document wherein the Catholic Church or Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian or any church with Apostolic succession taught as a matter of faith and dogma that torture was good, moral and just. If you have a link to a good translation of a primary document wherein a church with Apostolic succession taught as a matter of faith and dogma that torture was good, moral and just I would be grateful if you could provide it.
It is also my understanding that the deposit of faith ended with the death of the last Apostle and that for the Church to teach in an authoritative and binding manner on a point of doctrine regarding faith and morals it must so do solemnly with the intention of teaching all of the faithful. All men are sinners to include Christians. There is in my mind at least a big difference between a Christian torturing a brother in Christ with the approval of certain Church bureaucrats and the Catholic Church dogmatically teaching that torture is a moral act.
However I am a dummy. Please correct me if I am wrong.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Chris Molter:
Forgive me for butting in regarding the post wherein you wrote in part: “At the time of the inquisition the church positively commanded the torture of suspected heretics.”
This is a matter of some interest to me. I was unaware that the Catholic Church ever commanded that suspected heretics or anyone else be tortured. Just out of curiosity do you have a link to a good translation of a primary document wherein the Catholic Church commanded that any class of human being be tortured by the faithful?
BTW I believe that in the aforementioned post that you described yourself as bisexual or gay. May I respectfully recommend that you think of yourself first and foremost as a Son of God, a Brother of Christ, made in the image and likeness of God, with an immortal soul which was redeemed, like mine, at a terrible price?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Richard C:
I'll give the Sienkiewicz books a look. The recommendations keep piling up, and they sound right up my alley.
Dave G:
Napoleon is one of my weaker spots. I just picked up Zamoyski's book on Bonaparte's invasion of Russia from a Barnes' markdown pile, and have added it to the queue.
Dale Price:
Thank you for your kind reply.
Reportedly the Sienkiewicz Trilogy has been the best seller, behind the Bible, in Poland and Lithuania for almost a century. I find it fascinating because its views such issues as war, insurrection, torture, death, service, sacrifice and honor from the perspective of an embattled Catholic Nation. I think you will enjoy it. BTW he also wrote Quo Vadus and the Teutonic Knights.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"This is a matter of some interest to me. I was unaware that the Catholic Church ever commanded that suspected heretics or anyone else be tortured."
I think it was more the Inquisition rather than the Church. If you interpret the state's legitimate use of force broadly enough, a body of Christians (not the Church as a whole) could construe that torture falls within those bounds.
JonathanR:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I think that you are right in your analysis of the situation. However I would add the following. In the English-speaking world we Catholics are frequently attacked, sometimes at taxpayer expense, for the alleged injustices committed by our co-religionist forbears. The three principals sticks with which we are beaten are the Crusades, the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition.
Strangely enough, even through we live in the information super age, we really do not know what exactly happened during the time periods in question. The primary documents are not in English; but there are numerous anti-Catholic tracts on these periods readily available in English. The few English translations of primary documents from these periods are sometimes suspect.
For instance a recent television presentation in my area shown at taxpayer expense on public television inferred the Inquisition during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabel burned some 15% of the Spanish population at the stake. By my reckoning that would be 1.2 million people. However during a History Channel presentation on the same matter it was estimated that during the entire 350-year history of the Royal Inquisition of Spain throughout the entire Spanish Empire 2-5,000 twice condemned men and woman were burned at the stake by the civil government – not the Church.
This is an area which, in my opinion, cries out for some serious scholarship; which raises the question as to what the 250 plus Catholic Colleges and Universities have been doing over the decades. Pardon the rant.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I didn't expect the Apanish Inquisition!
Mr. Comerford:
Read it and weep:
http://www.catholicculture.org/l...cfm?
recnum=7390
Eric G.:
Thank you for taking the time to post this link.
In my opinion the author of the article cited in your link, Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., has been a strong proponent of preventive war and torture for I would guess about 5-years now. This is a guy with a big brain, a first class education and a position of importance in a major institution. However as evidenced by his article he does not cite a single primary document wherein the Church authoritatively taught the faithful as a matter of faith and morals that the use of torture was good, moral and just. Indeed he appears to take some advantage of his prestigious position by twisting history a bit:
The good father writes in part: “Pope Gregory IX had mandated the death penalty for unrepentant heretics”.
I reply that this is not quite relevant to torture and not to the point... from the online Catholic Encyclopedia: “the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent… however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times” - nothing about torture here, why did Father cite Pope Gregory.
The good father also writes in part: “Innocent IV, had mandated for the newly established Inquisition the use of confession-extracting torture”. I reply Pope Innocent’s defenders have long argued quite the opposite that he restricted, not mandated, the use of torture. Father should know this; why did he bring it up?
The good father further writes in part: “This inconclusiveness of the New Testament in regard to torture was reflected in the pendulum-swinging vacillation of Catholic theologians and lawmakers of the patristic period. Some who lived under the pagan Roman regime, such as Tertullian, took a totally pacifist stance, claiming that Christian standards of behavior were irreconcilable not only with complicity in torture but with any kind of military service or even law enforcement”. I reply service in the early Empire’s Legions and Urban Cohorts, responsible for fire and law enforcement duties, included membership in secret military pagan cults which sacrificed to pagan gods – something a Christian simply could not do. Father should know this – why is he being so confusing here?
What little we know in the English speaking world about the Church and torture is that every time a Pope or Council has solemnly taught on this matter with the intention of teaching all of the faithful on its morality they have taught that torture is simply evil. This should be enough for any faithful Catholic. Why it is not enough for Father I do not know.
I realize that you have written about your struggles with the faith. I say “good” – all of the Saints have so struggled. Keep it up. However I respectfully urge you to remember that every Pope and every Catholic, including myself, is a sinner. Do not confuse the spotless Bride of Christ with a sinner like myself.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
+J.M.J+
Fr. Harrison ends his article by saying: "I suggest that readers form their own opinion on (torture)" If approval of torture were "an infallible act of the ordinary Magisterium," it would not be a matter open to personal opinions, would it? I hardly see how Fr. Harrison is claiming in this article that the Church infallibly teaches that "torture by civil or military authorities for extracting information from detainees" (his definition) is an article of Faith. He's not saying that.
Let's be careful of "private interpretation" - not just in relation to Scripture, but also to Church decrees and policies. None of us (Fr. Harrison included, btw) has the right to interpret Church documents for himself and come to conclusions on whether something is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. That is for the Magisterium to decide, not us. We know that Church teaching on contraception and the male-only priesthood are part of the ordinary and universal Magisterium because the Church tells us so, not because we figured it out for ourselves by looking at everything the Bible and the Church has ever said on this and related topics. Ditto the question of torture; we can't privately decide on the matter based on an article or two by a priest and then call our decisions "infallible Catholic teaching."
In Jesu et Maria,
Why wouldn't the Church's centuries-old approval of torture and execution of heretics constitute an infallible act of the ordinary Magisterium?
Here are the criteria in Lumen Gentium for an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.
As far as I can tell, local or even universal juridical practices in medieval times have pretty much nothing to do with these criteria. The idea that juridical practice constitutes "authentically teaching matters of faith and morals" is just obvious self-serving nonsense, and the notion that all Bishops were at one time in agreement on the position "torture of heretics is morally licit" as definitelvely held is risable.
Kevin Miller's long-ago response to Fr. Harrison is worth quoting again in full here:
Considering that much of Harrison's conclusion is logically dependant - not only on his history - but also on the assertion that it's something like ecclesiologically impossible for the Church to have approved of something that turns out to be intrinsically evil (in effect, then, that when the Church, in what would otherwise be a non-infallible act, approves of action X, then this amounts to an infallible teaching that X is not intrinsically evil) - I'm not sure why a detailed response is necessary. "What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied."
I comment more fully here.
Zippy:
A moment of your time please. I always thought that torture under any circumstances was a violation of the 5th Commandment - end of story...it would seem. However there seems to be a movement or group within this debate that infers there is a pro-torture tradition within the Church. This raises the question in my mind as to whether there is an authoritative pronouncement as a matter of faith of morals for the Universal Church in favor of torture.
Do you know of any such document? Would you have a link to a good translation of a verified primary document if it existed?
I actually do not see how such a document could even exist; but I would appreciate your time mulling on this matter.
Thank you
Richard W. Comerford
Do you know of any such document?
Nope. Not a one. Near as I can tell, the argument - which I view as manifest nonsense - is an argument from practice, not an argument from any actual teaching. The closest I've ever seen anyone come to arguing that such a document exists is through citation of Exsurge Domine. In that Bull, Pope Leo X condemns a number of statements as
...either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth...One of the statements condemned is
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.It is I think manifestly obvious that this citation doesn't even begin to do the work of infallibly defining torture as sometimes permissable.
Zippy:
Thank you very much for your time.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Commenting by HaloScan
