Inquisition: The Heretic’s Unexpected Protector

Introduction: Myths of the Inquisition

It is sometimes portrayed that whenever an Inquisitor came to a district the people ran and hid for their lives, fearing an overzealous murderous madman who falsely accused anyone who floats! But nearly the opposite is true. The people desired and even celebrated the death of condemned heretics. Even an accused heretic would feel safer with an Inquisitor than in the hands of a mob.

Authority of the Inquisitors

Contrary to popular belief, Inquisitors only had authority over baptized Christians and did not investigate Jews, Muslims, or pagans. Further, the death penalty was typically only used in specific cases. For the most part, those considered heretics received less severe punishments, such as penances, confiscation of property or, in the worst cases, imprisonment. Instances of the death penalty were rare and usually limited to the most zealously unrepentant among those investigated.

Mob Violence and the Role of the Church

Generally, the people pushed for authorities, lords, and the Church to deal with heretics among them; most of the authorities only did so “reluctantly.” The ordeal was more of a “will of the people,” a democratic reaction to fear, as the people beseeched authorities to ease their concerns. Concern over God’s judgment on the realm if they allowed heresy to spread, and other motivators, led emotional mobs to accuse and murder innocents for heresy or witchcraft without trials. The heretic lacked rights and protections enjoyed by faithful Catholics. Angry mobs brought supposed heretics to court, seeking swift punishment, which too often was granted by the courts and rulers. And so, desiring to stop it, the Church sent out trained authorities to “inquire” into these claims and ensure a fair trial. A mid-13th century Inquisitor manual declares, “To no one do we deny a legitimate defence,” and the same manual stated, “We do not proceed to the condemnation of anyone without clear and evident proof or without his confession, nor God permitting, will we do so.” The statement emphasizes the importance of fair and just trials.

Case Study: Alonso de Salazar Frías

Having a fair and impartial outsider who is trained and knowledgeable about conducting trials can make a significant difference in saving lives from enraged mobs. An excellent example of this is during the middle of the witch craze hysteria in 1612 when Spanish inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías investigated 1,802 people accused of witchcraft and, after careful examination of their claimed magical powers and alleged sex with demons, declared, “I have not found even indications from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has occurred.” Had these accused individuals been left to the mercy of an angry and fearful mob, it is unlikely that many would have survived.

Controversial Figures in the Inquisition

In many instances, the inquisitors were able to save lives; overall, it is hard not to see them as doing so. For example, in 1256, the inquisitors were able to save Jews who had been falsely accused of ritual murder. There were, of course, overzealous Inquisitors. One such figure was Robert the Dominican, who during the 13th century sent 180 heretics to the stake along with a local bishop who gave them their freedom. However, for his actions, Robert was suspended by the Pope and imprisoned for life. Also, during the Middle Ages, local bishops and lords complained about the Inquisitor Conrad of Marburg’s excessive use of torture and heavy punishments; the Inquisitor was eventually assassinated for his abuses.

The investigators tried to avoid punishing the accused and guided them to avoid punishment. Professor Rodney Stark wrote, “It was the inquisition that prevented the murderous witch craze, which flourished…during the sixteenth and seventeenth century…instead of burning witches, the inquisitors sent a few people to be hanged because they had burned witches.” It was the Catholic Clergy that first stamped out the witch craze and were first sceptical of it.

Inquisitors would engage in ongoing and lengthy debates with Jews who had relapsed; these were not hasty trials and verdicts but rather actual investigations, inquiries into the mind of the heretic to render accurate judgments, the exact opposite of emotional mob outrage.

Common Punishments for Heresy

14th-century illustration of Gui receiving a blessing from Pope John XXII

Contrary to popular portrayals, the Inquisitor’s job was not to seek out and destroy heretics; their goal was to ensure a fair trial for the accused and bring them back to the Catholic fold. Medieval scholar Thomas Madden says that the “Inquisitions was originally set up to save lives.” They first sought to correct false beliefs and cause the heretic to repent. In 1206, a Papal Bull stated the Church must “go humbly in search of heretics and lead them out of error.”

Most of the cases of heresy were simply misunderstood positions that were quickly corrected by the trained Inquisitor, and the cases dismissed. The most common punishments (or penances) for heresy included fasting, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross in public, or scourging. As previously emphasized, very few heretics received the death penalty. A medieval guide by Saint Raymond of Peñafort described multiple levels of heresy, from those who listened to them preach, to those who helped, to those who defended the heresy. Only unrepented defenders were set to receive the death penalty.

The most famous inquisitor of the medieval period was Bernard Gui, who presided over 930 cases where the accused were found guilty of heresy but sent only 42 people to the secular authorities for execution. Willful heresy was not at all common. Giving a heretic over to the local authorities for capital punishment was “an act of desperation.” It was a last resort taken only after the Inquisitor failed to convert his subject.

Professor Edward Peters studied the manuals of the Inquisitors and remarked that the procedures employed by them against heretics were “not from zeal for righteous vengeance, but out of love of correcting an erring brother” and “the essential purpose of the Inquisition was to save the souls of heretics and those close to them and to protect the unity of the church.”

The Church prioritized letting the guilty go free over falsely condemning the innocent. This meant that there must be substantial evidence or a genuine confession that proves the accused’s guilt beyond doubt. Historian Will Durant wrote, “In general the inquisitors were instructed that it was better to let the guilty escape than to condemn the innocent, and that they must have either clear proof or a confession.”

Further, the Church and its servants, the Inquisitors, never executed a single heretic directly. They would however give up their rescue mission when a heretic remained unrepentant and defiant. Instead, they would turn them over to local authorities, who would condemn them to death. Heretics were only put to death after a long, unrepentant period of maintaining their stance.

By setting up their courts, inquisitors enabled heretics to legally repent, be protected by the Church, have a fair trial, and avoid mob violence. The Inquisitor sought to prevent guilty verdicts and encourage repentance; they were the heretics’ friend, not their enemy as commonly believed. Likewise, Inquisitors never forced anyone to convert to Catholicism. The Inquisitors made sure that the accused fully understood and acknowledged that their beliefs were heretical and that they persisted in holding them. During the interview process, the Inquisitors were often willing to meet with the accused on multiple occasions over several years in an attempt to dissuade them from facing trial.

Originally, Bishops would determine if the accused were heretics, and they would move on, not staying in one place. It was common for those accused of heresy or questioned by the Inquisitor to inform other heretics in the town of the Inquisitor’s arrival, leading to the heretics fleeing the area to escape interrogation.

Inquisitors came to an area, announced they were there, and gave a grace period (where heretics could confess and repent and be forgiven) of 30-40 days – they would also teach and preach the faith. The most well-known Inquisitor of the medieval period, Bernard Gui, stated in his Inquisitors’ manual that heretics should receive a written warning and one year to repent. After the grace period was over, the people would bring one accused of heresy (Inquisitors did not hunt them down, and those who accused others would face a penalty if the accused were not guilty), and the evidence was gathered to bring a heretic to court where they would be tried. The defendant could gather evidence (and witnesses), and everything said was recorded and written down. If they were found guilty, the inquisitors would try to show the heretics why they were wrong and why their souls were in danger and try to bring them back.

The heretics received a written notice containing accusations before being charged. Heretics were protected from personal enemies, who couldn’t testify due to bias. False witnesses who accused others faced a lifetime in prison on bread and water as a form of penance. After admitting guilt, heretics voluntarily went to the Inquisitor’s prison instead of secular ones. They were not shackled and dragged into the Inquisitor’s custody; they selected this option for better conditions.

Those who were accused of sorcery and witchcraft sought out the more forgiving Inquisitor courts, as they were typically given a light punishment for their offences, similar to heretics. For punishment, heretics who confessed their guilt were usually given the penance of giving alms, perhaps going on a pilgrimage, or wearing a yellow cloth with a cross for a specified period.

During medieval times, people believed that lying would lead to punishment from God. As a result, individuals were often trusted when they gave their word, as breaking the commandment against lying under oath (Exodus 20:16) was seen as a serious offence.

Those who falsely accused others of heresy were warned that if they lied, they would be punished not just by the Inquisitors, but by God.

The Inquisitor prisons were created to mimic monastic isolation as a means of repentance and atonement for deviating from God. Those who were imprisoned were permitted to have visitors and communicate with others, and minor offenders were even granted gifts and time off.

Debunking Torture Myths

The use of torture during the Inquisitions has been greatly exaggerated, and many other related misunderstandings have endured. For example, torture was not used by the Church until it was reintroduced through Roman law, and secular courts used torture before the Church first approved it in 1252. Inquisitors then began using it, but only when there was substantial evidence of heresy and no confession was given. Most inquisitors chose not to utilize torture, and many questioned its usefulness. Back in 866, Pope Nicholas I had written, “A confession must be voluntary and not forced. By means of torture, an innocent man may suffer to the uttermost without making any avowal—in such a case what a crime for the judge! Or a person may be subdued by pain, and acknowledge himself guilty, though he be innocent—which throws an equally great sin upon the tribunal.” The use of torture was also regulated; historian Will Durant wrote, “The popes advised that torture should be a last resort, should be applied only once, and should be kept ‘this side of loss of limb and danger of death.’” The torturers were not viewed with distaste by society but instead accepted as a necessary evil. The modern Catholic Church has since regretted its involvement in torture during the Inquisitions.

The Inquisitors were not like the typical portrayal of angry, bloodthirsty lunatics enjoying torture. They were often educated and morally upright men who were seeking the truth. The previously-mentioned Bernard Gui, one of the most well-known Inquisitors, believed that an Inquisitor should be honest, maintain self-control at all times, and proceed slowly in his legal cases to arrive at the best possible judgment.

Torture could only be used once during the interrogation process, and a local priest, Inquisitor, doctor, and, at times, local bishop must be present for it. Although the image of dark dungeons and secret trials, torture and murders is commonly shared, everything was written down and recorded. Two witnesses had to observe, and a notary or scribe had to authenticate the exchanges. There were often many witnesses present, for example, those listed during the “Confession of Arnaud Gélis” were “in the presence of the religious persons my lord Germain de Castelnau, archdeacon of the church of Pamiers, Brother Gaillard de Pomiès, brother Arnaud du Carla of the order of Preachers of the convent of Pamiers, Brother Jean Estève, of the same order, companion of my said lord inquisitor, and Brother David, a monk of Fontfroide, witness to the preceding, and of Masters Guillaume Peyre-Barthe, notary of my lord bishop and Barthélemy Adalbert, public notary by royal authority and the charge of the inquisitor, who was present at all the proceedings of this day and approved them.” There were times when over a dozen people were involved as witnesses.

Torture was only used when a guilty verdict seemed inevitable but the guilty refused to confess. Further, confessions made under torture must be repeated the next day without the use of torture. Neither the death penalty nor torture was standard in the Middle Ages; French historian Régine Pernoud states, “Of the nine hundred and thirty convictions recorded by the inquisitor Berard Gui during his career, those involving the death penalty total forty-two. As for torture, one finds only three cases when it was applied for certain, during the whole history of the Inquisition in Languedoc.”

Torture was not a form of punishment; it was only to bring forth truth. Steve Weidenkopf explained, “In the medieval inquisitor courts, torture was never used as a punishment for heresy …not approved until 1252… and never became common…several groups of people were automatically exempted, including children, the elderly, pregnant women, knights, members of the nobility, and in some cases clergy.”