Did St. Thomas Advocate Torture?

[Sternhauser]

From theSumma Theologica, Part II, Q. 10, Article 8:

"I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

[b]On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised,[/b] and hold what they, at one time, received."

Is St. Thomas saying that using violence against the body is moral to coerce people to believe what they used to believe? What is the "unchanging" teaching of the Church concerning such torture? Is Thomas Aquinas saying that it is moral to coerce the will through inflicting suffering on the body?

~Sternhauser

Edited July 3, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Resurrexi]

I agree with St. Thomas on this one.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1278118685' post='2137182']
I agree with St. Thomas on this one.
[/quote]

You believe that one may inflict suffering in order to coerce the will? May a friar be whipped, burned, or have his fingers broken until he screams, "I believe X again?"

~Sternhauser

Edited July 3, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

In order that I might not scandalize any potential catechumens, let me make it clear that the Church itself does not advocate such torture, it never has, it never will, and it never [i]can.[/i] It is my assertion that St. Thomas was dead wrong in what he said, as he was on some other matters. I further believe that, enjoying the beatific vision as he is, he does not currently espouse the ideas he held 600 years ago. This change was not forced on him, however: he utterly and willingly surrendered everything in him that was contrary to Truth. One has to, when one is gazing into the face of Love Himself.

~Sternhauser

[Selah]

[quote]I agree with St. Thomas on this one. [/quote]

What. A. Surprise.

This, among other things of his that I have read, is why I don't fancy St. Aquinas too much.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='02 July 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1278127511' post='2137228']the Church itself does not advocate such torture, it never has, it never will, and it never [i]can.[/i][/quote]
Plenty of great theologians, even saints and doctors of the Church, were apparently okay with torturing heretics and even burning them alive. The proposition that "burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit" was condemned back in the 16th century. There are a number of incidents involving Popes, the inquisition, and torture that I personally find to be disturbing. Papal support of King Philip's bloody liquidation of the Knights Templar is one classic example.

The papal bull [i]Ad extirpanda[/i] is surely one of the most commonly invoked examples of a Pope sanctioning the torture of heretics. This papal bull was confirmed by several subsequent popes as well. I'll provide some highlights and bold the part that is most often quoted. What do you make of this?

[spoiler]
[quote]If any head of state or ruler refuses to obey, each and all, these statutes, or neglects them, besides the stigma of forswearing, and the disaster of eternal infamy, he shall undergo the penalty of seeing his country lose its borders, which penalty shall be imposed on him irrecoverably; the country will be converted to common use, because, specifically, a man forsworn and infamous, and, in effect, a protector of heretics, his faith compromised, has usurped the dignity and honor of governmental power; nor shall another head of state or ruler from anywhere replace him, or in any way, by any means, take to himself the vacated dignity or public office.

...The head of state or ruler of the city or feudal domain shall accuse of criminal conduct all heretics of both sexes, no matter by what name they appear on the rolls of citizens...And furthermore, that no heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off, to belong to the remover with full right, unless this kind of removing is restricted to persons designated by law.

This head of state or ruler...must appoint twelve upright and Catholic men, and two notaries and two servants,or as many as may be needed, selected by the Diocesan bishop if there is one and he wishes to take part; and two Dominicans and two Franciscans selected for this work by their priors, if the region has religious houses of those orders.

Those who are thus appointed may and should seize the heretical men and women and carry off their possessions and cause these to be carried off by others,and take the heretics,or cause them to be taken, into the custody of the Diocesan bishop or his surrogates, and see to it that these things are fully accomplished as well in the diocese as in its entire jurisdiction and district.

...And both the aforesaid twelve men and their aforesaid servants and notaries, whether acting as a group, or singly, shall, in all that belongs to their office, have full command, backed by the executive and punitive power of the state.

If one of these officials, faithlessly and falsely, exceeds the limits of his authority to give aid and comfort to persons in custody on heresy charges, besides everlasting infamy, which, as a protector of heretics, he shall incur,he shall be punished by the head of state or ruler according to the sentence of the aforesaid Diocesan and monastic orders of the place.

Whoever shall have the audacity to arrange the escape from custody of a male or female heretic, or shall try to prevent the arrest of such a person: or shall prevent the entry of an official into any house, or tower, or any place to hinder arrest, or prevent the gathering of evidence concerning such persons, shall have all his goods, according to the law at Padua when Frederick was emperor there, consigned to the state in perpetuity, and the house that was barred against the official shall be leveled with the ground and its rebuilding prohibited, and the belongings found therein shall be awarded to the officials making the arrest; and if the heretics are found as a result of this prohibition or special preventive measure, the borough shall forfeit to the state two hundred pounds; localities both of the boroughs and the state fifty Imperials, unless within three days the would-be liberator or liberators of the heretics are brought before the head of state for a personal interview.

...The head of state and ruler of whatever kind are especially obliged to present all male and female heretics,under whatever name they are accused,within fifteen days after their arrest, to the Diocesan or his surrogate, or to the inquisitors of heresy, to perform the examination of themselves and their heresies.

Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly, or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.

[b]The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.[/b]

[([i]Allegedly the phrase here translated as "breaking their arms and legs" is an idiom meaning to dismember. So basically torture away, just don't kill or dismember.[/i])]

And the house, in which a male or female heretic shall be discovered, shall be leveled with the ground, never to be rebuilt; unless it is the master of the house who shall have arranged the discovery of the heretics. And if the master of the house owns other houses in the same neighborhood, all of the other houses shall in like manner be destroyed, and the goods that shall be found in the house and the others related to it shall be dispersed to the populace, and shall belong to whoever carries them off, unless the removers shall be appointed by law. Above all, the master of the house, besides incurring eternal infamy, must pay the government or locality fifty pounds Imperial in coin; if unable to pay, he shall suffer life imprisonment.

Whoever shall be caught giving any male or female heretic counsel, help, or favor, besides the other punishments mentioned duly in their logical places in other passages of this decree, shall become infamous by that same law, and shall be admitted neither to public office, nor public affairs, nor the election of persons to these, nor may he testify in a legal process; to that extent shall his incapacity to testify go, that he shall neither bequeath legacies to heirs nor inherit them himself. No one shall be compelled to respond to any business dealings initiated by him but he shall be so compelled by others. If he be by chance a judge, his sentence shall prove nothing, nor shall he hear any case. If he be an attorney, his defense in court will never be allowed to prevail. If he be a notary, the legal documents drawn up by him shall be utterly without validity. Those who give ear to the false doctrines of heretics shall be punished like heretics.

...None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall, either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular outcry, or the innate humanity of those in authority, be in any way waived or pardoned.

Source: [url="http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_'Ad_Extirpanda',_EN.pdf"]Ad Extirpanda[/url].
[/quote]
[/spoiler]

The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Inquisition is okay and it discusses the use of torture a bit ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm"]here[/url]). Yes, there is a general tone of apologetics, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing considering that most online articles on the subject are bitterly anti-Catholic.

This page briefly surveys the history and then provides some food for thought: [url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html"]Torture and Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology[/url].

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1278118685' post='2137182']
I agree with St. Thomas on this one.[/quote]
I think it is safe to say that the magisterium does not. Why would anyone in this day and age support the idea of torturing heretics in order to force them to recant? I find this to be potentially scandalous and against the mind of the Church. Do you not think so?

[Selah]

He also advocated the murder of heretics, as he put it, "is like removing cancer from the body" (See the Jan Hus thread, this quote is used there). He also seemed to think that the saints in heaven got giddy when they saw those in hell suffering. Yeah. I truly think the man, while intelligent, was also a little messed up.

In addition, he also seemed to disagree with the idea that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Which is odd to me, because I thought that was church Dogma.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='03 July 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1278205187' post='2137528']
Plenty of great theologians, even saints and doctors of the Church, were apparently okay with torturing heretics and even burning them alive. The proposition that "burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit" was condemned back in the 16th century. There are a number of incidents involving Popes, the inquisition, and torture that I personally find to be disturbing. Papal support of King Philip's bloody liquidation of the Knights Templar is one classic example.

The papal bull [i]Ad extirpanda[/i] is surely one of the most commonly invoked examples of a Pope sanctioning the torture of heretics. This papal bull was confirmed by several subsequent popes as well. I'll provide some highlights and bold the part that is most often quoted. What do you make of this?
[/quote]

What do I make of it? Well, I think many "Church leaders" had more concern for the wool than for the flock. Many, despite their frequently good intentions, focused too much on building and protecting an earthly kingdom, as opposed to building and nourishing the Kingdom of God. The physical world was their focus, and the physical world is run by physical force.

A few sequential popes, I know you will agree, are not the Church. Many of the Church's members had some issues back then, just as they do now. It wasn't for naught that Dante placed countless bishops in unpleasant situations in the [i]Inferno[/i]. And there was definitely a reason St. Athanasius, a bishop himself, allegedly said, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

~Sternhauser

Edited July 4, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Selah' date='03 July 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1278209004' post='2137540']
In addition, he also seemed to disagree with the idea that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Which is odd to me, because I thought that was church Dogma.
[/quote]

Never heard of "Adoro te Devote," one of the Angelic Doctor's eucharistic hymns?

In cruce latebat sola Deitas,
At hic latet simul et Humanitas,
Ambo tamen credens atque confitens,
Peto quod petivit latro pœnitens.

On the Cross lay hidden but thy Deity,
Here is hidden also Thy Humanity:
But in both believing and confessing, Lord,
Ask I what the dying thief of Thee implored.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 July 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1278210875' post='2137560']
Never heard of "Adoro te Devote," on of the Angelic Doctor's eucharistic hymns?
[/quote]

Sternhauser: [quote]
You believe that one may inflict suffering in order to coerce the will? May a friar be whipped, burned, or have his fingers broken until he screams, "I believe X again?" [/quote]

Laudate_Dominum:
[quote]I think it is safe to say that the magisterium does not. Why would anyone in this day and age support the idea of torturing heretics in order to force them to recant? I find this to be potentially scandalous and against the mind of the Church. Do you not think so?[/quote]

~Sternhauser

Edited July 4, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

Knight of Christ,

Was [i]Ad Extirpanda[/i] "binding" on those matters? And what does "binding" mean, in your book?

Is what St. Thomas said in accordance with the unchanging doctrine of the Church on torture?

~Sternhauser

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Selah' date='03 July 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1278127619' post='2137230']
What. A. Surprise.

This, among other things of his that I have read, is why I don't fancy St. Aquinas too much.
[/quote]

No one is perfect. Remember that, everyone makes mistakes. No theologian is perfect. However, the Christian should strive so that though he must discern the will of God and what is moral, "his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits." ~Cardinal Newman.

Also this is good to read the work of a person and then decide for oneself (however, before one could read St. Thomas and understand his technical language one must also understand Aristotle's books on Logic, Categories, and Metaphysics (which would include his understanding of Epistemology). It took me a week of staying in a monastery and reading and re-reading texts and articles and seeking the advice and guidance of some of the monks to grasp what St. Thomas was saying (and it was beautiful). This was a week trying to understand the one topic of Divine action and this is with guidance. (I am currently enrolled in a masters program to learn more.) It would be good to approach Thomas with humility and realize that he was a very deep thinker who, if one wishes to understand him, he must devote time and seek guidance from those wiser and more intelligent than himself (speaking from experience). Also it is good to remember that we are all human and make mistakes and that no one's thought and belief is absolutely perfect.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Selah]

Thank you kindly for your charitable response

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Selah' date='03 July 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1278209004' post='2137540']
In addition, he also seemed to disagree with the idea that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Which is odd to me, because I thought that was church Dogma.
[/quote]

Citation? I have never read anything in his writings to suggest such a thing...in fact, I have read quite the opposite that there is no possible way that Christ could be anything other than fully God and fully man.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='03 July 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1278211436' post='2137564']
Knight of Christ,

Was [i]Ad Extirpanda[/i] "binding" on those matters? And what does "binding" mean, in your book?

Is what St. Thomas said in accordance with the unchanging doctrine of the Church on torture?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Ad Extirpanda was a prudential judgment. Like all prudential judgments it focused upon specific issues for a certain time and/or place. It is not binding upon Catholics.