Of the Third Kind
of Sentence, to be Pronounced on one who is Defamed, and
who is to be put to the Question
THE
Third method of bringing a process on behalf of the
faith to a conclusive termination is when the person
accused of heresy, after a careful consideration of the
merits of the process in consultation with learned
lawyers, is found to be inconsistent in his statements,
or is found that there are sufficient grounds to warrant
his exposure to the question and torture: so that if,
after he has been thus questioned, he confesses nothing,
he may be considered innocent. And this is when the
prisoner has not been taken in heresy, nor has he been
convicted by his own confession, or by the evidence of
the facts, or by the legitimate production of witnesses,
and there are no indications that he is under such a
suspicion as to warrant his being made to abjure the
heresy; but nevertheless he is inconsistent in his
answers when interrogated. Or there may be other
sufficient reasons for exposing him to torture. And in
such a case the following procedure is to be observed.
And because
such a judgement in includes an interlocutory sentence
which must be against and not for the prisoner, the
Inquisitor must not divide it into two sentences, but
include it all in one. And in the first place, if the
accused remains firm in his denials and can in no way be
induced by honest men to confess the truth, the
following manner of sentence, which is in some respects
definitive, shall be used.
We N., by the
mercy of God Bishop of such a town, or Judge in the
territory subject to the rule of such a Prince, having
regard to the merits of the process conducted by us
against you N., of such a place in such a Diocese, and
after careful examination, find that you are not
consistent in your answers, and that there are
sufficient indications besides that you ought to be
exposed to the question and torture. Therefore, that the
truth may be known from your own mouth and that from
henceforth you may not offend the ears of your Judges
with your equivocations, we declare, pronounce, and give
sentence that on this present day at such an hour you
are to be subjected to an interrogatory under torture.
This sentence was given, etc.
If the person
to be questioned is both found to be equivocal and at
the same time there are other indications sufficient to
warrant his being tortured, let both these facts be
included in the sentence, as they are above. But if only
one or the other of these hold good, let that one only
be put in the sentence. But let the sentence be soon put
into execution, or let them make as if to execute it.
Nevertheless let not the Judge be too willing to subject
a person to torture, for this should only be resorted to
in default of other proofs. Therefore let him seek for
other proofs; and if he cannot find them, and thinks it
probable that the accused is guilty, but denied the
truth out of fear, let him use other approved methods,
always with due precautions, and by using the
persuasions of the friends of the accused do his utmost
to extract the truth from his own lips. And let him not
hasten the business; for very often meditation, and the
ordeal of imprisonment, and the repeated persuasion of
honest men will induce the accused to discover the
truth.
But if, after
keeping the accused in suspense, and after due and
decent postponements of the time, and many exhortations
of the accused, the Bishop and the Judge are well
persuaded that, all circumstances considered, the
accused is denying the truth, let them torture him
slightly, without shedding blood, bearing in mind that
torture is often fallacious and ineffective. For some
are so soft-hearted and feeble-minded that at the least
torture they will confess anything, whether it be true
or not. Others are so stubborn that, however much they
are tortured, the truth is not to be had from them.
There are others who, having been tortured before, are
the better able to endure it a second time, since their
arms have been accomodated to the stretchings and
twistings involved; whereas the effect on others is to
make them weaker, so that they can the less easily
endure torture. Others are bewitched, and make use of
the fact in their torture, so that they will die before
the will confess anything; for they become, as it were,
insensible to pain. Therefore there is need for much
prudence in the matter of torture, and the greatest
attention is to be given to the condition of the person
who is to be tortured.
When, then,
the sentence has been pronounced, the officers shall
without delay prepare to torture the accused. And while
they are making their preparations, the Bishop or Judge
shall use his own persuasions and those of other honest
men zealous for the faith to induce the accused to
confess the truth freely, if necessary promising to
spare his life, as we have shown above.
But if the
accused cannot thus be terrified into telling the truth,
a second or third day may be appointed for the
continuation of the torture; but it must not be repeated
then and there. For such a repetition is not permissible
unless some further indications against the accused
should transpire. But there is nothing to prevent a
continuation of the torture on another day.
Let it be
said: We N. Bishop and N. Judge (if he is present)
aforesaid, assign to you N. such a day for the
continuation of the torture, that the truth may be known
from your own mouth. And let all be set down in the
process. And during the interval appointed to him, let
them use their own persuasions and those of other honest
men to induce him to confess the truth.
But if he has
refused to confess, the torture can be continued on the
day assigned, more or less severely according to the
gravity of the offences in question. And the Judges will
be able to observe many lawful precautions, both in word
and deed, by which they may come at the truth; but these
are more easily learned by use and experience and the
variety of different cases than by the art of teaching
of anyone.
But if, after
having been fittingly questioned and tortured, he will
not discover the truth, let him not be further molested,
but be freely allowed to depart. If, however, he
confesses, and abides by his confession, and uncovers
the truth, acknowledging his guilt and asking the pardon
of the Church; then according to the Canon ad
abolendam he is to be treated as one taken in heresy
on his own confession, but penitent, and he must abjure
the heresy, and sentence must be pronounced against him
as in the case of those who are convicted by their own
confession as being taken in heresy. This will be
explained in the eighth method of sentencing such, to
which the reader may refer.
If, on the
other hand, he confesses the truth, but is not penitent
but obstinately persists in his heresy, but is not a
relapsed heretic, then according to the Canon, after a
decent interval and due warning, he is to be condemned
as a heretic and handed over to the secular Court to
suffer the extreme penalty, as we show later in the
tenth method. But if he is a relapsed heretic, he is to
be condemned in the way which is again explained in the
tenth method, to which the reader may refer.
But here it
must be particularly noted that in some instances he who
is to be questioned confesses nothing against himself
before the torture, nor is anything proved on the
strength of which he can be required to abjure the
heresy or be condemned as a heretic; and in such cases
the above procedure should be adopted, as we have said,
immediately. But in other cases the accused is taken in
heresy, or he is to be considered either lightly or
strongly suspected; and he is not to be tortured in
respect of such matters; but if, apart from these, he
denies some points which are not proved, but of which
there is sufficient indication to warrant his being
tortured; and if, having been questioned as to these
under torture, he confesses to none of them, he is not
on that account to be absolved in accordance with the
first method; but he must be proceeded against according
to that which has been proved against him, and he or she
must abjure the heresy as being one under suspicion of
or taken in heresy, as the merits of the process may
exact or require. And if, after torture, he confesses
all or part of that for which he was tortured, then he
must abjure both this and the former heresy which was
proved against him, and sentence must be pronounced
against him in respect of both of these.
|