For those for whom this torture comparison is not academic.
The Waldensians seem like your garden variety weirdos: bizarre, but not in danger of wiping themselves out, which is probably why they survive to this day in such places as Texas. The Cathars, by contrast, were nuts:
The dualism of the Albigenses was also the basis of their moral teaching. Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated. War and capital punishment were absolutely condemned.
There's a lot of common knowledge about Catholicism that is common but isn't knowledge — in the sense that it isn't true. So let an ex-Catholic (with fact-checking from a woman with a B.A. and M.A. in theology from Notre Dame — one of my sisters) educate you:
- Papal bulls used to be much more common than they are now. But then, back in the day, papal bulls were used for a lot more than purposes similar to that for which Ad Extirpanda was issued (bolding mine):
Excepting those which are concerned with purposes of great solemnity or public interest, the majority of the "great bulls" now in existence are in the nature of confirmations of property or charters of protection accorded to monasteries and religious institutions. At an epoch when there was much fabrication of such documents, those who procured bulls from Rome wished at any cost to secure that the authenticity of their bulls should be above suspicion. A papal confirmation, under certain conditions, could be pleaded as itself constituting sufficient evidence of title in cases where the original deed had been lost or destroyed.
One might therefore reasonably say that some papal bulls fulfilled the function of a notary public, lawyer or witness.
- A papal bull gives no doctrinal authority and is not an infallible statement.
Catholics take doctrinal authority from the Bible and the Church. Many also take advice, inspiration or whatever else from extrabiblical texts, inarguably the most famous of which is the (torture-friendly) Summa Theologica, but if you're going to talk about doctrine, you really don't want to go to court with a papal bull, which even back in the day of (not so) Innocent IV was more a legislative authority than a moral one — not that such academic distinctions would have meant much. Indeed, given the explicit language of the papal bull in question, it's hard to counter the argument that if an official rebuked any of this bull, said official would be removed from office and replaced with someone compliant.
Saith my sister, "The Pope has to be speaking infallibly on matters of faith and morals for his statements to have doctrinal authority." (The principles of the papal bull issued by Innocent IV were opposed in spirit and in letter by Vatican Council II, which I will discuss later in this diary.)
Incidentally, and because I see everyone get this wrong, infallibility is achieved via a statement of faith made ex cathedra by the pope; this Catholic Encyclopedia article lays it out for you in language sufficiently complicated for me, and I read this stuff in high school on a nightly basis.
There have been two ex cathedra statements in the history of the church. Both concern Marian doctrine, and neither has anything to do with the notion of Mary conceiving Jesus without having sex. The doctrines state that Mary was conceived free of sin and that Mary was assumed wholly into heaven. (If any Kossack who reads this lives in the Beaver Falls, Pa., area, I got a couple folks could do to get a primer on this from someone who isn't me.)
One last matter of factual accuracy. Most people are familiar with the Spanish Inquisition. This was the Medieval Inquisition. It went down in France and Italy in the 13th century. The Spanish Inquisition began in the 15th century and formally ended 350 years later.
So, having gotten the housecleaning out of the way, we proceed to the meat of the issue: a comparison of Ad Extirpanda, which cleared the way for torture in the Medieval Inquisition, to the now-infamous John Yoo torture memo. (What utter uselessness it would be to discuss state-sanctioned torture then but not now.)
As I did for my immigration comparison, I've put together a list showing the similarities between mid-13th century Europe and first-decade 21st century America leading up to the money shot:
- Powers That Be (PTB) are made aware of a movement against the status quo, including some great threat to the security and decency of all people.
- PTB exercise diplomatic options and say such options have been exhausted.
- PTB look into other ways of achieving their desired end.
- Torture is authorized:
Law 25.
(26)The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} 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, {9} 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.
(See the preceding link for why explicit language is not used.)
I would quote the Yoo torture memo, but apparently executive privilege (or whatever excuse the White House has dreamt up this week) is more important than admitting to violating the Geneva Convention.
What makes all of this even more fun is that torture wasn't even half the game with this bull. (The reader is invited to guess which meaning is intended there.) Also included in Ad Extirpanda are explicit instructions for dividing up the heretics' possessions, bulldozing their houses and "carefully investigat[ing] the sons and grandsons of heretics and those who have lodged them, defended them, and given them aid,and in the future admit[ting] them to no public affairs or public office." (Law 29.)
Here I cannot compare the 13th century mandate to the 21st century mandate because we don't know what it says. We do know the White House officially condemns torture, which is a fairly easy position to take if you A) hide everything that shows you torture and B) define torture as "things we don't do," so that everything you do is magically not torture, regardless of what defrocked administration officials say otherwise.
I can say with a certain degree of certainty that this guy probably isn't going to run for mayor of Guantánamo any time soon, particularly because think of the tense dynamic:
al-Hajj: "OK, raise your hand if you tortured me."
::some shuffling of feet::
al-Hajj: "C'mon, it's OK. Look, I promise I won't hurt you if you admit it. You over there, with the sunglasses and hooded sweatshirt, trying for that 'You can't see my face' look! I know you! How's it going, Rex?"
Rex: "Look, Mr. al-Hajj —"
al-Hajj: "I thought my name was raghead pig."
Rex: "I was just following orders."
al-Hajj: "And how well did that defense work at Nuremberg?"
Ad Extirpanda's basic approach to heresy was this: Find the heretics, take their stuff, torture them until they confess (more on that later), take up anyone who defends them, take their stuff, and continue until the general public shuts up, goes to church and counts itself lucky not to have been accused for the sake of filling coffers and generally scaring the shit out of believers.
And for the unrepentant heretic, the final solution, so to speak, was for a public official (not a church official) to execute the person for their refusal to submit to the will of the church. So either you admitted guilt (whether real or convenient) or you died. Records indicate most people admitted guilt, though records are not as, ah, thorough on how many of them were actually guilty, the actual guilt being not as important as the property seized and the public perception maintained: God loves you, so love him back the way we tell you to or we'll kick your ass until it starts feeling good.
While we're talking about torture, why not talk about immunity from prosecution due to torture, seizure and whatever else happens along the way? Yes, that's right, there's a telecom immunity comparison here as well! Are we lucky, or what? (To not be living in the 13th century, I mean. My ass would be toast, and the rest of me wouldn't be much better off.)
Law 6.
(7)The utterances of the aforementioned officials are to be faithfully accepted in every matter that regards their office, specially in the aforementioned oath; arguments tending to the contrary are not allowed, where two, three, or more of those present are such officials.
Law 7.
(8)Moreover, when these officials are chosen, they shall swear to execute faithfully all these laws,and to the best of their ability, to tell nothing but the truth,in all those commitments, which as they belong to their office, they fully carry out.
Law 8.
(9) 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.
Law 9.
(10) The head of state or ruler is obliged to treat as fixed and unrepealable all precepts which their office shall require them to utter, and to punish those who fail to conform to these precepts.
Law 10.
(11) If the said officials shall at any time receive any damage either in their persons or their goods as a result of the performance of their duties, they shall be saved harmless by means of a full restitution.
Law 11.
(12) Neither these officials, nor their successors, are permitted at any time to reach an agreement about what they are doing, or of what their duties consist, unless this agreement is dictated by the aforesaid Diocesan and religious orders.
Translation: Law 6 says the officials gathering up the heretics are beyond reproach. Law 7 assures the perfect action of those officials. Law 8 says they have the state's permission to so act. Law 9 says nothing here can be illegal, and failing to follow these instructions is illegal. Law 10 effectively gives immunity from any retribution (and provides for any from anyone dumb enough to try). Law 11 says "Just make sure you're doing what we've told you to do. And don't discuss this amongst yourselves while the cat's away. Thinking for yourself is what got these heretics in trouble in the first place, know what I'm saying?"
And more fun:
Law 16.
(17)No legislation, passed or yet to be passed, shall have force to interfere with any of these official functions.
Law 17.
(18)And if one of these officials, through incompetence, sloth, preoccupation with another task,or exceeding of the limits of his authority, is removed from office by the aforesaid Diocesan bishop and religious orders, the head of state or ruler must remove him by their command or word and, according to the prescribed form, substitute another.
Law 18.
(19)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.
Law 16: Just in case this wasn't clear, nothing can usurp this. Law 17: Anyone punishing the heretics who makes a mistake and who gets fired must be replaced by someone else. Law 18: Try to be a liberal activist official and you get the boot too.
Apparently we have stumbled into the 13th century, where guilt is assumed, trials are fixed from the start, confessions are achieved naturally or through "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in 13th century spin, the common Latin word for "torture" is never used in the bull), dicta cannot be wrong or overruled, and ... oops! Turns out I was wrong. The Bush administration does have a mark against it that the church squares away for us:
Law 23.
(24) 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.
Right to a speedy jury trial. This provision was probably meant to deal with overcrowding, public sentiment and making sure people saw that the law would be swift and unforgiving, but still. Fifteen days. That's a far cry from 6 ½ years. But this is what you get when people who sincerely believe they communicate directly with God also sincerely believe they can make the rules up as they go along.
And here, courtesy of Vatican Council II, is an authoritative statement on torture (italics and Latin text are the site's author's, as indicating the original wording; bolding is mine):
All offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and wilful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, attempted psychological coercion (quaecumque humanae personae integritatem violant, ut mutilationes, tormenta corpori mentive inflicta, conatus ipsos animos coercendi); all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the trafficking in women and children, degrading working conditions where people are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these things and others of the same sort (haec omnia et alia huiusmodi) are truly disgraceful [or ‘shameful’, or ‘appalling’ – probra quidem sunt38], and while they poison human civilization, they debase the perpetrators more than the victims (magis eos inquinant qui sic se gerunt, quam eos qui iniuriam patiuntur) and utterly contradict the honor due to the Creator (Creatoris honori maxime contradicunt).
Say what you want about the church and its lack of modernity (and I am absolutely no Catholic apologist in the defense sense of the word), but it has at least come out against torture, lack of unions, indefinite imprisonment, deportation and the people who perpetrate such poisons on human civilization.
Catholic church 6 (those 5 plus the speedy trials), Bush administration 0.
Oh, and the hilarity of all of this is that the torture wasn't and isn't even always or often meant to elicit the truth. In the case of the 13th century torture, it was meant to get what the church wanted: a confession of and renouncement of heresy, whether real or imagined. In the case of the 21st century torture, it's ... well, given what non-administration torture authorities have said, it pretty well can't be to get useful intel out.
The Bush administration: going Medieval on people since 2001.
Donate.
