FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>  
ar less. "In the _inquisitio_ of the civil law, the secrecy for which the Inquisition has been justly criticized, did not exist; the suspect was cited, and a copy of the _capitula_ or _articuli_ containing the charges was given to him. When questioned, he could either confess or deny these charges. The names of the witnesses who were to appear against him, and a copy of their testimony, were also supplied, so that he could carry on his defence either by objecting to the character of his accusers, or the tenor of their charges. Women, minors aged fourteen, serfs, enemies of the prisoner, criminals, excommunicates, heretics, and those branded with infamy were not allowed to testify. All testimony was received in writing. The prisoner and his lawyers then appeared before the judge to rebut the evidence and the charges."[1] [1] Tanon, op. cit., pp. 287, 288. In the ecclesiastical procedure, on the contrary, the names of the witnesses were withheld, save in very exceptional cases; any one could testify, even if he were a heretic; the prisoner had the right to reject all whom he considered his mortal enemies, but even then he had to guess at their names in order to invalidate their testimony; he was not allowed a lawyer, but had to defend himself in secret. Only the most prejudiced minds can consider such a procedure the ideal of justice. On the contrary, it is unjust in every detail wherein it differs from the _inquisitio_ of the civil law. Certain reasons may be adduced to explain the attitude of the Popes, who wished to make the procedure of the Inquisition as secret and as comprehensive as possible. They were well aware of the danger that witnesses would incur, if their names were indiscreetly revealed. They knew that the publicity of the pleadings would certainly hinder the efficiency of heresy trials. But such considerations do not change the character of the institution itself; the Inquisition in leaving too great a margin to the arbitrary conduct of individual judges, at once fell below the standard of strict justice. All that can and ought to be said in the defence and to the honor of the Roman pontiffs is that they endeavored to remedy the abuses of the Inquisition. With this in view, Innocent IV and Alexander IV obliged the Inquisitors to consult a number of _boni viri_ and _periti_; Clement V forbade them to render any grave decision without first consulting the bishops, the natural judges of the faith;[1]
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>  



Top keywords:

charges

 

Inquisition

 

testimony

 

witnesses

 

prisoner

 

procedure

 

defence

 
character
 

secret

 

judges


justice

 

allowed

 

testify

 

contrary

 

enemies

 

inquisitio

 
decision
 

render

 

forbade

 

danger


revealed

 

pleadings

 

Clement

 

publicity

 

indiscreetly

 

Certain

 
reasons
 

differs

 

natural

 

adduced


bishops

 

consulting

 

hinder

 

wished

 

explain

 

attitude

 

comprehensive

 

trials

 
strict
 

standard


detail
 
pontiffs
 

abuses

 
Innocent
 

remedy

 
Alexander
 

obliged

 

endeavored

 

Inquisitors

 

individual