Inquisition in the Low Countries
From LanceaSanctum
Authored by Cardinal de Béthune, Archbishop of the Low Countries in early 2005 to dispel the fallacious myths about the Inquisition that exist in other covenants
Translated from Dutch by Brother Batista, Vicar-General of the Low Countries
Preface by Lady Kaatje Van Dirae, Priest
Preface
It is with heavy heart that I write this preface, for the majority of this work was translated and prepared by Brother Batista, who served as the Vicar-General until he was slain defending Cardinal-Archbishop de Béthune from a violent attack by the First Estate. This is not to cast aspersions on the First Estate of the Low Countries, for those disputes have long since been resolved, but it serves as a timely reminder of the valuable role the institutions of the Sanctified Inquisition play in keeping and enforcing the peace within the society of the Damned.
I traveled to Belgium at the very beginning of the 3rd millennium, and discovered in the Low Countries a strong and wise congregation of Sanctified, from whom I learned much. Among the many lessons I took away was that the practice of our faith is often very different, and is colored as much by our own histories as it is by the histories of those around us. The width and breadth of North America and the multiplicity of dioceses has led to great diversity, which has at various times strengthened and weakened the Sanctified congregation there. The Low Countries, no less diverse in individual interpretations, has nonetheless benefited from a greater homogeneity in one important institution: the Inquisition. The uniformity with which the Archbishop has governed the inquisition of the Low Countries has allowed the dioceses there to flourish, grow, and provide spiritual and temporal guidance in some of the most important aspects of our society: the keeping of the peace and the settling of grievances without bloodshed.
So it is in service to my brothers and sisters of the Lancea Sanctum that I complete this translation as a testament to the service of Brother Batista. I present it to you, not as an instruction manual or as an admonition of how things should be done, but simply as an example of how things may be done, in the hopes that by experiencing some of the diversity of practical faith, your own practices may be nurtured and strengthened.
Lady Kaatje Van Dirae, Priest of the Lancea Sanctum, April 2006
Introduction
“There has never been a worldwide inquisition, certainly not in the form of a terrifying, structured and omnipresent organization such as the Stasi or the KGB. The Inquisition should be seen as a highly decentralized organization that operated under the loose authority of a bishop or an archbishop. Because of this, the presence of the Inquisition was overwhelming and terrifying in some domains and almost nonexistent in others. - from a lecture by Monseigneur de Béthune , Cardinal of the Low Countries -
The inquisition is a term in un-life that refers both to the investigation of a crime and to a court of the Lancea Sanctum or a Prince It is important to distinguish between
the different forms of inquisition. As such, this text will not only give an overview of these different forms, their methods and goals, but also clear up some misconceptions that arose throughout the centuries.
Overview and concepts
There are 3 big currents in the inquisitorial landscape that differ strongly: the 'secular' inquisition (usually commissioned by a Prince), the 'Episcopal' inquisition (usually commissioned by a Bishop)and the Inquisitory-General (a permanent, professional organization under the authority of the Archbishop). This text will mainly address the Episcopal inquisition and the Inquisitory-General. Both these forms of 'clerical' inquisition are more structured and regulated than secular inquisitions whose methods solely depend on the instructions of the commissioner and on the legal convictions of the inquisitors who carry out said secular investigation.
The clerical inquisition is, in a certain sense, also dependant on the worldly power. This form of inquisition has only the authority to investigate, not to punish. Once a criminal is convicted by the inquisition, the worldly powers are expected to carry out the sentence. All forms of clerical inquisition are led by an inquisitor-general (aka grand inquisitor, though this term is mainly used by laymen). (note: an inquisitor-general leads an inquisition [not the Inquisitory-General itself off course, which is led by the Archbishop] and as such is a temporary title. Some inquisitors of great renown also use the title of inquisitor-general or grand inquisitor as an honorific in between inquisitions, but this is an atypical use of the term and devoid of any further implications)
The Episcopal inquisition is a highly regulated instrument that a bishop can use to investigate and extinguish crime in his diocese. This is the oldest form of clerical
inquisition. The term “Episcopal" is used because the commissioner is the local Bishop. This Episcopal inquisition however, has several fundamental flaws. The bishops for instance have many other tasks, that hinder them in efficiently leading an inquisition and the procedures of an Episcopal inquisition also have important limitations. (e.g. long before the start of the trial the name of the plaintiff has to be announced to the accused, which often leads to the assassination of plaintiffs before the trial) When these important flaws of the Episcopal inquisition became apparent, the Inquisitory-General was founded. The Inquisitory-General is a very forceful instrument, under direct control of the Archbishop. Even bishops have no control over these inquisitors since even bishops can be investigated by the Inquisitory-General. Any person convicted by the Inquisitory-General can ask for a review of his case by the Archbishop.
The 'Congregation of the Universal Doctrine and her Inquisition' (C.U.D.I.) safeguards the interpretation and application of the Lancea Sanctum doctrine. Since her foundation, it has been inextricably tied to the Inquisitory-General. It organizes meetings and initiatives that help spread the true doctrine and it helps to defend aspects of the 'Lancea Sanctum'-traditions and beliefs that are threatened by new, unacceptable doctrines. This Congregation of the Universal Doctrine and her Inquisition falls under the authority of the Archbishop and is divided into 2 sections: the Doctrinory-General and the Inquisitory-General. These two sections hold a plenary meeting at least once a year to exchange knowledge and information.
The Inquisitory-General consists of professional inquisitors, specifically trained for their task. These individuals are often chosen from a wide variety of clans, orders and creeds. In the past, even some gifted seculars from the Invictus have been recruited. Most inquisitors are chosen because they are known to be fervent anti-heretics, highly educated and possessing excellent oratory skills. Moreover, members of begging orders are frequently chosen because they are used to travel and aren’t intrested in personal gain. Contrary to most Episcopal inquisitions, the Inquisitory-General always works thoroughly and systematic and keeps detailed records of all its proceedings.
Traditional privileges of the Lancea Sanctum
1. Canon: All who committed a crime against a member of the Lancea Sanctum commit an act of heresy and must be judged by the Inquisitory-General.
2. Forum: A member of the Lancea Sanctum may only be tried before a court of the Inquisition of the Lancea Sanctum.
3. Immunitas: A member of the Lancea Sanctum cannot be called upon to perform duties that do not correspond with his or her religious role. (such as duties of a violent nature)
4. Competentiae: The theft or destruction of objects related to the religious role of a member of the Lancea Sanctum are considered a crime against that member of the Lancea Sanctum. The havens of Lancea Sanctum members are almost always considered to be protected by this privilege.
The degree in wich these privileges are respected differs from domain to domain, but in more traditional domains they are considered to be unbreakable laws.
Misconceptions
As a counterweight for the excesses of a secular inquisition the Lancea Sanctum has a tradition of continuous, stern and institutionalized control of her clerical inquisition. There are strict procedures in place and all inquisitors of clerical inquisitions work under the supervision of the Inquisitory-General. In this capacity the Inquisitory- General may only intervene in cases of misconduct or procedural errors, as such it may never intervene with the purpose of influencing the actual findings of an inquisition.
Due to the obligation to document all investigative acts that it supervises (including testimonies and pleas) the Inquisitory-General is one of the best documented historical institutions in kindred society. This accurate information allows us to contradict the misconceptions about clerical inquisitions and their methods. The archives of the Inquisitory-General paint a picture of tribunals with fair rules, without random procedures and of equitable courts that are willing to dissuade the use of torture and the submission of unfounded or anonymous allegations. Throughout history, clerical inquisitions have always shown more mercy then their secular counterparts.
The image of a cruel and unknowing inquisitor is fallacious and spiteful stereotype: Inquisitors tend to be highly educated, honest and stalwart kindred, above moral reproach, that loath rashly decisions. Contrary to popular belief, their primary goal is to try and redeem criminals so that they can come back to the faith and become valued members of our society.
For instance, as early as the 14th century the Inquisitory-General introduced the concept of a jury – the consilium -, to allow the accused the right to be judged by a large council of sworn judges. They introduced several legal concepts in favor of the accused such as penitentiary leave, rewards for good behavior and conversion of sentences. Let us refute another popular myth: throughout history there have been many secular inquisitors in the service of the Inquisitory-General. In most cases these laymen were eminent legal scholars from the First Estate.
I will conclude this incomplete enumeration of misconceptions about the clerical inquisition by stating that the majority of denunciations the Inquisitory has achieved throughout history are due to laymen presenting evidence and not due to spies that have been trained or hired by the inquisition. The gothic delusions of mad monks whose spy networks are omnipresent are contradicted by the large amount of authentic documents we have at our disposal.
Methodology of a typical secular inquisition
A secular court usually favors the plaintiff/prosecutor. The trials are held behind closed doors with a few secular inquisitors, the accused and in some rare instances there is an untrained clerk to make some form of minutes. The secular inquisitors almost always confiscate all possessions of the accused (often before the start of the trial). The accused is not informed of the allegations but is still expected to confess his crime to avoid torture.
Many people abuse this situation by making accusations that lead to a secular inquisition out of spite, or in the hope of receiving a reward from the Prince. In some cases Princes even create accusations themselves with the purpose of acquiring riches, land or possessions of a rich opponent. The accused usually has no right to legal representation and cannot ask the prosecutor any questions. The testimonies of known criminals, persons with a bad reputation and even condemned heretics are admissible. Even blood relatives are forced to testify against the defendant.
To make matters even worse there is no right to appeal the verdict (keep in mind that in 60 to 90% of the secular cases the verdict is: death penalty) and the inquisitors can hold the accused in custody for years or even decades. These long periods of custody serve to gather more damning evidence or effectively dole out punishment in lack of evidence.
Even though a secular inquisition sometimes operates under tutelage of the Lancea Sanctum, the Prince that leads this form of inquisition decides the methodology it must adhere to. The clerics of the tribunal are almost always aided by laymen (familiares). Even in secular inquisitions the function of 'familiar' of the inquisition carries a lot of prestige.
Secular inquisitions usually use torture to get the accused to “repent”. The punishments vary from public humiliation to slow burning (burned alive for those who do not repent, those who do repent are burned after they have been killed by decapitation) these punishments are carried out in public ceremonies and can last a full night.
Methodology of an Episcopal inquisition
An Episcopal inquisition consists of two Lancea Sanctum-judges who, under orders of the Bishop search an area of suspected criminal activity. They conduct interrogations and search for the source of evil. Then they contact the criminals and give them 48 hours to cease their activities and to repair the damages they have inflicted. If, after these 48 hours they have not complied, a trial is organized.
The 2 inquisitors are present at the trial with a judge of their choice (often a bishop or an expert of the Lancea Sanctum), the Prince and some notables of the domain. Evidence is presented by the inquisitors so as to extract a confession from the accused. At the end of the trial the judge gives his sentence and the accused is handed over to the local authorities for execution of the sentence. The inquisitorial court only sets the sentence, it does not execute it. It is clear the inquisition cannot exist without cooperation and support of the worldly powers in our society.
Methodology of the Inquisitory-General
An investigation of the Inquisitory usually works as follows:
1. A delegation of the Inquisition arrives in the domain.
2. The priest is asked to gather the whole domain in the church.
3. Usually everyone attends, as not attending would bring down suspicion upon oneself.
4. The inquisitors speak to the domain and calls upon people to repent.
5. Confession is taken and confessions of minor crimes are easily forgiven if one shows remorse and if one shows sincerity by turning in 2 other criminals.
6. This usually causes a chain reaction of accusations. All the grave crimes are put on a list.
7. After this a long period may pass before suspects receive a summons.
8. More time passes between the summons and the presentation of the accused for the tribunal, to give the accused the chance to think about what could be asked of him.
A trial by the Inquisitory-General
Step 1: the accusation
The first step in every trial is the accusation, the moment when someone is accused of a crime. There are 3 different paths that lead to an inquisition: the complaint, the rumor and the denunciation.
1. A complaint
Most inquisitions have their origin in a complaint by the alleged victim of the crime. Sometimes this happens after a complaint by a witness of one or more suspicious events or after a complaint against parties unknown by victims or officials. Such complaints are usually only investigated after a series of strange events, not after a solitary occurrence.
2. Rumors
A criminal can also be accused because of his “reputation” or because of persistent rumors. In some domains an inquisitor or a judge can arrest persons that are publicly known to be criminals. A widespread misconception about the inquisition is that this is the most common way a case is opened; professional inquisitors who travel from domain to domain, searching for heretics and forcing the local populace to betray their own. In reality, cases as a result of rumors are rare and occur mostly in secular inquisitions. Few inquisitors feel the need to actively hunt down crimes since the local populace usually files more complaints from their own volition then the prosecutor can prosecute. .
3. Denunciation
Denunciations are cases in which a criminal accused another criminal and the inquisitor decides to investigate these accusations. When a suspect is interrogated, they are usually asked to name the names of other criminals, and under torture, many do. Because this information is “forced” by torture an Episcopal inquisition or a Inquisitory-General is not allowed to use this information unless the suspect confirms it at a later date when he is not being “forced” to give information. Secular inquisitions on the contrary are known to use denunciations more freely. Clerical inquisitions only follow up on denunciations when there are very strong indications that there is a network of heresy. This practice has oft time been very effective at closing down criminal or heretical networks, because when these confessions are rewarded with reduced sentences, they can lead to the use of turncoats, snitches and deep-throat informants.
Most secular courts accept confessions by suspects without a problem (sometimes even confessions of convicted criminals). When a criminal claims to have seen person X committing a crime, the court has an eyewitness. It is important to know most secular courts accept the presence of 2 eyewitnesses as sufficient proof for a conviction. A clerical inquisition assumes a known criminal cannot give a reliable testimony. Because of this, a clerical inquisition seldom prosecutes denunciations without further evidence or investigation.
This important difference in handling denunciations and testimonies of criminals has caused a noticeable difference in the number of convictions and executions between secular and clerical inquisitions throughout the centuries. Secular inquisitions convict 9 out of 10 of their suspects and the vast majority of these convicts get the death penalty. Clerical inquisitions convict less than 10% of their suspects and (almost) never condemn their convicts to Final Death. Because of the limited use of denunciations clerical inquisitions focus on 1 or 2 suspects, where secular inquisitors, guided by their dubious denunciations, often run out of control and convict large groups of kindred at once, based on these dubious denunciations.
Despite the fact that some procedure may seem unfair to some people at first glance, clerical inquisitions grant important rights to the defense. At the start of a trial the accused are invited to mention the persons who would want them dead. If all plaintiffs are mentioned, then the suspect is immediately released, the complaints are annulled and the plaintiffs are taken in custody while awaiting trial for contempt of the court. This option has been created to safeguard the inquisition from abuses to settle local vendettas.
The human factor: These 3 forms of accusations also exist in modern legal systems of the canaille: A human victim can file a complaint against a crime. A human investigator, such as a police inspector, can start an investigation based on persistent rumors. To arrest someone he needs evidence off course. Finally a human criminal can accuse another criminal, for instance through a system of turncoats.
.
Step 2: The investigation by the prosecutor
Theoretically the next step in any case is the investigation by the prosecutor. The clerical inquisition takes into account that even the insinuation of being involved in a crime can severely damage someone’s reputation. Even if a person is found innocent, the possibility exists that this person can no longer function normally within the domain, even after the acquittal. Because of this, when someone files a complaint, the inquisitor interrogates this person before he accepts the complaint.
The plaintiff is expected to present enough evidence to support his accusation and the inquisitor-general is expected to test the veracity of the evidence. Only if the plaintiff successfully passes the interrogation and the evidence seems solid, the inquisitor-general may decide to continue the case. Off course the accused gets a chance to prove his innocence. Only in clerical courts there is a garantee that one is presumed innocent untill proven guilty. In secular courts a suspect is usually only acquitted if there is overwhelming evidence to prove his innocence.
Step 3: Gathering the first evidence
Once an inquisitor-general has decided that the accusations have a solid base, the gathering and verifying of the evidence starts. While gathering of evidence there are 2 essential steps:
1) The gathering of evidence before the suspect is arrested.
2) The interrogation and investigation of the suspect.
The first clerical inquisitions had a rigorous standard for the question of guilt. To convict a suspect there had to be at least 2 eyewitnesses of the crime (or the suspect had to confess). No other form of evidence was accepted. On top of that eyewitnesses were automatically barred if there were indications they had ill will towards the suspect, or if they were of the same bloodline or covenant as another eyewitness or the suspect. Even testimonies by those who filed the complaint where not accepted as reliable evidence. Quickly, it became clear that by keeping up this rigorous standard convicting somebody was nearly impossible.
Inquisitories-General have developed different solutions to solve this problem. One of them was to focus on other forms of evidence, such as the confession. To improve the odds of getting a confession different techniques and rules were developed such as torture, turncoats and lower sentences for those that confessed.
Some courts became less stringent about the testimonies they admitted. For instance testimonies by the plaintiff and enemies were admitted in some cases and in some cases the restrictions concerning covenant and bloodlines were relaxed. Secular courts even accept testimonies from ghouls and animals and some of them even allow childer to testify against their sire. One of the more controversial solutions that have been used by clerical courts was the introduction of “spectral evidence”. Spectral evidence is evidence (including testimonies) attained by the use of rituals and disciplines. Secular courts go much further in this, allowing evidence seen in visions or dreams.
Step 4: Arresting the accused
When the inquisitor-general declares a complaint to be admissible, the accused is arrested and locked up until the conditions for bail have been met. However, giving someone the chance to free himself by meeting the conditions for bail is highly unusual. Most inquisitions do not allow this or only allow it as a rare sign of respect towards an accused in high esteem or of utmost importance.
When being arrested by an Episcopal inquisition, the inquisitor-general has to inform the detainee what the reason is for his arrest and what the official charges are. When being arrested by the Inquisitory-General this is not the case, because it is a specialized court. The duration of a trial is hard to predict. Many defendants spent a year or more in custody. Secular courts usually keep their suspects in custody for protracted periods, sometimes even spanning decades or in rare cases even centuries. It is also not unusual for secular inquisitions to have their defendants die in their custody.
For sensitive or dangerous cases clerical inquisitions sometimes use special prisons, known as “oubliettes”. An accused that is sent to an “oubliette” disappears from the face of the earth oft times until the start of the actual trial. No one except the clerical inquisitors know where the defendant is locked up or whether or not he is still alive. Not even the Prince, a bishop or coterie-members of the defendant have the right to inform about the prisoner. The defendant is sent to an “oubliette”, for as long as the inquisitor-general who is investigating the case, deems necessary.
In some domains there are no secure cells available; in these domains the defendants (both in secular and clerical inquisitions) are traditionally locked up in convents of the Lancea Sanctum, often to the displeasure of local members of the convent. In most domains the defendant is expected to pay a fee for the blood supplies and other privileges he receives in prison. When the defendant no longer pays the fee most secular courts stop granting privileges and supplying blood. Clerical inquisitions are not so cruel as to cut off a kindred’s access to blood. In this case the defendant becomes a debtor and is expected to pay his debt after the trial. Often a debtor is not released until his debt is paid in full. (even after an acquittal), unless the debtor can give solid guarantees he will pay his debt within a reasonable period of time.
Step 5: Assigning a laywer
The judge assigns a lawyer for the defendant. If the judge does not assign a lawyer, anyone can volunteer to be the defendants’ lawyer. After investigating the information about the case an assigned lawyer is allowed to pull out of the case.
It is the judges duty to assign a lawyer who does not delay the proceeding, because important matters like these need to be handled as simple and straightforwardly as possible, without undue procedure, delay, needlessly long debates or witnesses, unnecessary questions, counter allegations, false arguments, spreading of doubt, unlawful appeals, etc. The lawyers’ most important role is to help in a quick uncovering of the truth, and not to try and acquit his client regardless of whether or not he is guilty. Because of this, an important part of his role is to convince his client to confess, so the trial is concluded swiftly.
The judge always points out to the lawyer what his role is and that defending a criminal or obstructing justice is a crime. At this time the lawyer gets another chance to drop the case and if he continues, can be prosecuted himself (in case of a conviction) as accessory to a crime. Saying one does not defend the crime but the person is not a valid argument for the lawyer. Evidently, he is not defending the crime, because this would mean the lawyer is a criminal mastermind that tries to let fellow criminals escape their just punishment. If a lawyer still ignores the warnings of the judge and obstructs the course of law, the judge has to relieve him from his function. The trial then continues without a lawyer, based on facts and testimonies.
The next steps in a trial flow into each other. Interrogations, confessions and torture go hand in hand, but will be addressed separately to give a clearer overview. At this time the inquisition will start the interrogation of the accused (step 7) and will consequently try to extract a confession (step 8). Torture can be used throughout the whole trial and will be addressed first because of this.
Step 6: Torture
As mentioned earlier, inquisitions of old were confronted with problems caused by the rigorous standards of proof. Most crimes had no eyewitnesses and off course the criminal himself will not confess. In most cases this only left suggestive stories and spectral evidence. Even though this kind of evidence can seem convincing in some cases, it isn’t solid enough to convict someone.
Torture brought a solution. Torture improves the odds of obtaining confessions and testimonies against other criminals and as such supplied the courts with the proof they needed. During torture the accused is asked questions with regards to alleged crimes. When the accused confesses the torture is ceased.
The torture techniques used by clerical inquisitions are very mild compared to those methods used by secular inquisitions. Clerical inquisitions cannot use torture techniques that can lead to loss of blood, maiming or death. Accounts of excessive use of torture to extract confessions are vastly exaggerated. In a clerical inquisition torture can only be used once on a single accused during a single inquisition and even then it is only used sparsely to extract confessions. Secular inquisitors on the other hand tend to be extremely liberal in the use of torture and as such torture is considered a standard, yet completely unregulated practice in secular inquisitions.
The clerical inquisition realizes that someone being tortured often tells whatever is needed to stop the torture. Because of this clerical inquisitions severely limit and regulate the use of torture:
1) A suspect cannot be tortured as long as there is no proof of an actual crime.
2) Torture cannot be used before the suspect has had the chance to present evidence in his or her favor.
3) A suspect can only be tortured once during an inquisition.
4) Potentially deadly forms of torture must be avoided. Under no circumstances may a suspect die during an interrogation. Because of this inquisitors often use torture methods that cause severe damage to arms and legs but are seldom lethal. The most common form of torture is the “strappado”: the arms of the suspect are bound behind his back and attached to a hook. Consequently the hook is raised and the suspect is interrogated for half an hour to an hour while he is suspended. If this does not lead to a breakthrough the rope is released unannounced, dropping the suspect to the ground, which very likely dislocates one or both shoulders. Secular inquisitors normally bind weights around the ankles of the suspect to make this process more painful. Some forms of torture are less damaging physically, but equally effective. One example is “waking the devil”, a technique that keeps suspects awake for over 40 hours. Since day-sleep-deprivation causes hallucinations, the suspect becomes more susceptible to suggestions (such as interrogations or demands for a confession).
5) A confession made under torture isn’t admissible as long as it isn’t confirmed later on in a “free confession” (we will address “free confessions” later in step 8) If a suspect withdraws the confession he made under torture, the confession becomes null and void and the suspect cannot be tortured a second time. Don’t these limitations severely limit the amount of confessions? The fact that after the introduction of these limitations the amount of confessions during clerical inquisitions fell to less then one in four tortured persons proves they did. Thorough research into this topic has shown that most of those “lost” 3 quarters were false positives. This means that these limitations actually helped in uncovering the truth and limit the amount of “patsies”. Secular courts had a hard time reconciling themselves with these new, significantly lower figures and therefore refused to respect the limitations on torture; since clerical courts still follow these limitations this is one of the reasons for their much lower conviction rates.
Step 7: Interrogation
All testimonies are taken anonymously by an inquisitor and written down by a clerk. These minutes serve as evidence. The lawyer may read the minutes of the interrogations but all minutes are anonymous. The lawyer may also call upon extra witnesses that will be interrogated by the prosecutor. He may even submit questions to be asked by the prosecutor.
In an inquisition by the Inquisitory-General the accused and the lawyer are kept in the dark about the allegations for a long time. Even during most of the interrogation of the suspect, he remains unsure about what he is actually accused of. Only after an elaborate talk (which is carefully noted down in the files of the case), often when the suspect has almost confessed, the allegations are brought forward. At that point the suspect is confronted with his own remarks.
In clerical inquisitions the freedom of interrogation techniques is limited. The use of “leading questions” is strongly dissuaded. A leading question is the question that suggests what the interrogator wants to hear, for instance: “Did you dance naked around the fire of a burning ghoul, worshipping the devil Beheleezul while wearing his goat head during a Walpurgis ritual before drinking the hearts’ blood of Baron Vandevelde?” Clerical inquisitions are expected to use non leading questions such as :“What did you do during your last Walpurgis night?”.
Secular inquisitors don’t limit leading questions. Most manuals for secular inquisitors contain a list with recommended questions; almost all of them are leading questions. A secular magistrate with little experience can even buy lists with standard questions. Many secular inquisitors use a list with yes/no questions. The interrogator runs down the list and crosses off the answers to which the suspect gives a negative answer. If one of the answers is not satisfactory, the suspect is tortured again and again up until he gives a satisfactory answer.
The most deadly form of leading questions is the list of suspects. For a clerical inquisition it is forbidden to name possible. An inquisitor may ask:”Who helped you?” or: “Did you get help?”, but cannot ask: “The high priestess of Antwerp has helped you, didn’t she?” This is yet another rule that is blatantly ignored by secular inquisitions. Secular inquisitors often go over long lists of persons they suspect and the tortured suspect has to confirm their involvement every time in order to stop the torture.
In secular inquisitions the interrogators often tell the suspect what they want to hear to stop the torture process before this process starts. Also, they will inform them about details told by others, so that the suspect knows what details he must use in his confession to make all the confessions consistent. These protocols strive for unity of proof, burden of proof and assure an apparently irrefutable body of proof.
If torture does not obtain the desired result, secular inquisitors often used guile. There are Princes who encourage their judges to promise the criminals “grace”. When the suspect confesses, he is informed that “grace” isn’t reduction of punishment but grace in the eyes of the community and the Prince, best attained by a just execution. A suspect that refuses to confess is sometimes led to a place of execution in the full conviction that he will face death. An inquisitor accompanies him to advise him to face God’s judgment without sins on his conscience. The inquisitor then offers redemption for the sins in exchange for a confession. Few suspects take up the offer. Those who remain silent are led back to their cell, but those who confess are forgiven and executed because they”obstructed justice”.
Step 8: Free confessions
Clerical inquisitons view confessions made under torture as suspect. To solve this problem they work with a system of “free confessions” (voluntary confessions). The day after a confession under torture the inquisitor presents the confession to the accused and asks him if the information in the confession is correct. If the accused rejects the confession, the confession is declared null and void. If the accused confirms the confessions it is accepted as a “free confession” because it was not made under the threat of torture, since the accused can not be tortured again.
There are cases in which a suspect gives a “free confession” without being tortured first, and in some cases even without prior accusations. I myself have been confronted by a criminal who traveled to Keizersberg from his domain to meet an inquisitor. He chose not to take confession, but freely admitted his heresies, diableries and a long list of other heinous crimes and to top it off he also offered irrefutable proof. He was executed by Prince de Sénancourt the very next night. Cases like this are rare but they do exist. For some criminals a free confession is a form of suicide that is not a sin.
Naturally, some people prefer a swift and painless death over being imprisoned and tortured. People that make a free confession usually get a reduction of their sentence or at least are granted the courtesy of a painless death. Usually, persons being executed after a free confession are tied up and bled dry. As such the convict is guided to torpor in a painless fashion. Once torpor has set in, the body is staked and burned.
Step 9: Jurisprudence, punishment and execution
The period between the end of the trial and the execution of the sentence can last years or even decades. During this time the accused remains locked up. Most inquisitors have a habit of saving up executions ‘till there are enough to carry out sentences in a public ceremony called “sermo generalis”. Punishments can be long pilgrimages (for a first conviction), forever wearing a yellow cross, confiscation of possessions, banishment, public humiliation, imprisonment, etc. Public staking and burning are only used for the most heinous crimes such as recidivism and heresy. A clerical inquisition never carries out the punishments, it only advises the worldly authorities which punishment is befitting the crime. When the punishment is eternal imprisonment the possessions of the convict are always confiscated.
In conclusion, I Jean-Baptiste Charles de Béthune, Archbishop of the Low Countries, once again want to dispel the fallacious image of a bloodthirsty clerical inquisition. Every clerical inquisition is aimed at leading the sinner back to the righteous path or the heretic back to the faith. Because of this, these clerical inquisitions usually advice spiritual punishments: penance, giving the culprit the chance to rectify his sins. They also tend to lessen punishment if the criminal repents.
Death sentences by clerical inquisitions often have a symbolic function and are very rarely carried out. Contrary to secular inquisitions (they always carry out death penalties), the death penalty is often converted to an alternative, lighter punishment, in consultation with the Prince of the domain and under supervision of the Archbishop who can accept pleas for clemency if he thinks this is desirable. When an accused is found guilty without the aid of a free confession, the lawyer who defended him is punished for obstructing justice by defending a guilty party. The clerical inquisition prefers avoiding transferring the punishment to the worldly authorities by convincing the convict to repent by doing personal penance. Executions are an admission of defeat; the inquisition failed to make the convict recant, which is the ultimate goal of clerical inquisitions.
The most common form of execution is burning. This does not mean the convict is burned while conscious. They who repent are first brought into torpor and staked before being burned. Convicts of high esteem are first beheaded. Being burned while being conscious is an extreme an unusual punishment. Executions are events that draw large crowds. The biggest executions have many spectators that often come from far-off domains to witness the execution. Clerical inquisitions prefer a large crowd because executions make a dramatic didactic tool. Before the actual execution the clerical inquisitors address the spectators with a sermon concerning the crime or heresy committed. During this sermon a complete overview is given of the crimes and heresies committed by the convict. Subsequently the secular executioners take over the ceremony. Sometimes they will precede the actual burning by a show of public torture. The way in which the death penalty is executed depends mainly on the personal taste of the executioner, instructions from the Prince or the target and victims of the crimes or heresies for which the convict is being punished. Traitorous acts like an assassination attempt on a Prince, a high functionary or a cleric are usually heavily punished.
I once witnessed the execution of a convict guilty of murdering a Prince. The victim was bruised heavily with red-hot metal pincers; consequently his limbs were removed at the joint with these same pincers. Then his heart was removed while his head was squeezed off with the pincers. Finally his head and body were put on a stakes and burned. In some domains there is only one punishment for a crime against the Prince: “You will be hanged on display on the place of execution, where on the night of execution you are lowered. Your limbs will be removed and your belly will be cut open. Then your intestines will be pulled from your body for the public to see. Subsequently your intestines will be roasted till they catch fire. When the fire reaches your body, your head will be removed from your body and handed to the Prince; who then will decide what happens to your remains".
A cleric usually accompanies the convict to his execution. On the way to the execution he tries to get the convict to confess if he hasn’t done so yet, to “lessen the blemish on his soul”. Princes usually request this in the hope of pleasing the crowd with the spectacle of a confession on the pyre. This also confirms to the public that the court has made a just verdict. Many wise kindred believe in the purifying power of fire, because of this, many convicts are burned even after their death, to purify the criminal and his descendants his entire bloodline from becoming stained with his sin.
Step 10: Appeal
Even after a death sentence, a convict has one last hope: appeal. Some secular and all clerical courts grant one or more forms of appeal to a higher court. The appeals against secular and Episcopal inquisitions are usually handled by the Inquisitory- General. The appeal against the Inquisitory-General is usually handled by a court under presidency of the Archbishop leading the Inquisitory-General.
When the appeal is over, there is one last step: payment. In clerical inquisitions this is the last step, in secular inquisitions this unfortunately usually is one of the first steps. In some domains all worldly possessions are confiscated before the start of the trial. In a secular inquisition the sheriff comes to the haven of the accused and confiscates all goods he can remove from the haven and he destroys the rest, so nothing remains to maintain the ghouls.
Secular inquisitors are paid per criminal they deliver that is later found guilty of the crime that led to the arrest. Usually the Prince of the domain pays this fee. The Prince compensates this by confiscating the goods of the convict. Clerical inquisitors are not paid for their services. This strict rule ensures their objectivity.
- Back to Canonical Law
- Back to the Pastor Resource Database
