The Inquisition Part 6

clxi.

We must remember also that the laws he enacted were not at all excessive compared with the strict Roman law, or even with the practice then in vogue in France and Germany. It has been justly said: "The laws and letters of Innocent III never once mention the death penalty for heresy. He merely decrees against them banishment, and the confiscation of their property. When he speaks of having recourse to the secular arm, he means simply the force required to carry out the laws of banishment enacted by his penal code. This code, which seems so pitiless to us, was in reality at that time a great improvement in the treatment of heretics. For its special laws prevented the frequent outbreaks of popular vengeance, which punished not only confessed heretics, but also mere suspects."[1]

[1] Luchaire, Innocent III, _et la croisade des Albigeois_, pp. 57, 58. Julien Havet also says: "We must in justice say of Innocent III that, if he did bitterly prosecute heretics, and everywhere put them under the ban, he never demanded the infliction of the death penalty.

Ficker has brought this out very clearly." _L'heresie et le bras seculier_, p. 165, n. 3. For Ficker's view, cf. op. cit., pp.

189-192.

In fact, the development in the methods of suppressing heresy from the eleventh century, ends with Innocent III in a code that was far more kindly than the cruel customs in vogue at the time.

The death penalty of the stake was common in France in the twelfth century, and in the beginning of the thirteenth. Most of the executions were due to the pa.s.sions of the mob, although the Roman law was in part responsible. Anselm of Lucca and the author of the _Panormia_ (Ivo of Chartres?) had copied word for word the fifth law of the t.i.tle _De Haereticis_ of the Justinian code, under the rubric: _De edicto imperatorum in d.a.m.nationem haereticorum_.[1] This law which decreed the death penalty against the Manicheans, seemed strictly applicable to the Cathari, who were regarded at the time as the direct heirs of Manicheism. Gratian, in his Decree, maintained the views of St. Augustine on the penalties of heresy, viz., fine and banishment.[2] But some of his commentators, especially Rufinus, Johannes, Teutonicus, and an anonymous writer whose work is inserted in Huguccio's great _Summa_ of the Decree, declared that impenitent heretics might and even ought to be put to death.

[1] Tanon, op. cit., pp. 453-454.

[2] Decretum, 2 Pars, Causa xxiii, quest. 4, 6, 7.

These different works appeared before the Lateran Council of 1215.[1]

They are a good indication of the mind of the time. We may well ask whether the Archbishop of Rheims, the Count of Flanders, Philip Augustus, Raymond of Toulouse, and Pedro of Aragon, who authorized the use of the stake for heretics, did not think they were following the example of the first Christian emperors. We must, however, admit that there is no direct allusion to the early imperial legislation either in their acts or their writings. Probably they were more influenced by the customs of the time than by the written law.

[1] The collection of Anselm of Lucca is prior to 1080. The _Panormia_ was written about the beginning of the twelfth century; the Decree about 1140; the three commentaries were written a little before 1215.

As a matter of fact, Gratian, who with St. Augustine mentioned only fine and banishment as the penalties for heresy, was followed for some time. We learn from Benencasa's _Summa_ of the Decree that heretics were punished not by death, but by banishment and confiscation of their property.[1]

[1] _Biblioth. Nation_., Ms. 3892, _Summa_ of Benencasa: 41, cap. 23, q. 4, _Non invenitur_.

The Councils of Tours and Lateran also decreed confiscation, but for banishment they subst.i.tuted imprisonment, a penalty unknown to the Roman law. The Council of Lateran appealed to the authority of St.

Leo the Great, to compel Christian princes to prosecute heresy.[1]

[1] Canon 27, Labbe, _Concilia_, vol. x, col. 1522; Leonis, Epist.

xv, ad Turribium, Migne, _Pat. Lat_., vol. liv, col. 679-680.

From the time of Lucius III, owing to the influence of the lawyers, the two penalties of banishment and confiscation prevailed. Innocent III extended them to the universal Church.

This was undoubtedly a severer penal legislation than that of the preceding age. But, on the other hand, it was an effective barrier against the infliction of the death penalty, which had become so common in many parts of Christendom.

Besides, during this period, the Church used vigorous measures only against obdurate heretics, who were also disturbers of the public peace.[1] They alone were handed over to the secular arm; if they abjured their heresy, they were at once pardoned, provided they freely accepted the penance imposed upon them.[2] This kind treatment, it was true, was not to last. It, however, deserves special notice, for the honor of those who preached and practiced it.

[1] Innocent III merely condemned to prison in a monastery the heretical abbot of Nevers; cf. letter of June 19, 1199, to a cardinal and a bishop of Paris. Ep. ii, 99.

[2] Cf. Canon 27 of the Lateran Council (1179), which we have quoted above, and which is inserted in the Decretals of Gregory x, cap. ix, _De haereticis_, lib. v, t.i.t. vii.

CHAPTER V THE CATHARAN OR ALBIGENSIAN HERESY--ITS ANTI-CATHOLIC AND ANTI-SOCIAL CHARACTER

WHILE Popes Alexander III, Lucius III, and Innocent III, were adopting such vigorous measures, the Catharan heresy by its rapid increase caused widespread alarm throughout Christendom. Let us endeavor to obtain some insight into its character, before we describe the Inquisition, which was destined to destroy it.

The dominant heresy of the period was the Albigensian or Catharan heresy;[1] it was related to Oriental Manicheism[2] through the Paulicians and the Bogomiles, who professed a dualistic theory on the origin of the world.

[1] The heretics called themselves "_Cathari_," or "_the Pure_." They wished thereby to denote especially their horror of all s.e.xual relations, says the monk Egbert: _Sermones contra Catharos_, in Migne, P.L., cxcv, col. 13.

[2] On the origin of the Manichean heresy, cf. d.u.c.h.esne, _Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise_, pp. 555, 556.

In the tenth century, the Empress Theodora, who detested the Paulicians, had one hundred thousand of them ma.s.sacred; the Emperor Alexis Commenus (about 1118), persecuted the Bogomiles in like manner. Many, therefore, of both sects went to western Europe, where they finally settled, and began to spread.

As early as 1167, they held a council at St. Felix de Caraman, near Toulouse, under the presidency of one of their leaders, Pope or perhaps only Bishop Niketas (Niquinta) of Constantinople. Other bishops of the sect were present: Mark, who had charge of all the churches of Lombardy, Tuscany, and the Marches of Treviso; Robert de Sperone, who governed a church in the north, and Sicard Cellerier, Bishop of the Church of Albi. They appointed Bernard Raymond, Bishop of Toulouse, Guiraud Mercier, Bishop of Carca.s.sonne, and Raymond of Casalis, Bishop of Val d'Aran, in the diocese of Comminges. Such an organization certainly indicates the extraordinary development of the heresy about the middle of the twelfth century.

About the year 1200 its progress was still more alarming. Bonacursus, a Catharan bishop converted to Catholicism, writes about 1190: "Behold the cities, towns and homes filled with these false prophets."[1] Cessarius, of Heisterbach, tells us that a few years later there were Cathari in about one thousand cities,[2] especially in Lombardy and Languedoc.

[1] _Manifestatio haeresis Catharorum_, in Migne, P.L., vol. cciv col.

778.

[2] _Dialogi_, Antwerp, 1604, p. 289.

There were at least seven to eight hundred of "the Perfected" in Languedoc alone; and to obtain approximately the total number of the sect, we must multiply this number by twenty or even more.[1]

[1] This is Dollinger's estimate, _Beitrage_, vol. i, pp. 212, 213.

Of course, perfect unity did not exist among the Cathari. The different names by which they were known clearly indicate certain differences of doctrine among them. Some, like the Cathari of Alba and Desenzano, taught with the Paulicians an absolute dualism, affirming that all things created came from two principles, the one essentially good, and the other essentially bad. Two other groups, the Concorrezenses and the Bagolenses, like the ancient Gnostics, held a modified form of dualism; they pretended that the evil spirit had so marred the Creator's work, that matter had become the instrument of evil in the world. Still they agreed with the p.r.o.nounced dualists in nearly all their doctrines and observances; their few theoretical differences were scarcely appreciable in practice.[1]

[1] On the Catharan doctrines, cf. Dllinger's _Beitrage_.

Still, contemporary writers called them by different names. In Italy they were confounded with the orthodox Patarins and Arnaldists of Milan; which explains the frequent use of the word Patareni in the const.i.tutions of Frederic II, and other doc.u.ments.

The Arnaldists or Arnoldists and the Speronistae, were the disciples of Arnold of Brescia, and the heretical Bishop Sperone. Although the chief center of the Cathari in France was Toulouse and not Albi, they were called _Albigeois_ (Albigenses), and _Tisserands_ (Texerants), because many were weavers by trade; _Arians_, because of their denial of Christ's divinity; _Paulicians_, which was corrupted into _Poplicani, Publicani, Piphes_ and _Piples_ (Flanders); _Bulgarians_ (_Bulgari_), from their origin, which became in the mouths of the people of _Bugari, Bulgri_, and _Bugres_. In fact about 1200, nearly all the heretics of western Europe were considered Cathari.

Catharism was chiefly a negative heresy; it denied the doctrines, hierarchy and wors.h.i.+p of the Catholic Church, as well as the essential rights of the State.

These neo-Manicheans denied that the Roman Church represented the Church of Christ. The Popes were not the successors of St. Peter, but rather the successors of Constantine. St. Peter never came to Rome.

The relics which were venerated in the Constantinian basilica, were the bones of someone who died in the third century; they were not relics of the Prince of the Apostles. Constantine unfortunately sanctioned this fraud, by conferring upon the Roman pontiff an immense domain, together with the prestige that accompanies temporal authority.[1] How could anyone recognize under the insignia, the purple mantle, and the crown of the successors of St. Sylvester, a disciple of Jesus Christ? Christ had no place where to lay His head, whereas the Popes lived in a palace! Christ rebuked worldly dominion, while the Popes claimed it! What had the Roman curia with its thirst for riches and honors in common with the gospel of Christ? What were these archbishops, primates, cardinals, archdeacons, monks, canons, Dominicans, and Friars Minor but the Pharisees of old! The priests placed heavy burdens upon the faithful people, and they themselves did not touch them with the tips of their fingers; they received t.i.thes from the fields and flocks; they ran after the heritage of widows; all practices which Christ condemned in the Pharisees.

[1] The Middle Ages believed firmly in the donation of Constantine.

It was, however questioned by Wetzel, a disciple of Arnold of Brescia, in 1152, in a letter to Frederic Barbarossa, Martene and Durand, _Veterum scriptorunt ... amplissima collectio_, Paris, 1724, vol. ii, col. 554-557.

And yet, withal, they dared persecute humble souls who, by their pure life, tried to realize the perfect ideal proposed by Christ! These persecutors were not the true disciples of Jesus. The Roman Church was the woman of the apocalypse,[1] drunk with the blood of the Saints, and the Pope was Antichrist.

[1] Apoc. vii, 3, 18.

The sacraments of the Church were a mere figment of the imagination.

The Cathari made one sacrament out of Baptism, Confirmation, Penance and Eucharist, which they called the _consolamentum_; they denied the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and they repudiated marriage.

Baptism of water was to them an empty ceremony, as valueless as the baptism of John. Christ had undoubtedly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of G.o.d."[1] But the acts of the Apostles proved that baptism was a mere ceremony, for they declared that the Samaritans, although baptized, had not thereby received the Holy Spirit, by Whom alone the soul is purified from sin.[2]

[1] John iii, 5.

[2] Acts i. 5; viii. 14-17.

The Catholic Church also erred greatly in teaching infant baptism. As their faculties were undeveloped, infants could not receive the Holy Spirit. The Cathari--at least to the middle of the thirteenth century--did not confer the _consolamentum_ upon newly born infants.

According to them, the Church could only abandon these little ones to their unhappy destiny. If they died, they were either forever lost, or, as others taught, condemned to undergo successive incarnations, until they received the _consolamentum_, which cla.s.sed them with "the Perfected."