the Inquisition Cristiano Banti If we consider the Old Testament, at a given moment, there are written that the heretics, those who "went after strange gods, if their commitment to heresy had been attested by three credible witnesses (except of course for women that ancient Jewish law could not testify!) were to be conducted outside the walls of the city and "subjected to stone until they are completely extinguished." (Deut.XVII, 25).
Similarly, if we take the Gospel of St. John, (XV, 6), we can, again, read: "Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch that withers, and is then collected and thrown into the fire to burn."
Vale, at this point, state the nature of the image of the words of John! What should they, as some do, and too many have done, to be understood literally, because this would undermine the whole the newness of Christ's message: equality and forgiveness! If anything, in fact, should be interpreted in connection with very different visions about the evolution of man and his relationship with the cosmos! As the branch cut from the tree shortly after it withers, so the man who disavows his spiritual home and is separated from it ends up drying up and eaten with their original nature. The image of the fire, for instance, is usual in fairy tales: the witch is consumed in the fire and perish. The fire burns the evil. It separates the burning substance is processed items. ... But this type of investigation, now here, would lead us away from the explanations undertaken. ...
In the ancient world, and, unfortunately, painfully still, the άσέβεια (asebeia), that the wickedness of heresy, as it was intended and named by the Greeks, was punishable by death, the ancient Greek law, in fact, provided for the punishment of death for those who did not render homage to the gods of their Pantheon. Consider, for example, Socrates had to drink the hemlock! Was not unlike the situation in Imperial Rome against the Christians! And it is really a very curious that the Rome under Augustus had erected the Pantheon, now became a "zealous guardian of its religious traditions! Now that a new prophet had come to introduce strong elements in society of diversity that could undermine the pre-established order!
In the Rome of the Caesars were allies of the state: those who did not recognize it became guilty of treason and should be punished with death.
And that, he was considered a very serious offense, perhaps because of its danger, was pursued very carefully: no one is accusing anyone guilty of such blame? So was provided immediately to "nail" (and here we choose intentionally use of an ambiguous term with a strong flavor analog!) A "traitor", the "different", who "dared" to cultivate their own idea of \u200b\u200bthe Divine! How? Taking a 'inquisizio " that an investigation of suspected cases.
Again, the Church of Rome did not hesitate to make his own legal practice already dear to the Romans. And already on the threshold of the Middle Ages gave the form of this procedure precisely what he named Roman Inquisition. The year 313, which recognized freedom of worship for Christians seemed perhaps to some of the then living a turning point: we recognize freedom of worship to a new creed! But then, not long after, in 380, was the Edict of Thessalonica, the Emperor Theodosius proclaimed Christianity the state religion. So nothing has changed. Only a reversal of positions: the persecuted become the persecutors! And the chain of successive councils, link by link, parade of the different ranks of "heretics." 325: The Council of Nicea resolved the issue on the different interpretation of the nature of Christ branding Arius and his followers with the "condemnation" of heresy: Arianism is heretic Arians are heretics, then a sentence hanging over them: that of heretics. 381: new condemnation of Arianism. 431: this time the sentence is given to the Nestorians: the Council of Ephesus does not admit the belief, which had spread in the churches shutters, not only in the two natures but also two people in Jesus' Who says this is branded as a heretic. 451: Council of Chalcedon condemned the Monophysite. 553: Council of Constantinople condemns dell'origenismo. 680: A Second Council of Constantinople condemns monotheletism. .... And so, one after the other, the "heresies" were identified me convicted. The heretics also be identified, investigated, sentenced. But if the clemency and prevailed in the West, at least during the Middle Ages, at the behest of Leo IX, it was determined that the conviction consisted only in excommunication, in the East's "scrupulous" Byzantine emperors wanted to apply the Roman law and do not hesitate to put to death Manichean and other "heretics."
The twelfth century saw the spread and multiplication of sects deemed heretical, and this convinced many within the Catholic Church, of the need to usare come pena nei confronti di queste l’esilio o la prigionia. E nel contempo, a Bologna, ferveva un rinnovato interesse per il diritto romano, che con la sua dotta terminologia e le sue erudite disquisizioni legali stimolava l’inquisizione religiosa. Il Corpus Iuris Civilis di Giustiniano, con il suo De haereticis, forniva ampio materiale riguardo alla legge canonica sull’eresia e pertanto non si esitò a ricopiarla nella sua interezza. E non passò molto tempo che venne rintrodotta la pena di morte a punizione degli eretici. Non nella Francia meridionale e nemmeno nell’Italia settentrionale, ma nel resto del mondo cattolico tra i persecutori dell’eresia i più accaniti furono i “popoli”: le folle dove l’individuo anonymity is sacrificed and where reason gives way to the irrational and smodatezza, maybe because frightened by the presence of "different" and their possible changes to their "normal", or perhaps because "piloted" by someone else or maybe yet because the situation gave them the opportunity to give vent to the most brutal and inhumane instincts, perhaps, yes, for all this, they were the ones who did not hesitate to lynch the heretics, to rage against them. The crowds too lenient and accused the Church pulled out of the hands of priests are "guilty" because they circumvent the "just punishment". Always ready to burn to everyone who was merely suspected of heresy, the crowds could break into prisons and drag out the heretics to see them burn in the fire in carefully prepared! This in fact happened, for example, in 1114 during the absence of the bishop of Soissons and Liège, in the same year, was the crowd that was imposed because the heretics were burned. The state, which also had been the manager, now felt a certain reluctance to so cruel punishment. However, preferred to satisfy what now had become the popular will for several reasons: felt, in fact, his interest was that the Church held the masses related to the constraint of a single religion, the more than that from an economic standpoint the existence of religious heresies and / or policies would have constituted a threat both to the church property than for the same State. Therefore, the nature of "purely" economic, which was partly driven by the same members of the upper classes to demand that the heresy was fought and eradicated. Frederick II was to the strict code for the suppression of heretics. Already the grandfather Frederick Barbarossa had with Pope Lucius III chaired the council of Verona, which historians say it was the council that the Inquisition was established. Confiscation of property, theft of such heirs, exclusion from public office, destruction of homes .... life imprisonment in cases of withdrawal of heresy, and if not, the stake.
Before the thirteenth century were mostly bishops to lead the "work" of the Inquisition for heresy, but they acted only after the people had "whispered". They shrank from the torture and if ever resorted to a sort of "trial by fire", convinced that the divine justice would not be left to wait, because God would never abandon an innocent. This system was first set out to Reims in a council of bishops, then banned by Pope Innocent III. Papal ambassadors watched the bishops did not miss the heretics, in which case Avevano autorità di sospenderli dal loro ufficio.
Nel 1215 Innocenzo III indusse tutte le autorità civili a giurare di fronte al che avrebbero sterminato con “giusta pena” tutti coloro che la Chiesa avesse segnalato loro come eretici. Qualora un principe avesse trascurato il suddetto giuramento, sarebbe stato deposto e i sudditi sarebbero stati sciolti dall’obbligo dell’obbedienza nei suoi confronti.
Si rileva che con l’accentuarsi delle misure anti eresia, questa cresceva e si diffondeva in Italia come in Francia, come nei Balcani, fin all’interno del clero, tanto da mettere in pericolo l’unione stessa della Chiesa. Gregorio VII, succeduto ad Innocenzo, se ne avvide e tentò di porvi un rimedio: istituì, nel 1227, una commissione di inquisitori con a capo un monaco domenicano e sede a Firenze, il cui compito fu quello di processare gli eretici.
Qualche anno dopo, incorporò nel diritto ecclesiastico le leggi promulgate da Federico II. La Chiesa allora divenne, col consenso dello Stato, l’organo ufficiale dell’Inquisizione e della lotta all’eresia e, in accordo con lo Stato stesso, stabilì che fosse “giusto” per chi si rifiutasse di ritrattare la condanna riservata ai traditori: la pena di morte.
0 comments:
Post a Comment