Replies

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death

Sounds to me like a good justification for the death penalty. Follow due process, but if the SOB is hardened to his crime, then kill him. Which goes back to a point of the article. The Inquisition introduced due process, and a high level of dueprocess into the prosecution of heretics. Of course, you can't admit that heresy could be a crime. This is a bit like liberals who could never admit that being a communist could be a crime. But I won't push the matter. In any case, the argument is made in the article that a person accused of heresy was more likley to receive what we would call a fair ttrial than a person accused of, say, theft. I think that is the chief claim of the article, that the Inquisition provided for a fair trial, at least in theory and often also in fact. A lawyer's trick: man accused of stealing a pig claims that his religious beliefs allowed him to do it. A matter of heresy. The case is taken over by the Church court. He adjures his heresy and gets off with a penance. This is the practical side of an ecclessiastical court being more lenient than a secular court. For this reason everyone one who could read and write claimed clerical status.