Untitled - Shattering Denial

THE INQUISITION
of course gave full scope to the cruelty
creet zeal of the Inquisitors. 1
169
and the indis
But a new difficulty soon arose. Confessions, ex
torted under torture, had, as we have seen, no legal
value. Eymeric himself admitted that the results ob
tained in this way were very unreliable, and that the
Inquisitors
should realize this fact. 2
If, on leaving the torture chamber, the prisoner re
iterated his confession, 3 the case was at once decided.
But suppose, on the contrary, that the confession ex
torted under torture was afterwards retracted, what was
to be done? The Inquisitors did not agree upon this
point.
Some of them, like Eymeric, held that in this case
the prisoner was entitled to his freedom. Others, like
the author of the Sacro Arsenale, held that "the torture
should be repeated, in order that the prisoner might be
forced to reiterate his first confession 4 which had evi-
alia genera tormentorum coram eo, dicendo quod oportet eum transire per
omnia, nisi prodat veritatem; quod si nee sic, poterit ad terrorem, vel etiam
ad veritatem secunda dies vel tertia assignari, ad continuandum tormenta,
non ad iterandum: quia iterari, non debent, nisi novis supervenientibus indiciis
contra eum; quia tune possunt; sed continuari non prohibentur."
Eymeric,
Directorium, 3 a pars, p. 481, col. 2.
iln 1317, Bernard Gui, complaining of the Clementine restrictions, asks
why the Bishops should be limited in applying torture to heretics, when they
could apply it without limit in everything else. Gravamina, coll. Boat, xxx,
101; cf. Lea, op. cit., vol. i, p. 557.
2"Scientes quod qusestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces." Op. cit., p. 481,
col. i.
3 Ibid., p. 481, col. 2.
4 Masini, Sacro Arsenale, pp. 183-186.