Untitled - Shattering Denial

230
THE INQUISITION
They were well aware of the danger that witnesses would
incur, if their names were indiscreetly revealed. They
knew that the publicity of the pleadings would certainly
hinder the efficiency of heresy trials. But such con
siderations do not change the character of the institution
itself; the Inquisition in leaving too great a margin to
the arbitrary conduct of individual judges, at once fell
below the standard of strict justice.
All that can and ought to be said in the defence and to
the honor of the Roman pontiffs is that they endeavored
to remedy the abuses of the Inquisition. With this
in view, Innocent IV and Alexander IV obliged the In
quisitors to consult a number of boni viri and periti; 1
Clement V forbade them to render any grave decision
without first consulting the bishops, the natural judges
of the faith; 2 and Boniface VIII recommended them to
reveal the names of the witnesses to the prisoners, if they
thought that this revelation would not be prejudicial to
any
one. 3
In a word, they wished the laws of justice to
be scrupulously observed, and at times mitigated. 4
1 Cf. supra, p. 139.
But
2
Clementinas, De hareticis, Decretal Multorum Querela, cap. i, sect. i.
3
"Cessante vero periculo supradicto, accusatorum et testium nomina
(prout in aliis fit judiciis) publicentur. Caeterum in his omnibus prascipimus,
tarn episcopos quam inquisitores puram et providam intentionem habere, ne
ad accusatorum vel testium nomina supprimenda, ubi est securitas, periculum
esse dicant." Sexto, De hareticis, cap. xx; cf. Tanon, op. cit.,
P- 39i-
4 Dollinger is very unjust when he says: "From 1200 to 1500 there is a
long uninterrupted series of papal decrees on the Inquisition; these decrees