I know that the Church allowed it to be used in medieval times, until 1816 when it was abolished in her courts. She remained silent on the matter, as far as I know, until Vatican 2, in which torture was condemned. Torture has been condemned many times since. I know to many of you, this is irrelevant, because the post vatican 2 church isnt the "true Church" or whatever. But what exactly is the true teaching concerning torture? Is it ever justified? Was it ever justified? If the Church condemns something which she allowed many years ago, what does this mean?

Thank you.

Vatican II has been torture..it is torture.   

I know that the Church allowed it to be used in medieval times, until 1816 when it was abolished in her courts. She remained silent on the matter, as far as I know, until Vatican 2, in which torture was condemned. Torture has been condemned many times since. I know to many of you, this is irrelevant, because the post vatican 2 church isnt the "true Church" or whatever. But what exactly is the true teaching concerning torture? Is it ever justified? Was it ever justified? If the Church condemns something which she allowed many years ago, what does this mean?

Thank you.

I can't give an informed answer right now but I believe you've swallowed MSM propaganda, and theChurch never sanctioned torture.

I can't give an informed answer right now but I believe you've swallowed MSM propaganda, and theChurch never sanctioned torture.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It [torture] was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265."

This Bull of Pope Innocent IV

http://www.docuмentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_'Ad_Extirpanda',_EN.pdf



is adressed specifically to the heads of state or rulers, ministers and citizens established in the states and districts of Lombardy, Riviera di Romagnola, and Marchia Tervisina, and is applied to the problem of heretics (only) in this limited defined region of Italy. It is not a universal teaching for the whole Church, refers to heretics only and is not for all times. Moreover it makes no mention of torture.

Law 25 limits the force that may be used against (convicted) heretics to confess their errors and reveal their fellow evildoers.

It does mention torture though.. It says heretics are to "be forced" to confess their errors. It places limits, sure, but it is still torture, no?

Then quote the exact words, and do not feel free to put your own interpretation on it. The word torture does not appear in the docuмent. Force does not equal torture. If a policeman handcuffs a dangerous prisoner do you call that "torture"?

"The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody, 8provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors"

The limit, "provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs," seems to imply a somewhat limited use of physical force on the heretic to get him to confess.

Though your comment on handcuffs does raise an interesting point. What exactly constitutes torture? Is it every type of pain/discomfort inflicted on someone? For any reason or only some reasons? Does it have to reach a certain degree of severity?

Yes, that is the only mention of not torture but force, which may be physical., and should not be so forceful as to break bones. This is for the purpose of urging them to repent and to confess their crimes.
.
There is no need here to define torture, seeing there is no mention of torture.
.
Torture does not include "every type of pain/discomfort inflicted on someone". If I go to the dentist, he causes me pain and discomfort, but he does not torture me. However if he decides, because he is sadistic, to pull my teeth without anaethesia, then that could be defined as torture.
.
Just beware of those you hate the Church and wish to twist history to suit their own heretical purpose.
.
Which is not to say that nobody in authority ever used torture; rather the Church moral teaching does not change, though social conditions do.
.
Remember that heresy is an evil thing. Fear not he who can kill the body; fear rather he who can kill the soul. The consequeces are dire as heretics can send their own souls and the souls that they lead astray into Hell for eternity.

It was only after the bull that torture was used in the inquisition courts, so historically people interpreted it as allowing physical force, which could rightly be described as torture. Tearing off nails, strapado, branding, whipping, water torture, etc. All of these use force but dont break bones.. Wouldnt you classify these as torture? 

OP, I would recommend reading that book, or at least much of it, to help you answer your question.
.
It provides much more detail than a bull will on how torture was actually used.  Torture was not used to actually solicit confessions, but to solicit confession readiness.  This might seem like a technical difference, but it's significant because confessions were not regarded to have any force of law if they were solicited during torture.  You will also find that fairly quickly after Pope Innocent's bull, subsequent Popes regulated torture more strictly (we're talking about in the course of not many years) and eventually put it mostly into disuse.  Further, its use was restrained only to those who were gravely suspicious.
.
Obviously none of that answers the in principle question of whether or not torture is lawful, but it helps us get a better picture of how it was actually used so that when we look at the issue we know what we are dealing with and what we are not dealing with.  And that can help us maintain dispassion, if nothing else. 
.
In principle, I would have to think that torture is morally licit, although I would at the same time think that the situations where it would be licit would be quite rare.  Laws permitting it might not be the most prudent.  And I think the Church agrees, as she scaled back the provisions in Pope Innocent's bull rather quickly, and popes prior to Innocent condemned its use.