A reader writes:
Putting aside all the paranoid conspiracy nonsense,
what is the modern church’s view on the supression of the Templars?
Especially since we now know that confessions made under torture are
essentially useless. Let’s be honest this is not one of the shining
moments in church history, if for no other reason than Pope Clement
V’s moral cowardice in the face of King Philip’s bullying.
The Church doesn’t really have an official view on historical incidents like this–at least not usually. Normally the Church leaves the evaluation of particular historical incidents to the conscience of the individual and to historians.
It does, however, comment in a general way on historical events that raise the considerations that the Church would bring to bear on the question if it were to comment on particular events (as it does on some occasions).
Some of the principles that the Church brings to bear in evaluating historical events are spelled out in the document
MEMORY AND RECONCILATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST.
In general, the Church tries to acknowledge objectively wrong moral behavior but it also tries to evaluate the behavior against the character of the time and not hastily condemn individuals whose consciences, ultimately, are known to God alone. It thus tries to hold in tension the need to acknowledge the moral truth about particular behaviors alongside the need to acknowledge the historical factors affecting individuals and the fact that we cannot know their hearts.
One can see these being played out in the following passage from the Catechism, which addresses the subject of torture:
Respect for bodily integrity
2297 . . . Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. . . .
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
This establishes the Church’s general take on such historical realities without juding particular cases (in which individuals may have been more culpable or less culpable). It would be up to historians and private individuals to apply these principles to particular cases like what happened with the Templars and see how they stand up.
For an informed Catholic indivual’s attempt to do just that, SEE THIS ARTICLE. It was written almost a hundred years ago, and the author has a very negative view of what happened to the Templars (including the torture). I doubt if very many today would take a positive view of the situation.
Jimmy, the Templars have been restored as an official Church organization. Happened in 1979:
http://www.latinmass.org/omt.html
http://miliziadeltempio.org/starten.htm
Pope John Paul II attached a plenary indulgence who visit the Magistral Church of Militia Templi on certain feast days:
http://miliziadeltempio.org/starten.htm
They have a third order segment that I’m looking into joining. The requirements are much higher than normal third orders: Saying the Divine Office daily in Latin, plus daily rosary for a start.
What is, or was, taught by the Pope and all of the bishops is infallible, unless it is based on a mistake of fact. The Church’s earlier teaching about torture was based on a mistake. The mistake was the idea that torture was necessary for the safety or stability of society at large. Thus, while appearing to fit the definition of an infallible teaching, the earlier teaching about torture was not infallible because it was based on a mistake of fact. QED
The Church also has to intend to be teaching definitively in order to do so. Some teachings are less than definitive, as acknowledged by the Catechism. In such cases, assent of faith is still required on the part of the faithful.
Regarding this whole fact vs. doctrine dichotomy:
So Pius XII really meant: ” by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory, unless she wasn’t.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith, unless he’s correct in so denying it.”
Thanks for clearing that up!
If anyone says that “an infallible statement based on a mistake of fact is still infallible anathema sit!” Well not unless the statement was with full knowledge, etc. Come on guys this is basic systematic theology.
Patrick-
Certainly NOT everything that is or was taught by the Pope and the bishops is infallibly defined doctrine.
Infallibly defined doctrines (properly understood) are true, period.
In Patrick’s universe, then Tim really meant to say: “Infallibly defined doctrines (properly understood) are true, period. Unless they aren’t.”
Regarding the restoration of the Order; This does not appear to be a restoration of the original Order but rather a new Order based on the rule of the original. All well and good but this does not address the current standing of the souls of the original “Poor Knights of the Temple.” I remember reading that a document was found in rome in which Pope Boniface overturned the excommunication of the knights and restored them to full communion with the church. There was some question as to whether this document applied only to the 4 or so knights that were the subject of a specific trial or to all of the knights that had been “found guilty” of heresy.
Jimmy have you heard of this document or its current status?
Certainly it seems the knights were dealt with unfairly and we should all pray for the Church to recognize this and make it right, if in fact it has not all ready done so.
The new militia templi seem to be using the Maltese Cross, and not the old Templar one. Or am I wrong?
According to New Advent, the original Templar Cross was simply red. No shape was defined. Early Templar crosses looked like a normal cross, as in this illustration:
http://www.templarhistory.com/images/s_away.jpg
Knights Hospitallar wore a white cross on a red background, as this document discusses:
http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/smom.html)#cross
I found this reference: ‘After 1147 – 1148 the red eight pointed cross was added to the mantle. This Cross was called a Cross Pattee and although the fish tailed cross is an often-depicted image in paintings it is actually the cross of the rival Order of the Hospital.’
The Cross Pattee is a cross having arms narrow at the inner center, and very broad at the other end. Here are two examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brother_Giraud_deChamaret_1234.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_Brother_Bernard_de_Montlor_1248small.jpg
At this Wikipedia site you’ll find a number of different variants. Bottom line: There was no standardization between perceptories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_Seal
I don’t know why the new order chose a Maltese-style cross instead of the Cross Patee. Some Templars may have used the Hospitaller-style. As long as it’s red, it’s OK.
I looked at the new Militia Templi cross more closely. It’s not a Maltese cross, but a cross formee variant.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/cross.htm