Talk:Ad extirpanda

End of torture authorization
Anybody know when torturing was no longer authorized by the church? Was this also specifically decided or did the practice die out? Piet 13:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum, a witch-prosecutors manual, "is notorious for its use in the witch hunt hysteria which peaked in the mid-16th through mid-17th centuries" but "was, in fact, condemned by the Inquisition in 1490". The RC church doctrine of papal infallibility means, I supose, that the Ad Exstirpanda bull cannot ever be anulled. (the texts in quotes are from Wikepedia) -- cuddlyable3

Cuddlyable3: papal infallibilty doesn't have anything to do with Ad Exstirpanda. Infallibility was not invoked in that document, nor was it a matter of faith and morals being proposed as necessary to be believed for salvation by the Pope speaking ex cathedra...Sigil7 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Henry Charles Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. 3, p. 35 Pope Pius VII forbade using of torture on March 31, 1816 CarlosPn 13:00, 30 June 2008 (CET)

No mention of torture
I don't assert or deny that Ad exstirpanda was widely understood to direct torture, but I just read an English translation, and I certainly don't see any explicit mention. This is what I do find, emphasis mine:

(26) The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided 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 and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.

Was torture routinely used against thieves and robbers? 98.204.177.2 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proof right here that Wikipedia is biased and un-factual.

35.8.131.115 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Exstirpanda or extirpanda?
The title is spelled "exstirpanda" but the article spells it "extirpanda". The article's references spell it "exstirpanda", but other sources spell it both ways, with "extirpanda" getting more Google Scholar hits. This Wikipedia article begins "Ad extirpanda (named for its Latin incipit) ... ", that is, it was named for the first few words of the original text in Latin. The complete Latin text is found at the bottom of this page. It says: "Ad extirpanda de medio Populi Christiani haereticae pravitatis zizania ... ". A copy of the complete text is less likely to be misspelled than a reference to the title alone, because precautions against miscopying would have to be taken throughout the document. So I am moving this article to "Ad extirpanda", and changing the Main Page's "On this day" item to match. Art LaPella (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. It was moved to "exstirpanda" because "stirpes" means "roots", so maybe he knows something I don't. However, my English dictionary says "extirpate" comes from "L. extirpatus, exstirpatus, pp. of extirpare, exstirpare, to root out, eradicate; ex, out, and stirps, the lower part of a tree, the root." I haven't studied Latin, but it would seem that the "s" wasn't always retained when adding the "ex-" prefix, and the Pope apparently didn't use it. Art LaPella (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google Scholar search for "extirpanda" turns up other documents using that spelling, and some of them are completely written in Latin. A similar search for "exstirpanda" turns up fewer such documents. So I conclude that "extirpanda" is at least an acceptable spelling, and there is no reason to believe the Pope didn't use it. There has been no response here, so NOW I'm going ahead with the change. Art LaPella (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Influence
Something needs to be added about the influence that this had over the years - further information about the use of torture by the Catholic church. Or at least some "see also" articles. I'm particularly interested in whether at any subsequent time the church has renounced this or apologized for it. Esn (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

English Translation
I found the document at http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~draker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html

Cpetreman (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Revised Opening Sentence
I have revised the first sentence to reflect the proper essence of the source cited: that Ad extirpanda authorized torture only in limited and defined circumstances. The statement that this document "explicitly authorized" torture is highly misleading. Again, the source cited indicates Ad extirpanda was promulgated for the purpose of limiting and restricting the existing and common practice of civil judges (laymen) to impose torture. Further, there is an English translation of the document linked in a footnote to the article which, when read, completely supports the characterization of the cited source that the document sought to curb abuses of lay and civil judges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.155.165 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I did take it to talk and explained precisely why the edit was appropriate. As drafted, the lead statement that Ad extirpanda "explicity authorized" torture is so misleading as to be false. Moreover, it is completely inconsistent with the balance of the article, which fully supports the characterization that Ad extirpanda authorized torture only in limited circumstances. Is the point of wikipedia to be accurate. There appears to be some anti-Catholicism at hand here. Indeed, the use of artwork pertaining to the Spanish Inquisition in connection with this article raises some serious questions about neutrality. The Spanish Inquisition was not the Catholic Inquisition. In fact, the papacy condemned the Spanish Inquisition. So why is there artwork pertaining to the Spanish Inquisition being used in connection with an article on a papal bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.155.165 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Is anyone going to address my points, or are you just going to keep changing proper text so that the article is misleading and inaccurate? 69.113.155.165 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Take it to talk" doesn't mean mention on the Talk page that you've changed it back to your version again, that is known as edit warring. Take it to talk means to leave the reverted version in the article while you explain why your version is better and ask for consensus from other editors to support your version, then wait to see what happens. Editor2020 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I took it to talk, explained my reasons, and then you changed it without any explanation. You just ignored the discussion, which isn't proper.  In fact, you still don't offer any explanation.  You're the one engaging in edit warring.  I made a correction based on a cited source, and thus improved the article. 69.113.155.165 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

only once
I have read the English translation supplied in the "External Links" section of this article and I can find no reference to the second of the three bullet points in the "Content" section, i.e., the proscription against repeated acts of torture. To be sure there are numerous sources which claim the bull contains this specific proscription. But if the translation supplied is a responsible and complete, then I would recommend that this second bullet point be removed. Perhaps I simply missed it. If so, my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.12.89 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the beginning description is never supported
What are the "limited circumstances" in which torture was permitted? The article never says. 47.20.163.109 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)captcrisis