Aquinas on heresy

[Caesar]

“Whether Heretics should be tolerated?”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

Basicaly, St. Thomas is saying that because heresy is a crime against the souls of others, a stubborn heretic should not only suffer by being separated from God in Hell (as his beliefs merited), but that in order to save the souls of others from his heresy, he must be separated from the temporal world by death.

Now this leads into a discussion over the question of what should be done with heretics. Naturally, dissentors and heretics corrupt both their own souls and the souls of the people they decieve. Should then the Church take action to silence them? Is having a corrupted soul worth the right to Freedom of Speech in our modern world?

Just curious as to the thoughts on this except from the Summa Theologica and the problem of heresies.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Caesar

*Should then the Church take action to silence them? Is having a corrupted soul worth the right to Freedom of Speech in our modern world?
*
Take action? What kind of action do you have in mind? The Church cannot imprison or execute. I suppose it could excommunicate, but that isn’t likely to stop anyone’s mouth.

Freedom of speech is a precious right. God even gives it to Satan in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Caesar]

Caesar

*Should then the Church take action to silence them? Is having a corrupted soul worth the right to Freedom of Speech in our modern world?
*
Take action? What kind of action do you have in mind? The Church cannot imprison or execute. I suppose it could excommunicate, but that isn’t likely to stop anyone’s mouth.

Freedom of speech is a precious right. God even gives it to Satan in the story of Adam and Eve.

Hmm, you tell me what a proper course of action would be?

Also, which is better- to destroy the body or to destroy the soul?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Also, which is better- to destroy the body or to destroy the soul?

The only one who can destroy my soul is me. So should I kill my body to prevent that?

 

[batteddy]

I’d say heresy is one of the few things left for which capital punishment could be justified in some countries.

Let’s take a look at the situation:

Murderers must be restrained, lest they hurt more bodies. In the past, there were no good “prisons” as we know them…so the State was well within its rights to kill them to prevent them from hurting others.

Heretics must be silenced, lest they hurt more souls. There was no other way to silence them, so the State (in the organic union with the Church that it used to have) was well within its rights to kill them to prevent them from hurting others.

Nowadays, Murderers can be effectively restrained (and more cheaply) by just keeping them in prison (though prison violence and rape are issues that must be fixed in the US). There is no need to kill them, and for the hope of their repentence…it is preferable to keep them alive.

But Heretics are not neutralized just by putting them in prison. They can spread their philosophy-crimes, their idea-sins, their spiritually-violent-memes even behind bars. To fellow prisoners, in contact with lawyers, in contact with guards or handlers, by writing letters etc. Perhaps we could restain them entirely with a face mask in a completely isolated room, never allowed to speak to anyone except to clergy armed with the appropriate spiritual weapons to guard against any thought-attacks the heretic might try to commit with their falsities…but in some countries it would still not be possible to effectively silence a heretic merely by isolation.

Obviously…restraining a murderer is preferable to execution. But if execution is the only way to stop more violence being caused by the guilty body, it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory on the State.

Obviously…simply isolation and silencing a heretic is preferable to exectution. But if execution is the only way to effectively stop the spread of the spiritually violent Idea from the guilty Mind…it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory (if we’re being honest with ourselves about the true God-given nature of the state)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So are we now advocating for the deaths of material and formal heretics? We should…what, hope for the reinstatement of the fires for our own relatives who are not and will not become Catholics?

If the idea that we SHOULDN’T is the “modernism” that is supposedly infecting the Church, then gosh, I’m a modernist. Light the fire.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Obviously…simply isolation and silencing a heretic is preferable to exectution. But if execution is the only way to effectively stop the spread of the spiritually violent Idea from the guilty Mind…it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory (if we’re being honest with ourselves about the true God-given nature of the state)

Caesar’s and Battedy’s bios say they are considering the priesthood.

Dominicans, no doubt.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Caesar]

Obviously…restraining a murderer is preferable to execution. But if execution is the only way to stop more violence being caused by the guilty body, it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory on the State.

Obviously…simply isolation and silencing a heretic is preferable to exectution. But if execution is the only way to effectively stop the spread of the spiritually violent Idea from the guilty Mind…it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory (if we’re being honest with ourselves about the true God-given nature of the state)

Excellent post.

So are we now advocating for the deaths of material and formal heretics? We should…what, hope for the reinstatement of the fires for our own relatives who are not and will not become Catholics?

You misunderstand. Stubborn heretics, who will not abandon their views and who pose a threat to the faith of other people, need to be silenced. If it is impossible to keep their heresies out of society (isolate them), then execution is an option.

It is better for one body to die then for a million souls to be corrupted.

Caesar’s and Battedy’s bios say they are considering the priesthood.

Dominicans, no doubt

Possibly, but I’m going a little more traditional

 

[batteddy]

Possibly, but I’m going a little more traditional

Me too.

CRNJ possibly. I’m setting up a visit for later this month.

 

[Ghosty]

Obviously…simply isolation and silencing a heretic is preferable to exectution. But if execution is the only way to effectively stop the spread of the spiritually violent Idea from the guilty Mind…it may be allowed to kill it and in fact is probably obligatory (if we’re being honest with ourselves about the true God-given nature of the state)

Caesar’s and Battedy’s bios say they are considering the priesthood.

Dominicans, no doubt.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Little known fact: the Franciscans were major players in the Inquisitions too

Medieval hippies they were not

Peace and God bless!

 

[batteddy]

It is better for one body to die then for a million souls to be corrupted.

Still. We’d hope to just take away all contact from vulnerable human beings, just like we do with regular prisoners.

But restraining a Mind and its thought-crime memes is much harder than just restraining a body and its “violent-crime” actions.

Prisoners can live in groups under the supervision of gaurds…and their physical violence can in that way be largely restrained (though there will still be some inter-prisoner violence which hurts the chances of rehabilitation…). But they obviously must be stopped from having physical access and contact with the outside world.

But heretics could never be put with normal criminals. That is to say, criminals who are physical-criminals but may hold spiritually proper views. Because even in prison, a heretic could corrupt other souls. Because bodily violence is much easier to restrain than a violent Idea.

I don’t know if total isolation is necessary…but they’d at least have to be put in a special prison which only contained OTHER heretics. (though there would still be inter-prisoner cross-sharing of ideas that could hurt chances of rehabilitation…) But they certainly must be stopped from having MENTAL access and contact with the outside world.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You misunderstand. Stubborn heretics, who will not abandon their views and who pose a threat to the faith of other people, need to be silenced. If it is impossible to keep their heresies out of society (isolate them), then execution is an option.

Sorry, I don’t misunderstand. I don’t think we should kill, ever, even at the risk of the heresy spreading (life is full of risk, choice, the need to determine) any heretic. It’s a little on the personal side for me, as I’m not particularly keen to see my devout Southern Baptist deacon of a grandfather dragged to the stake and burned or garroted or hung or drawn and quatered, etc. I don’t believe that it would be an effective way to maintain the faith or civil society, for that matter. This is no better than the Moslem “conversion by the sword.” And if THIS is what is being thought of by young people considering the priesthood, well, I devoutly hope and pray that the Church denies them ordination.

 

[batteddy]

I’m not particularly keen to see my devout Southern Baptist deacon of a grandfather dragged to the stake and burned or garroted or hung or drawn and quatered, etc.

*"*If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

“Let the dead bury their dead.”

My own father is a protestant by birth, but a secular humanist by choice. Luckily, he doesnt feel any need to spread his beliefs. But if he ever started actively advocating his views…how could I let my familial love for him stop me from stopping souls from being lost?

But remember, I am not advocating death, and especially not a painful death. I am saying that, similar to execution or murderers, it is allowed to the state, and even obligatory if there is no other way to restrain the violence (in this case mental-spiritual violence instead of physical violence)

I don’t think we should kill, ever, even at the risk of the heresy spreading (life is full of risk, choice, the need to determine) any heretic.

Well, you do not have the weight of the majority of Saints or History behind you.

Also, this idea that life is “full of choice” as if choice is what makes us human is dangerous. Free will is important, but it is GOOD choices that make us human.

As Pope Benedict himself said, referencing Faust:

The pope also recalled the temptation – reminiscent of Mephistopheles – to think of the experience of sin as something which makes man noble and elevates him: “We think that bargaining a little with evil, reserving some freedom against God, is good, perhaps even necessary,” said the pope.

“However, looking at the world around us, we can see it is not like this, that evil always poisons, it does not elevate man, it degrades and humiliates him, it does not make him larger, purer or richer, rather it damages him and makes him become smaller.”

I don’t believe that it would be an effective way to maintain the faith or civil society, for that matter. This is no better than the Moslem “conversion by the sword.”

We are not forcing anyone against their conscience. But we will stop them from mal-forming other people’s consciences. You can believe, personally, in the sanctuary of your own conscience, whatever you choose. That is between you and God in the internal forum. But we will not let you corrupt others. And if you believe that converting others to your heresy is morally obligatory…go ahead and try, but don’t expect to be not resisted. It is like with the Moslems…they think their violence is good, and so between them and God, due to their malformed conscience, they might in fact be doing subjective good in the internal forum. But they shouldn’t expect to be not resisted, it is the state’s job to protect people from major dangers.

 

[mommyof4]

I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation in this day and age. Kill heretic? What are you going to do? Set up a Catholic Taliban? Make all women wear headcarves to church? Kill protestants? Kill all non Catholics? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

[mommyof4]

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

*"*If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

“Let the dead bury their dead.”

You’re proof-texting and it’s far worse than that practiced by Protestants, who can generally make a single-run hit connection between the absurditiy they’re spouting and the Scripture they’re quoting. Nothing in the above, NOTHING, can be construed as promoting the idea that we should put heretics to death, parents or no.

The weight of history? If (as “traditionalists” alledge) this was part of what John Paul the Great apologized for at the turning of the millenium, then he was correct to do so.

And promote this theory to the Pope…I’d love to hear what Benedict XVI had to say on the idea that we should execute heretics. In fact, I urge you and Caesar to do so. Contact the Holy Father, give him your names, dioceses, home parishes, tell him that you want to both be priests, then mention that you think that the execution of heretics is something that maybe we should revisit. I’d sleep better at night knowing that he KNEW where and who you were.

 

[batteddy]

Well, it obviously isn’t practical in today’s world. So don’t worry.

A series of steps would have to happen first:

1. a major crisis
2. the rise of a fascist government (one not based on ethnocentrism or nationalism, but on the ideals of Christendom)
3. the handing over of power by the charismatic dictator, at the end of his life, to a paternalistic royal leader (like franco did in spain)
4. the restoration of a monarchy (without the monarch wussing out and allowing democracy like juan carlos did)
5. the (potentially with political pressure from said dictator and monarch) cleansing of the church hierarchy and election of a reactionary pope who supports the ancien regime
6. the return of the rights of the Church and Jesus Christ in public life

If a monarchical christendom is ever to be restored, and the rights of Christ the King ever again to be recognized in public life…the world or particular nation would have to go through a fascist stage first. Politics isn’t going to go directly from democracy to monarchy; there would have to be a very authoritarian transition period. But ideally, like with Franco, the dictator, at the end of his life, would hand over power to a true Monarch of a sovereign dynastic house…and things would become more bureaucratic and benignly negligent, and less centralized, militaristic, and controlling.

 

[batteddy]

Nothing in the above, NOTHING, can be construed as promoting the idea that we should put heretics to death, parents or no.

No. But what the quotes DO mean is that you shouldn’t let your personal love or attachment to a heretic blind you to the truth or prevent you from following Christ fully. If it means selling all I have…let it be. If it means cutting of my hand…let it be. If it means condemning my own father, brother, or even son to burn at the stake…let it be. Christ demands that we serve ONE master. Christ demands that we subject ALL earthly bonds to him, and if they are not compatible…they must be cut off with all haste.

Just because you love someone (and we should love everyone) do not let that make you become apathetic to all the other souls (who you should love just as much) that they are spiritually murdering.

Christianity is MUCH more radical than I think you want to admit. Because it isn’t comfortable to admit. Once you admit it, every moment you live is to die a thousand times.

 

[batteddy]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Heresy:

The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when** heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason**. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ (see INQUISITION).

He came to set fire to the earth, and would that it were already kindled!!!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No. But what the quotes DO mean is that you shouldn’t let your personal love or attachment to a heretic blind you to the truth or prevent you from following Christ fully. If it means selling all I have…let it be. If it means cutting of my hand…let it be. If it means condemning my own father, brother, or even son to burn at the stake…let it be. Christ demands that we serve ONE master. Christ demands that we subject ALL earthly bonds to him, and if they are not compatible…they must be cut off with all haste.

Just because you love someone (and we should love everyone) do not let that make you become apathetic to all the other souls (who you should love just as much) that they are spiritually murdering.

Christianity is MUCH more radical than I think you want to admit. Because it isn’t comfortable to admit. Once you admit it, every moment you live is to die a thousand times.

You’ve read me wrong, then. I realize how radical Christianity is. I just don’t believe it calls for the execution of heretics. It means that if my folks impede me from following Christ, then I cannot let their love for me or my love for them stop me from following Christ. It doesn’t mean that if my folks impede me from following Christ, I should kill them.