Aquinas on heresy

[JKirkLVNV]

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

More proof-texting.

And just because medieval people didn’t think there was anything wrong with it doesn’t mean that we should adopt it as a policy. An answer to this can be seen in the Pope’s recent address at the German University: Violence is inconsistent with the nature of God.

 

[mommyof4]

More proof-texting.

And just because medieval people didn’t think there was anything wrong with it doesn’t mean that we should adopt it as a policy. An answer to this can be seen in the Pope’s recent address at the German University: Violence is inconsistent with the nature of God.

Preach it, Kirk!

 

[batteddy]

Violence is inconsistent with the nature of God.

Violence forcing people to act against their own free will and conscience is against the nature of God, and against the nature of man and choice.

“violence” unqualified…not necessarily.

Read the Old Testament. The wars of Joshua. That part of Exodus where he keeps sending down fire to consume idolaters.

Heck…read the book of Acts, in the New Testament…where God (through the ministry of Peter) KILLS TWO PEOPLE.

1 1 A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. 2 He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. 7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

It doesn’t mean that if my folks impede me from following Christ, I should kill them.

No. That is not your place. It would be the State’s place. Obviously not yours personally as just a free agent.

And not if they are just impeding you personally. Because you can make the choice to cut of contact for yourself. But they may be tempting others. Ultimately we cannot force those others to make a particular choice…but we will be held responsible for letting others remain in a situation of temptation we could prevent, and the State is obligated to neutralize such major dangers.

 

[mommyof4]

No. That is not your place. It would be the State’s place. Obviously not yours personally as just a free agent… and the State is obligated to neutralize such major dangers.

Bat teddy, I don’t want to live in any State you set up. It would be too scary and too violent.

 

[batteddy]

No. Not violent. Lots of people in prisons, maybe. But the prisons would be nicer than they are now. More spartan perhaps (no tv, etc)…but I’d also work hard to prevent inter-prisoner rape and violence which are common in our current system.

NOTHING is going to be more violent than the slaughter of 40 million unborn babies that “democracy” and “free speech” brought us.

 

[mommyof4]

No. Not violent. Lots of people in prisons, maybe. But the prisons would be nicer than they are now. More spartan perhaps (no tv, etc)…but I’d also work hard to prevent inter-prisoner rape and violence which are common in our current system.

NOTHING is going to be more violent than the slaughter of 40 million unborn babies that “democracy” and “free speech” brought us.

I have a feeling I wouldn’t measure up to your standards, and I’d probably be put in prison.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

This is, without doubt, one of the most chilling threads I have ever read.

Are some of you so afraid of the weakness of your arguments that you would advocate the state-sanctioned killing of those who disagree? Despite your protestations to the contrary, what you advocate is nothing less than a mirror-image of the “government” which currently exists in Saudi Arabia, but with a Christian veneer.

Shameful and appalling. This truly is a textbook example of “the Banality of Evil”.

Sometimes I actually find myself regretting that I am no longer a believer… until I read something like the positions advocated in this thread, and my decision for unbelief is confirmed all the more.

 

[havemercy]

You won’t hear me say this very often, but Aquinas was down-right crazy sometimes. Maybe I missed something.

 

[batteddy]

I have a feeling I wouldn’t measure up to your standards, and I’d probably be put in prison.

Meh. Prison in my system wouldn’t be “scary” or “traumatic” like it is now. Nowadays there is all that abuse and rape and violence and stuff.

Prison in my system would be more like being banished to a monastery. Austere yes, limited yes…freedoms and luxuries will be taken away from you. It is prison after all. But it would be a positive thing if you look at it the right way: a uniform to wear, daily mass, the full liturgy of the hours, the traditional fasting schedule. It would be a very spiritual thing. Like being banished to a monastery. Which I think would do a lot of people a lot of good.

 

[mommyof4]

Meh. Prison in my system wouldn’t be “scary” or “traumatic” like it is now. Nowadays there is all that abuse and rape and violence and stuff.

Prison in my system would be more like being banished to a monastery. Austere yes, limited yes…freedoms and luxuries will be taken away from you. It is prison after all. But it would be a positive thing if you look at it the right way: a uniform to wear, daily mass, the full liturgy of the hours, the traditional fasting schedule. It would be a very spiritual thing. Like being banished to a monastery. Which I think would do a lot of people a lot of good.

Do I get conjugal visits with my husband?

 

[batteddy]

what you advocate is nothing less than a mirror-image of the “government” which currently exists in Saudi Arabia, but with a Christian veneer.

If wahabiism were the one true faith…Saudi Arabia would be great.

I was watching a special on PBS on North Korea last night…and it almost made me cry. The way they weeped for their beloved leader. The way they submitted to the laws against eye contact. The way they were so proud of their state library. The way they marched in obedience even though the West is trying to starve them out

(And like with poverty in cuba…it is our fault. We know that if we traded with them…communism might actually look as good as capitalism [both are evil], but we want to economically co-opt them with consumerism, so we starve them to try to basically blackmail them to choose democracy and capitalism.)

And I just thought “if only Kim Il-Sung had been a Christian…this would be an okay system”. Of course, he was not…so it is all pagan folly. But still…I found it nice enough.

 

[batteddy]

Do I get conjugal visits with my husband?

Maybe.

I think it would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I mean…if he were perfectly innocent…I wouldn’t want to punish him by depriving him of his wife (since we as Catholics down believe in divorce and remarriage)

At the same time, some crimes by their very nature forfeit the right to such familial ties. Mainly things involving the children: abuse of your own children, corrupting your children with heresy or sin.

I think, like in our own system, at a certain point of negligence…you give up the right to have your children. They get put in foster care (id rather it be with a close relative or catholic orphanage)…and if you no longer have a right to your children…a conjugal visit would be superfluous.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Heck…read the book of Acts, in the New Testament…where God (through the ministry of Peter) KILLS TWO PEOPLE.

"God kills." Distinctly different.

No. That is not your place. It would be the State’s place. Obviously not yours personally as just a free agent.
**The state would have to kill me, too, because this Catholic would die defending my heretical loved ones. **

And not if they are just impeding you personally. Because you can make the choice to cut of contact for yourself. But they may be tempting others. Ultimately we cannot force those others to make a particular choice…but we will be held responsible for letting others remain in a situation of temptation we could prevent, and the State is obligated to neutralize such major dangers.

**Rubbish. The State is obligate to fix pot holes, not burn heretics. God alone should be the one to sort the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares. **

 

[batteddy]

Yes, but we must try to make sure that there are as many wheats and as few tares as possible when he comes.

The people in Acts die when Peter speaks. It is of course God who determines the moment of each of our deaths, but it can be through the ministry of other people to protect others.

And the State certainly has that God given authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, but we must try to make sure that there are as many wheats and as few tares as possible when he comes. On the bald face of that statement, I agree…through evangelization, though. NOT through executions.

The people in Acts die when Peter speaks. It is of course God who determines the moment of each of our deaths, but it can be through the ministry of other people to protect others. **Ministry? That would be laughable if it weren’t chilling. **

And the State certainly has that God given authority.

**The Church has already dismissed the idea that conversion can be coerced. I’m sure the magisterium likewise rejects the idea that re-conversion should be coerced, in fact, I rather think the teaching authority of the Church would be a little shocked to find that she had to re-assert the idea, but then the Church doesn’t know about you and Caesar and your little ideas. **

**This kind of garbage must never be allowed to enter into our minds, if only for the pragmatic reason that we wouldn’t want it done to our people (Christians suffering in Moslem countries, those three men being executed in Indonesia, etc., comes to mind). The same reasoning should have applied to the ban on torture debated recently: if we don’t want it done to our soldiers who’ve been captured, then we must ourselves foreswear it. **

 

[batteddy]

The Church has already dismissed the idea that conversion can be coerced. I’m sure the magisterium likewise rejects the idea that re-conversion should be coerced

I’ve never said coereced conversion or re-conversion. The heretic personally can believe whatever they want…but we aren’t going to let them potentially spread this to OTHER people. We aren’t going to let them be a seducer to others.

We can’t force someone not to apostize, or to re-convert once they do…but we can work to make sure that there are less situations of temptation to apostasy, by narrowing people’s exposure to the other options by removing heretics from society.

if only for the pragmatic reason that we wouldn’t want it done to our people (Christians suffering in Moslem countries, those three men being executed in Indonesia, etc., comes to mind).

We celebrate our martyrs. This is another instance, methinks, of kantianism getting into peoples minds. This analysis looks as if it came from the categorical imperative or something…

No. The Church is true, so it can persecute untruth. If other countries don’t listen and persecute us…that is THEIR problem, not ours. If the martyrs stick with God, they’ll be ultimately fine. It is those who persecute based on falsehood who will have to answer to God for it.

This is all very humanistic and this-worldly. But really, that is not my concern.

 

[Hastrman]

I do think it may conceivably be permissible to kill heretics, but only if their ideas strike directly at the basis of the state. The Cathars warranted death because they almost destroyed Medieval society, by denying the validity of vows. In a state like America, founded on the idea of human equality, you could kill Peter Singer, because he preaches that some humans are not valuable. And I only think so in theory–the idea is so susceptible of abuse that it would be far safer simply to avoid it altogether.

I was watching a special on PBS on North Korea last night…and it almost made me cry. The way they weeped for their beloved leader. The way they submitted to the laws against eye contact. The way they were so proud of their state library. The way they marched in obedience even though the West is trying to starve them out

무엇 ?! 틀립니다. :nope:
We give millions of dollars worth of aid to North Korea (or rather the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) in the form of food. But the army has priority in everything, and so the people are left with whatever is leftover…which isn’t much. And they weep for their “beloved leader” because if they don’t, they’ll be tortured to death. They march in obedience because A) the army is the cushiest segment of North Korean society, so they’re not starving and B) because they, and probably their families, will be murdered if they don’t. Kim Jong Il and his father are among the most evil, and yet incompetent, leaders in the history of the world.

(And like with poverty in cuba…it is our fault. We know that if we traded with them…communism might actually look as good as capitalism [both are evil], but we want to economically co-opt them with consumerism, so we starve them to try to basically blackmail them to choose democracy and capitalism.)

:nope:틀립니다, again. The North is an isolationist power, as China was until the late 70s, because hardcore Marxism cannot afford infection with bourgeois ideas. Anyone who tries to leave is killed, often by torture. People have been put to death for speaking South Korean dialect, and for singing South Korean songs. All trade with the South is rigidly controlled, and no other countries except China are traded with at all.

Note: set encoding to “Korean” to read the Hangeul I’ve used.

 

[batteddy]

We give millions of dollars worth of aid to North Korea (or rather the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) in the form of food.

So we are told.

But the army has priority in everything, and so the people are left with whatever is leftover…which isn’t much.

They’ve said that they’d be perfectly happy to, for example, reunite with South Korea if the south would simply give up some of its (american enforced, at least originally) civil freedoms and consumerist capitalism.

But greed and licentiousness apparently always win the day…

They are suffering to remain ideologically pure. Would that the Church still insist that Christians suffer that much to preserve the purity of the faith.

And they weep for their “beloved leader” because if they don’t, they’ll be tortured to death.

You can’t fake what I saw, and no one was obligated to come out to the funeral. Certainly SOME people had to be there or there would be trouble. But any given individual could have stayed home and no one would have noticed.

They march in obedience because A) the army is the cushiest segment of North Korean society, so they’re not starving

This was not the army marching…it was school children.

and B) because they, and probably their families, will be murdered if they don’t.

So? Same reason why I don’t steal: so that I don’t go to hell or jail. Out of Love of God or respect for civil laws would be perfect…but fear of punishment is also a valid motive for worship and repentence and avoiding sin.

Kim Jong Il and his father are among the most evil, and yet incompetent, leaders in the history of the world.

No. Every leader is evil. Politicians in democratic societies and monarchies are just as corrupt as communists and fascists. Franco was a bad guy, but so was Nixon. Hitler was bad, but so was Roosevelt. But who are you or I to judge who is “more evil” than others? I think that is between them and God. But the point is…since we are going to have to work with seemingly evil politicians in any system…which is most effective for the salvation of souls? And I think more authoritarianism would be better for this.

The North is an isolationist power, as China was until the late 70s, because hardcore Marxism cannot afford infection with bourgeois ideas.

Exactly. Because such ideas are dangerous and infectious. And they are trying to remain ideologically pure. Good for them.

Anyone who tries to leave is killed, often by torture. People have been put to death for speaking South Korean dialect, and for singing South Korean songs. All trade with the South is rigidly controlled, and no other countries except China are traded with at all.

If they believe that what they practice is True…of course they are going to try to maintain it’s purity!! Would that the hierarchy work to maintain the purity of the faith as much as these dictators work to preserve the purity of their ideology.

 

[Caesar]

See, I think batteddy made some excellent points.

The main problem I see here is the conflict between the extortion of the Bible (Do not kill!) and the need to prevent heretics from corrupting souls.

Physical death lasts only a minute. Spiritual death lasts for all eternity.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

See, I think batteddy made some excellent points.

The main problem I see here is the conflict between the extortion of the Bible (Do not kill!) and the need to prevent heretics from corrupting souls.

Physical death lasts only a minute. Spiritual death lasts for all eternity.

Like I said, Caesar, you and Bateddy send your thoughts in a detailed paper to the Holy See (have it professionally typed, with charts and graphs in different colors), marked to the attention of the Holy Father. And make sure your names and addresses are conspicuously noted on the front, as well as the names of your bishops.