Augustine Denied Free Will, Supported Brutal Coercion?

[patricius79]

Also, Dmar, you mentioned that it could be legitimate for a Catholic country to prohibit Protestant preaching in the open air, as spain and italy had done until recent decades.

I tthink my friend would disagree. He would say that Protestantism involves serious heresy but that protestants, by preaching in the open air are not violating anyone’s rights. Thus he would say it ahould be allowed.

I think he would also say that such a law against protestant public preaching would actually violate a protestant’s “right to be wrong” and their right to free speech.*

 

[dmar198]

Thanks Dmar i am thinking abiut your post.

Also, doesnt this all have a lot to do with how one defines “public order” or “common good”?

How do we define these? They seem to me to be very mysterious terms especially aince they involve salvation or spiritual well being.

Yeah, and I definitely think that the State should consider the spiritual well-being of its subjects when it’s making laws about this. But I don’t think it’s legitimate to say, for example, “If we let Baptists preach, they could draw people away from the Church, therefore we will prohibit it for that reason alone.”

I think you also have to consider the spiritual benefit of Baptists: if their conscience requires them to preach, and you prohibit it by law, perhaps you put them in a position where they have to choose between law and conscience. I think lawmakers have to frame their laws while taking into account the spiritual good of all parties.

I mean, my friend recognizes individual rights. But Im not sure how he feels about “common good”, especially as applied to spiritual well being.

For example, the false aspects or teachings of the methodist religion-- for example, their teaching is in denial of the Eucharist-- harm the common good. But i dont think that means they should be legally penalized

I think the Church agrees with you, since it says religious communities have a right to practice their religion.

In other words, its still not very clear to me where we “draw the line”, since in America there are so many things which harm the common good but are not illegal. For example, pornography.

I think pornography could be justly banned, and one reason why is because I am not aware of anyone whose conscience requires them to make or distribute porn.

Your example about Spain is good. But one could argue that other, more subtle things, harm the common good as much as shouting during a Mass. For example, the way united Methodists also offically make allowances for abortion. Or the way many protestantism teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which has led to so much disagreement and division.

Am I making any sense?

I think you are, but I think there is a difference between a religion which promotes shouting down Catholic priests during Mass and a religion that says it thinks abortion is okay. The State can ban abortion without banning people from thinking it’s okay, and it can ban shouting down Catholic priests at Mass without banning people from thinking that’s okay. If you ban the shouting, though, you are prohibiting peoples’ religious practice in a way that is based on the common good, and if you ban abortion, you don’t stop people from believing it’s okay.

Also, Dmar, you mentioned that it could be legitimate for a Catholic country to prohibit Protestant preaching in the open air, as spain and italy had done until recent decades.

Not in just any circumstances. If their preaching in the open air constituted a disruption of the peace, yeah, but if they were being reasonable about it, I don’t think they should be stopped.

I tthink my friend would disagree. He would say that Protestantism involves serious heresy but that protestants, by preaching in the open air are not violating anyone’s rights. Thus he would say it ahould be allowed.

I think he would probably agree there are lines you shouldn’t cross, and if you do you can be brought back in line. I think that’s all the Church is saying.

I think he would also say that such a law against protestant public preaching would actually violate a protestant’s “right to be wrong” and their right to free speech.

I mostly agree. Except that I think a just law could say something like, “Under these circumstances, Protestants can’t preach” – and then make some reasonable restrictions like no shouting down preachers from other faiths, no inciting riots, and no public demonstrations on Catholic property without permission.

 

[patricius79]

U

Okay Dmar things are getting clearer.

Going back to Augustine and the donatists… based on what you have said, why didnt Augustine just say, " let the individual Donatists follow their consciences. But if a particular person or persons commit an actual violation if someone else’s rights–such as assaul or property damage–then prosecute them for that. But dont punish them as a group."

In other words why punish all Donatists just because some of their members were crossing the line?

Moreover-- in line with his criticisn of Augustines response to the Donatists-- my friend says that the Magisterium has historically not respected–even in principle or as an ideal-- the individual’s freedom of religioj and right to follow ones conscience which you mentioned above.

I wiuld add thwt based on what you have been saying about fredom of religion and conscience, it siunds like Augustine got it wrong in regard to penalizing people just for being Donatists.

 

[dmar198]

Okay Dmar things are getting clearer.

Going back to Augustine and the donatists… based on what you have said, why didnt Augustine just say, " let the individual Donatists follow their consciences. But if a particular person or persons commit an actual violation if someone else’s rights–such as assaul or property damage–then prosecute them for that. But dont punish them as a group."

According to St. Augustine himself, that is what he originally did say. In his letter to Count Boniface, Chapter 7, he explains that originally, when the Donatists were persecuting Catholics, he had supported a proposal that would merely impose a fine on Donatist bishops in areas where they had acted violently against the Church, and leave the peaceful Donatists alone. But part of the problem with that law was, the Donatists had occupied Catholic churches, and were not returning them to the Catholic bishops. St. Augustine tells a passionate story of a Catholic bishop who tried to celebrate Mass in an area where there were lots of Donatists, and they rushed in during Mass, threw him out of his church, and savagely beat him. The reason the emperor got involved at all was because that bishop appealed to him for help in regaining his church, and the response that came back from the emperor was a decree that all the Donatists must be suppressed, with violence if necessary.

I tell you all that because it was part of the backdrop for why Augustine says he thought that law was justified. Part of the reason was, even the peaceful Donatists took Church property with them when they converted to Donatism, and they wouldn’t give up the Catholic churches in their area because they thought they were the true church. St. Augustine says that it was a hallmark of the Donatists that they stole churches: “scarcely any churches of our communion could be safe against their treachery and violence and most undisguised robberies.” (Letter to Count Boniface Chapter 4 Paragraph 18)

I think these two things should be considered together: the Donatists took Catholic property with them when they joined the Donatists, and threw at least one bishop out of his church in order to occupy it. In that light, I can sympathize with St. Augustine’s conclusion that the suppression of the Donatists was justified: they stole church property, and the Church had a right to use force to recover it. Does that make sense?

In other words why punish all Donatists just because some of their members were crossing the line?

According to St. Augustine, after the law for the suppression of the Donatists was promulgated, some of the Donatists returned to the Church right away, because they said the only reason they were Donatists in the first place was that they were afraid that if they had become Catholics they would be persecuted. Now that the law offered them protection, they converted right away. (Letter to Count Boniface Chapter 7 Paragraph 29) Actually, St. Augustine says that most Donatists returned to the Church. The people who remained with the Donatists, according to St. Augustine, were stirred up by their bishops to engage in further violence: “[After] the great masses of the people had been received by the [Church], there remained outside cruel crowds, persevering with unhappy animosity in that madness.” (Letter to Count Boniface Chapter 7 Paragraph 30) Thus, I don’t think he saw the same distinction you do: all, or nearly all, the Donatist communities occupied Catholic property and refused to return it, and if a Donatist didn’t repent and return to the Church when given the opportunity, he was a die-hard and followed his bishops even to the point of violence. Thus, Augustine seemed to think the law suppressing the Donatists fit the principle of just warfare.

Moreover-- in line with his criticisn of Augustines response to the Donatists-- my friend says that the Magisterium has historically not respected–even in principle or as an ideal-- the individual’s freedom of religioj and right to follow ones conscience which you mentioned above.

He would need to provide examples of where the Church violated that right. Earlier in this thread I provided examples that the Church has always taught that religious freedom is a sacred right. It is my understanding that historical examples of wars against heretics were always because of the violence and/or grand theft committed by the heretics, not because they merely believed wrong. If he thinks he knows of historical examples where the Church went against this, ask him to give you specifics, and we can go through them carefully. I think the Church has generally shown a merciful attitude toward heretics as far as possible in history, though I agree that there have been intolerant Catholics in every age.

I wiuld add thwt based on what you have been saying about fredom of religion and conscience, it siunds like Augustine got it wrong in regard to penalizing people just for being Donatists.

I hope what I’ve written here helps you better sympathize with his position.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks Dmar,

Things continue to get more clear. I’m also seeing how dealing with heresy would be something properly addressed by the Church, not the state.

What about Jan Huss? Wouldnt that be an example of how the Church did not respect religious liberty or human rights?

Arent there also papal bulls which sanctioned slavery?

Its not that Im doubting Church teaching or holiness. I’m just trying to seek understwnding.

Thanks so much for your help to this point. Peace of Mary and Jesus, Pat

 

[dmar198]

Thanks Dmar,

Things continue to get more clear. I’m also seeing how dealing with heresy would be something properly addressed by the Church, not the state.

I think there is some ambiguity about the word “Church” that may be confusing matters. When I use the word “Church” in contrast to the word “State,” I typically mean the hierarchy of the Church, that is, clergy, monastics, and lay religious groups. Something like a guild or a university, or the State itself, wouldn’t seem to count in that definition of Church, if my understanding is correct.

However, I think there is a broader definition of the word “Church” that includes those things. This is because it is my understanding that lay Catholics living in the world serve the Church insofar as they follow Church teaching and do their work for the glory of God. Therefore, a university staffed by Catholic laymen who do their work for the glory of God, a guild that follows Catholic principles about work and its purpose, or a State, insofar as its leaders follow Catholic social teaching, can all be included under the term “Church”, if my understanding is correct.

I say all that because it helps clarify what I meant when I said the Church can legitimately use force if its property is taken. I meant that the Church can call upon the State as an instrument with armies, and use them for restoring justice, especially if the Church doesn’t have armies of its own. (Until recent times, the hierarchical Church actually did have armies of its own, separate from the State’s. Today, I think its armies have been disbanded, except for the Swiss guards who guard the pope and perhaps some police who staff the Vatican grounds. And I think those are technically State forces now, since the pope is currently a head of State.)

I know that all this may seem like a minor point in regard to your concerns. Part of what I’m getting at is this: before modern times, it is my understanding that many European nations were Catholic lay associations at heart, Catholic at heart, but writ large, and I think that was a good thing. And I also think a Catholic State has a legitimate role to play in relation to heretics, a responsibility that all lay Catholics share according to their state in life.

So, for example, I think that if Protestantism had only arisen today, a Catholic State could not ordinarily respond by executing the Protestants, but it could fund some missionary teams to go around and preach about why Protestantism is wrong. And, if the Protestants took over Catholic property and refused to return it, I think a Catholic State could legitimately use force to recover it. And, if the Protestant leaders preached violence or theft within the community, and people were listening to them and committing crimes as a result, I think a Catholic State could legitimately arrest them and force them to stop. But not execute them, unless that was the only way to prevent further violent crimes from being carried out, and certainly not just because they preached untrue doctrines.

 

[dmar198]

What about Jan Huss? Wouldnt that be an example of how the Church did not respect religious liberty or human rights?

I don’t think so. It is my understanding that the Church excommunicated Jan Huss for heresy, and handed him over to the State to be punished about a civil matter. Emperor Sigismund then had Huss executed because he believed his teachings would incite some kind of revolution.

It is my understanding that Canon Law of the time forbade any cleric from recommending the death penalty for heretics or from being present at the execution of a heretic. Canon 18 of the 4th Lateran Council declared: “A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.” “No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.”

Assuming it is true that it was not the hierarchical Church but rather Emperor Sigismund who had Jan Huss executed, I’m not sure how to evaluate his judgment. A Church historian whom I consulted thinks he can be defended in this matter, because one of Jan Huss’s teachings was that civil authorities lost all right to command unless they followed some conditions laid out by Huss, which I think included belief in his heresy.

If that is true, then it makes sense to me that the emperor would prevent him from preaching, because he refused to recant his teachings, and if it was allowed to continue his followers would refuse to obey legitimate authority. That is a revolt against the legitimate government, and I think the State has a right to prevent that so long as it doesn’t violate peoples’ rights. But in my opinion, I think the death penalty can hardly ever be justified, and if Huss was so dangerous, why didn’t they just put him in prison? But I don’t want to judge the emperor too harshly because I don’t know if he understood the limits of the death penalty in the same way I do. I don’t know his heart, but if I had to guess I would guess he did his best with the knowledge he had.

Either way, his decision was a secular one and only reflects Church teaching if one can establish on independent grounds that what he did was moral. If he acted immorally, then it merely follows that he misunderstood Church teaching, and some Church leaders did not condemn this either because they were glad to be rid of Jan Huss, or for some other reason.

Arent there also papal bulls which sanctioned slavery?

I believe there are three papal bulls which some cite as authorizing slavery: Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, and Praecelsae. It is my understanding that each of these came after an earlier condemnation of racial slavery called Sicut Dudum by Pope Eugene IV. If my understanding is correct, Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, and Praecelsae only allow for prisoners of war to be put to forced labor, and this condition was called slavery in the bulls because their condition at the time was similar to that of slaves. I don’t think it was the same thing that we call slavery today, because that had already been condemned in the bull Sicut Dudum by Pope Eugene IV.

Its not that Im doubting Church teaching or holiness. I’m just trying to seek understwnding.

I get that, no problem. And remember: even if some of the people in the Church’s history were morally weak and did evil things, that doesn’t mean the Church taught that what they did was okay. That would take a declaration by the Church on the morality of the action in question, and to my knowledge, no such declaration was ever given about any of the cases people usually bring up.

Thanks so much for your help to this point. Peace of Mary and Jesus, Pat

God bless!

 

[patricius79]

Thank you Dmar.

The relationship between church and state is confusing. My favorite writer Mary Rosera Joyce says that Church and state are united but distinct.

But what exactly is the diiference?

You say that a catholic stwte could fund catholic missiknaries to prewch against heresies. But why not just let the church do that. Im prettty sure my friend would disagee with you.

He wouls say that the only role of the state is to protect innate rights. He says the people of europe are fed up with the hierachy getting into politics.

He says that the state has always done more harm than good ehen they try to legislate or promote morality ( beyond protecting individual rights) or religion

 

[dmar198]

Thank you Dmar.

The relationship between church and state is confusing. My favorite writer Mary Rosera Joyce says that Church and state are united but distinct.

But what exactly is the diiference?

That’s a good question, and a good resource for answering it is the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. This book was published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and it is hosted on the Vatican website. It has a format that is very similar to the Catechism, but it focuses on the Church’s social doctrine, political questions, Church and State, the rights of nations, the rights of citizens, the Church’s rights, and stuff like that. I’m going to cite it several times, so you should know it is cited similarly to how the Catechism is. In the Catechism, you cite a paragraph by writing CCC 1234, but you replace the 1234 with whatever the paragraph number is that you are citing. In the Compendium, you cite a paragraph by writing CSD 1234, again writing whatever paragraph you want instead of 1234. (CSD stands for Compendium of the Social Doctrine.)

Now that I’ve said what the Compendium is and how to cite it, these are some sections that I think you would be interested in:

• [The Catholic Church and the political community](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY)
• [Tasks of the political community](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Tasks of the political community)
• [God’s Plan and the mission of the Church: The Church, sign and defender of the transcendence of the human person](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The Church, sign and defender of the transcendence of the human person)

These sections are also very helpful:

• [Foundation and purpose of the political community: Political community, the human person and a people](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Political community, the human person and a people)
• [Defending and promoting human rights](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Defending and Promoting Human Rights)
• [The principle and purpose of the common good: Meaning and primary implications](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...c_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Meaning and primary implications)

If you want to read these sections, I selected them because they tell us what the relationship between Church and State should be, what the purpose of the State is, what the purpose of the Church is, and what the Church means by “common good.”

From them, I think we can derive several principles for this discussion. One principle is this: Church and State are different because they serve two different purposes. The Church primarily serves man’s spiritual needs and the State primarily serves man’s temporal needs. All of this is in CSD 424. A second principle is this: Church and State should support each others’ activities, wherever they are good. The Church calls for “wholesome mutual cooperation in a way suitable to the circumstances of time and place.” (CSD 425)

The Compendium also goes into more detail about how the State serves man. The Compendium says that the State has a responsibility to the common good: “The responsibility for attaining the common good, besides falling to individual persons, belongs also to the State.” (CSD 168) It says this includes “the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods” of all its citizens. (CSD 168)

The Compendium further defines what the common good means: “The common good of society…has value only in reference to attaining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation. God is the ultimate end of his creatures and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent dimension.” (CSD 170)

Since the State serves the common good of man, including his spiritual needs, and the Church calls upon the State to cooperate with the Church to help it serve man’s spiritual needs, I hope that helps you understand why I think the State could do something like provide funding for Catholic missionaries. In my opinion, if there is anything good that the Church does, everybody should get behind it because it is good. And if everybody should get behind it, the State should too. I second that in the other direction: if there is anything good that the State does, everybody should get behind it, including the Church. Because all people are called to support whatever is good in whatever capacity they find themselves.

 

[dmar198]

You say that a catholic stwte could fund catholic missiknaries to prewch against heresies. But why not just let the church do that. Im prettty sure my friend would disagee with you.

I think the State should let the Church send the missionaries, but if it can help the Church be more effective, I think it should, because that’s just being good. This is, I think, why the Church calls for “wholesome mutual cooperation” between Church and State. (CSD 425) As long as each one is doing good, there is no reason why they shouldn’t do what they can to support each other.

He wouls say that the only role of the state is to protect innate rights.

I think that a primary role of the State is to protect innate rights, and the Compendium says that in CSD 388-389: “Considering the human person as the foundation and purpose of the political community means in the first place working to recognize and respect human dignity through defending and promoting fundamental and inalienable human rights.”

But notice this: by the very act of promoting human rights, the State is promoting morality. By protecting the right to life, the State promotes the moral principle “Thou shalt not kill.” By protecting the right to property, the State promotes “Thou shalt not steal.” These are basic moral ideas and your friend is admitting that the State has a role to play there. But if it is good for the State to promote these moral principles, then I think it should promote all sound moral principles.

I don’t think the State (or anybody) should force people to follow all moral principles, but if going to church on Sunday is good, why shouldn’t the State tell people, “Going to church on Sunday is good?” If lying is bad, why shouldn’t the State tell people, “Lying is bad”? If sending out missionaries is good, why shouldn’t the State support it?

He says the people of europe are fed up with the hierachy getting into politics.

Some are, some aren’t. Some people believe the Church when it says: “The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution, nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications.” (CSD 424)

If the State is doing something evil, the Church has a right to say so. Some people in Europe might not like that, but it is a civil right to protest your government’s actions when they are wrong.

He says that the state has always done more harm than good ehen they try to legislate or promote morality ( beyond protecting individual rights) or religion

That’s not true. Many States have promoted morality by building churches, funding missionary teams, and hiring religious advisors to help the State follow moral principles. The only way the State does harm is by not promoting some part of the moral law. The Nazis did harm by not promoting the right to life and the equality of all people. The Communists did harm (and in China they still do harm) by not promoting the right to property and the right to religious freedom. Pick any harmful action by the State, and you can easily identify where they stopped promoting some part of the moral law.

Anyway, I hope that helps, and I hope you can use the resources in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church to learn more about why the Church believes the way it does. Let me know if that helps.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks, Dmar. Very helpful.

I agree with you. But i think my friend would say that if the state provides material support to the Catholic Church, then the State may be forcing non-Catholics to go against their consciences by supporting a religion which they may believe to be false.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks, Dmar. Very helpful.

I agree with you. But i think my friend would say that if the state provides material support to the Catholic Church, then the State may be forcing non-Catholics to go against their consciences by supporting a religion which they may believe to be false.

Ask him if he thinks that’s the attitude Jesus would take. Give him the example that, in Roman times, taxes were used to build pagan temples, and yet Jesus said to pay the taxes anyway. Jesus isn’t telling us to violate our consciences.

From this we can infer that, under ordinary circumstances, if the government does things that you don’t support, paying your taxes shouldn’t be a violation of your conscience. You are doing your job by paying your taxes; they are taking that money and using it how they think they should, and that’s their responsibility, not yours.

 

[patricius79]

Ask him if he thinks that’s the attitude Jesus would take. Give him the example that, in Roman times, taxes were used to build pagan temples, and yet Jesus said to pay the taxes anyway. Jesus isn’t telling us to violate our consciences.

From this we can infer that, under ordinary circumstances, if the government does things that you don’t support, paying your taxes shouldn’t be a violation of your conscience. You are doing your job by paying your taxes; they are taking that money and using it how they think they should, and that’s their responsibility, not yours.

Great points Dmar. Thanks!

 

[patricius79]

Dmar,

Sometimes the issue of religious assent confuses me. For example with the Papal bulls which authorize forced servitude for prisoners of war or which say that it can be the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics…

What does religious assent mean and why do we give it if the statement is fallible?

Also, how or why would it ever be the Holy Spirit’s will to burn a heretic?

 

[dmar198]

Sometimes the issue of religious assent confuses me. For example with the Papal bulls which authorize forced servitude for prisoners of war

It is my understanding that religious assent refers to submission to a teaching. I don’t think the papal bulls you’re asking about qualify. They don’t seem to be doctrinal decrees, but something like a declaration of war, and thus I think it is a category error to talk about religious assent in regard to them. They aren’t even commands. They give the go-ahead to some war plans, but I don’t think they analyze these plans in the light of the Church’s just war doctrine. Thus, I don’t think religious assent is required for their contents.

If the papal documents authorizing war against Muslims and pagans from that time shock us, though, I think the best thing to do is to assume that those documents don’t tell the whole story, assume that their authors were not trying to do evil, and try not to judge peoples’ hearts, especially from six hundred years in the future. We don’t know what their level of understanding was, and I think there is plenty of evidence in other documents from the time (and in the ones in question) that they showed a more merciful attitude to their enemies than they appear to at first glance.

I’m sorry if I can’t be more help than that, but I haven’t done enough research myself to think I have a full understanding of those documents.

or which say that it can be the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics…

I think there are several things we can say about the document that you are referring to, but first I think we should quote it.

Exsurge Domine by Pope Leo X seems to object to the following thesis, without specifying the reason for the objection: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

One reason why the pope could have objected to that thesis is because it doesn’t carry appropriate qualifications or context, and thus could confuse people. Death by burning was a legal punishment for several crimes both in the 16th century and under the Old Testament – Leviticus 20:14, 21:9. Without the proper context, the thesis that heretics, specifically, could not be burned could lead to confusion about this. For example, people at that time might wonder, how come serious crimes carry the punishment of burning, but heretics are exempt? If someone is condemned to die by fire for other reasons than heresy, can they escape the punishment by declaring themselves a heretic? Because “that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

That thesis, without the proper context, could also call into doubt the morality of the Old Testament. The Old Testament laws that require the Jews to burn some sinners do not make an exception for deserters from their faith. Without explanation, to say that burning such a person is against the will of the Holy Spirit seems to say that the Law of Moses was against the will of the Holy Spirit. The pope could have thought this would confuse the faithful, and therefore forbade it to be taught in the form it appears in the document.

I also think it’s important to point out the limitations within Exsurge Domine. It might not mean the thesis in question is an absolute error. Perhaps it could be rehabilitated with the appropriate context, such as “In the New Law, it seems doubtful that the Holy Spirit wills the burning of criminals.” If Martin Luther had provided such a context in the thesis, rather than limiting it only to heretics, I don’t think it would have been listed as “against Catholic truth.”

Exsurge Domine may not even imply that the proposition is definitely heretical. The pope says that the theses quoted are “either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.” In this article, Jimmy Akin seems to argue that this means the theses in Exsurge Domine are rejected with a condition: some of them may not be “false,” if explained in context, but were “seductive of simple minds,” and could be clarified in order to be safely taught.

If that explanation is reasonable, then it reminds me of how some books by faithful Catholic authors used to be put on the Index of Prohibited Books until they could be examined by a theologian and approved. Perhaps Exsurge Domine is, in part, like that: he put many of Martin Luther’s potentially dangerous statements in one document, some of which could be defended if the appropriate qualifications or context were provided.

What does religious assent mean and why do we give it if the statement is fallible?

I think to submit your intellect and will to something means to accept its authority without contradiction. Thus, a man should not contradict a pope’s teaching, not even if it has not been proposed infallibly. I don’t think that automatically means we must agree with the pope’s fallible teachings, but if we defended a contrary position, even to ourselves, I think that would be a refusal to submit our will. Perhaps, if we felt unable to agree with a fallible teaching, the best thing to do would be to withhold judgment until a future clarification by the Church came along. Does that seem reasonable?

I myself don’t understand what religious assent exactly means, but Cardinal Ratzinger tried to explain it in the document “Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” Paragraph 10. The document can be found at the following link if you scroll down almost halfway: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html (Scroll to nearly halfway down.)

Also, how or why would it ever be the Holy Spirit’s will to burn a heretic?

I hope the above explanation helps you understand how I interpret that part.

 

[Genesis315]

Regardinging “religious assent” (obsequium religiousum), it is not absolute like the assent of faith. It may be qualified or even withheld in some circumstances. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine defines it as such:

“as an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called ‘silentium obsequiosum,’ that is 'reverent silence,'does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”

From other old theological manuals I’ve read this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to assimilate the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, but criticism may only be given in a manner consonant with one’s rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ doing the teaching.

See also par. 24 to 31 here where the CDF discussed this in relation to theologians:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html