Burning Heretics at the stake

  • Thread starter Thread starter SheepsCousin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SheepsCousin

Guest
So recently the TV was on and it mentioned about Catholic Crusaders who burned all the men women and children of a particular heresy at the stake.

Has the church ever made an infallible declaration on the morality of this? I personally don’t see how someone in good conscience could do this.
 
Last edited:
I’m trying to find more info but I can’t seem to find any. However, I’m just more looking at these questions: Has the church ever infallibly taught it is okay to burn Heretics at the stake and as a Catholic can I disagree with people in the past doing so?
 
Perhaps you should get some information from a reliable source on the Inquisition and/or the Crusades.

More often than not (all the time) the Catholic Church tried heretics and turned them over to the State for punishment. This punishment included capital punishments, and yes, the Church has infallibly supported capital punishment through her ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Catholic Encyclopedia
Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. Even in the case of heresy, of which so much is made by non-Catholic controversialists, the functions of ecclesiastics were restricted invariably to ascertaining the fact of heresy. The punishment, whether capital or other, was both prescribed and inflicted by civil government. The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisability of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.
Willis, J. (1911). Capital Punishment. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm
 
Pope Leo X did condemn an error of Luther in the Bull Exsurge Domine, where the contradictory being affirmed by the Pope was that one cannot say it is intrinsically wrong in every possible case. That being said, you could certainly be of the opinion that it was wrong in each case that has actually happened. The same analysis would be used to determine if the death penalty were justified in other kinds of cases. I don’t see how the indiscriminate slaughter you describe in your first post could be justified though.

Heresy during that time period–especially the kind punished with imprisonment or death–generally entailed more than just someone believing the wrong thing. It was usually the kind that was such a threat to the common good as to undermine the very peace and security of a society.

For better or worse, in the experience of many in those times and subsequent centuries, heresy usually introduced bloody conflict and chaos, tearing at the very fabric of social stability and displacing peoples. Look at what people like the Albigensians, Arnold of Brescia, or Hus and Wycliffe promoted and what it led to? Look at what happened during the Reformation? Even Martin Luther changed his stance from opposing to supporting it after he saw the chaos those opposing the Lutheran order caused. Not to mention it had been taken for granted as necessary as having been part of imperial law in the East and West since the Justinian Code.

St. Thomas More (before things had really gotten out of hand with the Reformation), who himself participated in such executions, put it this way:
If the heretics had never started with the violence, then even if they had used all the ways they had ways they could to lure the people by preaching, even if they had thereby done what Luther does now and Mohammed did before – bring into vogue opinions pleasing to the people, giving them licence for licentiousness – yet if they had left violence alone, good Christian people would perhaps all the way up to this day have used less violence towards them than they do now. And yet heresy well deserves to be punished as severely as any other sin, since there is no sin that more offends God. However, as long as they refrained from violence, there was little violence done to them. And certainly though God is able against all persecution to preserve and increase his faith among the people, as he did in the beginning, for all the persecution inflicted by the pagans and the Jews, that is still no reason to expect Christian princes to allow the Catholic Christian people to be oppressed by Turks or by heretics worse than Turks.
Hindsight is of course 20/20, there were no doubt abuses and sin (as there are in any justice system run by fallen humans), but in general people in those times often had good faith reasons to believe it was necessary to defend the common good. Whether it was actually justified in a particular case is of course debatable. We have the benefit of a lot of practice and experience of peaceful pluralism and mutual tolerance, but even our situation was born first from chaos, violence and bloodshed when the older order was destroyed.
 
Last edited:
. Whether it was actually justified is of course debatable
It would be good if we could at least come to the conclusion that, whatever was thought in the past, burning people to death for heresy is abominable.
 
I just want to say from an outsiders point of view, if the Church condemned them and turned them over to the civil authorities knowing they would be burned at the stake and then the Catholic civil authorities did what was expected of them by burning them…you can’t really say the Church didn’t have some of that blood on their own hands, too.

Why is it so hard for many Catholics to just say, “yeah, we shouldn’t have done that”? Instead we get explanations of why the church was innocent? I’m sorry, she wasn’t.
 
It would be good if we could at least come to the conclusion that, whatever was thought in the past, burning people to death for heresy is abominable.
You mean the method? Burning at the stake was inherited from Roman law and was generally seen as a normal punishment. I think the fact that it was eventually suppressed and replaced with other means to punish proportionate crimes shows the agreement with that conclusion. Not that any method of death is nice or pleasant.

There were certainly heresy cases where I think the execution was proportionate and just even if the method was not (again, it was not for someone peacefully living in disagreement).
 
Last edited:
You mean the method? Burning at the stake was inherited from Roman law. I think the fact that eventually was suppressed with other means shows that agreement
No, I don’t just mean the method. And the way you express what you feel about the method is less than wholehearted. You could say “times change, people change, but it’s clear today that burning people to death is abominable”. Surely that is possible to say?
There were certainly heresy cases where I think the execution was proportionate and just even if the method was not (again, it was not for someone peacefully living in disagreement).
Dear me no. Execution for, say, murder has been argued as proportionate, and we could have an interesting argument at a different occasion about that. But execution for heresy? No, that could never be justified. Could it?
 
But execution for heresy? No, that could never be justified. Could it?
I don’t think most modern people understand the serious threat heresy posed in many cases. Today we think of heresy in a flip manner-- free thinkers who say “I don’t believe that” and go about their business.

But, no, that isn’t what it was in that day and time. Most heretical movements fomented sedition and treason. History is littered with heretical movements that promoted the overthrow of governments and the social order. Yes, those things were taken as treason and sedition against the state and taken seriously.

Also, heretics were encouraged and given many opportunities to recant their positions. Obstinate refusal to do so resulted in the state stepping in to punish offenders.

BTW, treason in the US still carries the maximum penalty of capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
So recently the TV was on and it mentioned about Catholic Crusaders who burned all the men women and children of a particular heresy at the stake.
Well, firstly “all”? No.

Crusaders weren’t charged with that at all. The inquisition investigated heresy charges and acted as a court. The state punished offenders with jail or capital punishment.
Has the church ever made an infallible declaration on the morality of this?
No.
 
I personally don’t see how someone in good conscience could do this.
Hard to judge this from our 21st century perspective. Yes, Catholics burned heretics, Protestants burned Catholics. The middle ages were a cauldron of painful methods of punishment, most of which had already been tried and perfected by previous “civilizations”. Humankind has seldom been noted historically for it’s kind and gentle manner when it comes to enforcing the law.
 
Heresy in those times was more akin to sedition with similar effects on the common good. Such heretics were also given multiple chances first–spiritual penalties like excommunication, then things like fines, exile, imprisonment, etc.

Echoing More in my prior post, here’s an explanation based on one example by a US bishop, John Hughes responding to a Protestant minister
Let any man apply the doctrines of the Albigenses, simply on two points, viz. the tenet that the devil was the creator of the visible world ; and that, in order to avoid co-operation with the devil in continuing his work, the faithful should take measures by which the human race should come to an end ; and then say whether those errors were merely speculative. They were, on the contrary, pregnant with destruction to society. Was it persecution, or rather, was it not self-preservation, to arrest those errors? We shall see presently, however, that these men, like the Calvinists in France at a later period, took up the sword of sedition, and wielded it against the government under which they lived. We shall see, that long before the canon of Lateran was passed, their course was marked with plunder, rapine, bloodshed. And if so, it follows that their crimes against society springing from their doctrines, constitute the true reason of the severity of the enactment against them.

Their existence was known from the year 1022. If, then, the extermination of heretics had been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, why were they not exterminated from the first? If it was not a doctrine of the church in 1022, it was not a doctrine in 1215; for the gentleman himself admits and proclaims that our doctrines never change. Why then did not the Catholics exterminate them at once ? Is it that they were not able ? No : for at first the heresy had but few supporters. But why were they afterwards persecuted ? The reason is, that in the interval they had proceeded to sustain and propagate their infernal principles, by violence. They had placed themselves under the patronage of factious and rebellious barons, and had fought in pitched battles against their sovereigns. In the former controversy, the gentleman garbled the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of Lateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to awful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors of the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning and conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, suppressing the crimes of these proto-martyrs of Calvinism. It was proved, by the very document from which he quoted, that these lambs of the Albigensian fold were “exercising such cruelty on the Christians, that they paid no respect to churches or monastaries, spared neither virgins nor widows, neither old nor young, neither sex nor age, but after the manner of pagans destroyed and desolated every thing.”
In the past heretics didn’t tolerate the orthodox either, and so it was often a matter of self-preservation. Clearly experience and mutual toleration has been to everyone’s benefit. And I agree with our common conclusion we’ve come to that burning was unnecessarily cruel.
 
Last edited:
But, no, that isn’t what it was in that day and time. Most heretical movements fomented sedition and treason. History is littered with heretical movements that promoted the overthrow of governments and the social order. Yes, those things were taken as treason and sedition against the state and taken seriously.
Yes, treason and sedition are capital offences in many places today, and many would hold that capital punishment is an appropriate remedy. But heresy? Surely we can agree in 2020 that execution is not appropriate for heresy?
Also, heretics were encouraged and given many opportunities to recant their positions. Obstinate refusal to do so resulted in the state stepping in to punish offenders
This is just what @Pattylt was complaining about: the Church backs away and responsibility is left to the state.
 
I think even the scripture supports actions such as execution for heresy.
For we need to understand that the consequences of heresy lead to the destruction of souls for those who fall into them. Eternal souls are arguably more important than temporal life.

Mathew 18,6

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.“
 
I believe what you are referring to is the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in southern France. While a large group of Cathars were indeed burned, I’m not sure that an entire town including children were. I may be wrong. It looks, on the surface, as if it conflates the widespread killing in several towns of the Levant during the Crusades against the Muslims with Les Albis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top