Burning Heretics at the stake

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

If the reasoning that the Church shouldn’t have its share of the blame for the death of heretics (because they only passed them off to the one’s that did the actual killing) then do we have anything from the Church speaking out against some of these killings?

Yep. Read up on Jean Brehal’s efforts in the context of the Joan of Arc affair.

That is an interesting story, but it falls outside what I asked. The Church didn’t think she was heretic and (correctly) that there were problems with her trial. I’m looking for instances where the Church thought someone was a heretic, but felt they should be allowed to live while remaining a heretic.

How is handing off a person to be killed any different than handing off someone running from the mob to the mob?

“The civil government” isn’t “the mob”.

You’re missing the point. If a person hands off someone the mob is after there is a good chance that person is going to get killed or at least hurt. That person did so knowing the danger to the other person and unless under duress themselves bears a part of that burden.

If a person handed off a heretic to a state at that time there was a good chance that person was going to get killed if her or she did not recant. That person did so knowing the danger to the other person and unless under duress themselves bears a part of that burden.

If the real reason for the killings wasn’t heresy but the idea that heretics were bringing violence, then do we have examples in that time of heretics who were able to be non-violently open in their heresy without being killed?

The problem was the advocation of the overthrow of the government in favor of a secular government of their own religious stripe.

That’s not what I asked. Surely not every single person who was a heretic was looking to overthrow the government. Do we have a word from the Church about those heretics who were non-violent?

Can we really say that allowing heretics to renounce their heresy mean that this is mercy, when this still means that merely saying that the current orthodoxy is incorrect can lead to death?

No. The renunciation was of the civil offense.

The civil offense being the alleged overthrow of the government not of being a heretic, right? I’ll wait to see what you say regarding the other questions, but let me ask this for now: Would it be right to arrest someone solely for being a non-violent heretic?

 

[GKMotley]

It appears you are focusing here on the Spanish Inquisition. Recommended would be Kamen’s THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Kamen is British but that need not worry you. I think the 3rd edition is the latest. Kamen estimates the Spanish Inquisition death total at around 3000, IIRC.

On the general topic of the Inquisition(s), Peters/INQUISITION is recommended.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

How about I state it like this, I have read the churches interpretations.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If the reasoning that the Church shouldn’t have its share of the blame for the death of heretics (because they only passed them off to the one’s that did the actual killing) then do we have anything from the Church speaking out against some of these killings?

Yes. Both St Augustine and St Ambrose opposed executing heretics in the early centuries of the Church. St Ambrose objected to the first recorded execution (by a civil government) of a bishop accused of heresy and other crimes. St Augustine wanted the Donatists punished by the state because they were attacking, maiming and killing Christians, and wouldn’t respond to verbal exhortations. But he didn’t want them killed.

The idea of executing heretics didn’t really even take hold in a big way until the 1100s or 1200s and the Church resisted the idea, but finally gave in, in view of how violent some of the heretic leaders were.

Invariably this stuff would get all mixed up with politics and defense of Christian people against invaders. But there were still some saints who took positions of love and tolerance to all. Usually they were the Franciscan type who focused on serving others, as opposed to the Dominican type who focused on preaching and defending the faith.

 

[phil19034]

Burning Heretics was done by secular leaders/rulers and sometimes by the mob.

It was not done by the Church.

In Catholic kingdoms, heresy was considered a capital offense IF & WHEN it caused upheaval in the society.

The heresies that often were accompanied with a death sentence where often either associated with rebellion or lead to mass hysteria (like witchcraft).

The Church historically has taught that the state has the right to defend the pubic from crime, insurrection, etc. and that the death penalty was a valid option for a just state to use.

Unfortunately, many times during human history, the death penalty was unjustly applied. And the burning of heretics can fall into this category.

HOWEVER, some heretics were VERY dangerous and it’s a good thing that some of these very dangerous heresies were stomped out. Albigensians are a great example. They believe that the body was evil, therefore, they felt that it was a sin to have babies and would commit abortions and infanticide. Whether in hindsight they really needed to kill the leading heretics of that movement or not to stop it out, I don’t know.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

Heresy is no joke. Allowing it to run amok especially in those days would have caused irreparable harm to humanity. Even back then you had satanic cults that advocated mass suicide. Monsters like Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, and Charles Manson would have found themselves on trial for Heresy real fast.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Some of the heretic leaders were arguably way worse than those guys when it came to mass murders.

 

[tomarin]

Actually there was an effort to hang him by the authorities after the war ended, and Grant stepped in to halt it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It seems Augustine was against hurting heretics at first then changed his opinion.

This article gives an extended quote from a letter from Augustine to Maximus in 392 and a later one to Boniface in 417. They are too lengthy to quote here. Also, this is just from a few hours of research so obviously I can in no way verify its context.

One more telling quote from Augustine is from his Summa Theologiae where he says “Therefore 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.” Now later he does talk about giving an accused heretic a chance or two to recant, but again as I noted earlier that still means he feels an heretic who would not recant is worthy of death.

As far as Ambrose, I agree that I do not see him advocating the death of heretics. But as I’ve been told by others when I point out a Church member doing something despicable, that person does not (necessarily) speak for the Church.

 

[PickyPicky]

OK. So, then:

• if killing by the state might be allowable (putatively, for high crimes against the state)
• and if ‘wicked’ isn’t something you’re willing to level against supporters of capital punishment

… then why would you call capital punishment for the civil crime of ‘heresy’ (a.k.a., ‘sedition’ or ‘treason’) in the relatively distant past “wicked”?

I don’t know how often it’s necessary to say this, but I shall say it again, then finish my breakfast.

When considering the actions of people in the “relatively distant” past, it is proper to see them in context, as people of a particular age, thinking and behaving as that age thought and behaved.

That doesn’t mean that we have to approve of that behaviour, just that it is unfair to judge people of one age by the standards of another.

It is clear that I do not approve of how the Church carried out its rôle in the prohibition of heresy. But I have not called the Church wicked. My posts have addressed two points:

1 — the “shuffling off” charge: that posters resort to blaming the state as though the Churcb were not deeply integrated into the persecution of heretics.

2 — the refusal of people to accept that killing for heresy (not killing for other crimes) is wicked; even arguing that a Catholic view of the destiny of the soul is sufficient to justify a death sentence against Christian heretics.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The blog post clearly notes that scholar Zagorin said that although Augustine, over a long period of time and being frustrated with other methods to fix the problem not working, acquiesced to his fellow Christians’ desire to torture and even kill heretics, Augutine still “personally continued to oppose execution of heretics.” Furthermore, even if Augustine expressed this eventually, the Augustinian position against heretics is considered one of the major factors that generally kept the Church from focusing on executing heretics for the first thousand years of its existence, until the idea of executions grew in popularity around 1100.

I find that blog post to be suspect as it goes against other history I have read on the matter pointing to Augustine as having influenced a lot of other thinkers to oppose executions for hundreds of years. Another factor, as I understand it, is that heresy prior to about the 1200s was generally considered to be a crime of clerics, not lay people, so lay people generally weren’t considered to be able to commit heresy.

I think, however, if you’re looking for figures within the Church who always made the absolute perfect, kind, non-violent response, throughout a very violent era, you’re going to be hard-pressed to find them unless like I said you focus on those saints who were mainly dedicated to offering service and hospitality to all. They didn’t ask whether a person was a heretic before they helped them, they just went ahead and helped.

 

[Gorgias]

You’re missing the point. If a person hands off someone the mob is after there is a good chance that person is going to get killed or at least hurt. That person did so knowing the danger to the other person and unless under duress themselves bears a part of that burden.

Nope. I’m trying to demonstrate that you’re missing the point. The civil government has the authority and duty to enforce its laws. “Handing someone over to the mob”, such that the mob takes an illegal act is nothing like handing someone over to the civil authorities.

Surely not every single person who was a heretic was looking to overthrow the government.

Ahh, but what if they were advocating for a system different than that currently in charge? That’s the whole point.

Do we have a word from the Church about those heretics who were non-violent?

Sure seems like you’re arguing facts not in evidence…

The civil offense being the alleged overthrow of the government not of being a heretic, right?

The civil offense being an advocate of a different system. Yep.

Would it be right to arrest someone solely for being a non-violent heretic?

You’d have to show evidence that such a person exists. Remember: heresy spoke to sedition against the standing government. “Non-violent” isn’t a category in that context.

How about I state it like this, I have read the churches interpretations.

…and have decided that you know better than that Church. Right!

One more telling quote from Augustine is from his Summa Theologiae

Aquinas wrote the Summa, not Augustine. You’re quoting Aquinas here.

the “shuffling off” charge: that posters resort to blaming the state as though the Churcb were not deeply integrated into the persecution of heretics.

“Persecution” tends to imply innocence. Why are you implying that they were innocent of crimes of the day?

the refusal of people to accept that killing for heresy (not killing for other crimes) is wicked

So… if heresy is tied into sedition, and killing for sedition isn’t wicked, why is killing for heresy? That’s the question you’re not answering.

 

[PickyPicky]

“Persecution” tends to imply innocence. Why are you implying that they were innocent of crimes of the day?

“Tends to”. Or perhaps it just represents my sympathy for the underdog, on whichever side.

So… if heresy is tied into sedition, and killing for sedition isn’t wicked, why is killing for heresy? That’s the question you’re not answering.

Heresy was tied to sedition, I am concerned about people who think killing for heresy is OK whether tied to sedition or otherwise.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Did you happen to review the quotations and citations that have led to my disagreeing with you?

Getting it Wrong About the Death Penalty - OnePeterFive

 

[Gorgias]

Heresy was tied to sedition, I am concerned about people who think killing for heresy is OK whether tied to sedition or otherwise.

Well, there’s no longer any statutes on the books identifying a crime of ‘heresy’, so the question is moot… no?

Did you happen to review the quotations and citations that have led to my disagreeing with you?

So… the folks at OnePeterFive say so. Hardly an authoritative interpretation. Besides which, they’re getting it wrong about ‘getting it wrong’. The Church is simply saying that in the present day, capital punishment is untenable. She’s not making historical claims or attempting to reverse doctrine.

 

[Montrose]

the Church has infallibly supported capital punishment through her ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.

That is nonsense. Please provide Church documents that support your claim.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I read the book, “The First Crusade: A New History,” by Thomas Asbridge.

I don’t recall Crusaders burning heretics at the stake and they were instructed by the Pope, not to harm Jews.

The only crusade which violated that was an unofficial crusade led by Peter the Hermit, where they burned a village of Jews and put all of them to death. They were not an official Crusade and never made it out of Eastern Europe before the Pope ordered them to stop and disband

 

[ConcernedConvert]

That tells me you did not look to the citations and quotations within the article.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

• “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11)
• “Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:1-4).

We may also examine papal and magisterial pronouncements:

• “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.” (Pope Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495)
• Condemned as an error : “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520)
• “The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)
• “Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)

 

[Montrose]

We may also examine papal and magisterial pronouncements:

The CCC contains a summary of Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible). I can’t find any infallible teaching supporting your claim.
Nor do I see any infallible teaching in the documents you refer to.