Burning Heretics at the stake

[PickyPicky]

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

Not really. There are states that will kill heretics. There are people who will do the deed on, as it were, a freelance basis.

They are wrong, as far as I am concerned, whether or not they wrap their wickedness in allegations of sedition.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

You can choose to look at it that way if you wish. However, that does not negate the continual magisterial teaching on the matter throughout the churches history.

 

[phil19034]

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

Killing heretics for simply being a heretic is wrong. Always was. But sedition was a capital offense and was treated as treason. The truth is, many (not all or even most) heretics were took part in sedition.

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.

The mystical Body of the Church (aka the Body of Christ) was not part of the persecution of heretics. However, individual priests and bishops were. Even the Pope was in his role as Head of State for the Papal States. The general view of the magisterium of the Church was that the State had the right to use the death penalty to protect their subjects. The Church would try to help heretics to repent so they could either be pardoned by the secular state or at worst, so the person could meet God with a clean slate.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

And finally, some teachings from the doctors of the Church:

• “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason. ” – (St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)
• It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). – (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae , II, II, q. 64, art. 2)
• In Iota Unum, Romano Amerio cites St. Thomas on the expiatory nature of accepting a death sentence:

“Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment for those crimes in the next life, or at least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation, and contrition; but a natural death does not.” (Cf. Romano Amerio Iota Unum , 435)

 

[RobertAdams]

You guys will be amazed to know that countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea exist. So the idea that executing heretics is a quaint historical phenom understandable in its context but silly to consider with a 21st century bias has a strong odour of the “moral relatvism” that upsets so many when applied elsewhere.

 

[Kaninchen]

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.

Cakeism has a formidable history.

 

[PickyPicky]

The mystical Body of the Church (aka the Body of Christ) was not part of the persecution of heretics. However, individual priests and bishops were. Even the Pope was in his role as Head of State for the Papal States. The general view of the magisterium of the Church was that the State had the right to use the death penalty to protect their subjects

The mystical Body of the Church was not involved, only individual priests and bishops and the Pope. Backed by the magisterium of the Church. Seems to me that was sufficient involvement for the added weight of the mystical Body hardly to have been required.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The mystical Body of the Church (aka the Body of Christ) was not part of the persecution of heretics. However, individual priests and bishops were. Even the Pope was in his role as Head of State for the Papal States. The general view of the magisterium of the Church was that the State had the right to use the death penalty to protect their subjects

The mystical Body of the Church was not involved, only individual priests and bishops and the Pope. Backed by the magisterium of the Church. Seems to me that was sufficient involvement for the added weight of the mystical Body hardly to have been required.

That’s not how it works.

Priests, bishops and Popes are human. They can sin. They can make horrible mistakes and do horrible things.

But that doesn’t mean that God approved it.

The Church is infallible and speaks for God. But priests, bishops and even the Pope doesn’t always speak for the Church nor do they always speak for God.

Catholics have a saying: “the road to hell is paved with priests and bishops.” Why, because ever since Judas, some bishops have been corrupt and anti-Christ.

But we don’t abandon Jesus and His Church because of Judas & Judas’ corrupt successors.

 

[PickyPicky]

Killing heretics for simply being a heretic is wrong

Well I’m glad to hear you say so, because it has been difficult to find anyone else who will.

This following is the sort of opinion that I am arguing against and which, frankly, appals me:

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

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Killing heretics for simply being a heretic is wrong

Well I’m glad to hear you say so, because it has been difficult to find anyone else who will.

This following is the sort of opinion that I am arguing against and which, frankly, appals me:

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

Yeah, but you are misunderstanding that quotation.

Not all heresy is equal. For example: a person who thinks it is OK to get remarried without an annulment is a heretic. Such a heretic would NEVER have faced execution.

The heretics who faced execution were always a physical DANGER to society. They would often inspire revolts and/or mass hysteria. Some, like Albigensians, committed heinous crimes in the name of their heresy. The Albigensians would commit abortions, infanticide & encouraged ritual suicides and mass killings because they believed all matter was evil, hence the body was evil and needed to be killed. So the Albigensians were very dangerous and their leaders were very radical, and lead to many innocent people to be killed in the name of their heresy.

So yes, the application of the death penalty was used (legitimately) for heretics who posed a physical danger to the people. But it wasn’t simply for being a heretic. Again, it was because they were a physical danger to society & the people.

Again, most heretics were not convicted of a crime, because most herecies were not criminal. Only MAJOR heresies that had negative PHYSICAL impact on society were capital offenses.

I pray I’m making sense. Because again: someone who simply believed a Trinitarian or Christological heresy were not sentenced to death.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Haha you continue to assert it is some sort of personal opinion of mine. It is not, as I have more than abundantly demonstrated.

In fact: as I have shared as well, to believe what you believe was condemned as an anathema.

• Condemned as an error : “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520)

It’s not a pleasant teaching, I will concede to that. But to state it is wicked or wrong is not factual.

 

[phil19034]

Haha you continue to assert it is some sort of personal opinion of mine. It is not, as I have more than abundantly demonstrated.

In fact: as I have shared as well, to believe what you believe was condemned as an anathema.

• Condemned as an error : “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520)

It’s not a pleasant teaching, I will concede to that. But to state it is wicked or wrong is not factual.

I think the issue here is that you are not explaining this teaching in context.

Let’s see if my explanation to @pickypicky helps at all.

 

[Gorgias]

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

I absolutely did. They’re claiming that the Church is changing doctrine. She isn’t. She’s changing practice. You (and OnePeterFive) are mistaken when you claim the former.

Please notice that none of your citations make claims that are in the revision to the catechism:

• more effective systems of detention have been developed
• these ensure the due protection of citizens
• at the same time, they do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

See? Practice, not doctrine.

There are states that will kill heretics.

In the West?

 

[PickyPicky]

I pray I’m making sense. Because again: someone who simply believed a Trinitarian or Christological heresy were not sentenced to death

You are making sense. But I find it difficult to believe that, say, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were a physical danger to the people.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Frankly I don’t care what 1P5 says, I linked that article because it contained a plethora of historical and magisterial teachings in one location. Those I do happen to care about.

If she is not making historical claims, as you identified, than the churches position on capital punishment has not changed, and would remain consistent to what it has always been.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I would like to ask about the third bullet point you noted here.

Does capital punishment inherently deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption?
If it does, has it always?

 

[Montrose]

You can choose to look at it that way if you wish. However, that does not negate the continual magisterial teaching on the matter throughout the churches history.

It’s not a case of how I look at it. I was simply pointing out that there has never been an infallible teaching on this subject.

 

[PickyPicky]

In the West?

I’m not sure why we should restrict our concern geographically.

 

[Anesti33]

ConcernedConvert:

You can choose to look at it that way if you wish. However, that does not negate the continual magisterial teaching on the matter throughout the churches history.

It’s not a case of how I look at it. I was simply pointing out that there has never been an infallible teaching on this subject.

If the teaching had been fallible, then Pope Francis would have had no problem. Define doctrine that CP is intrinsically evil, repudiate the old teachings, causa finita est. That’s not what happened.

 

[Montrose]

If the teaching had been fallible, then Pope Francis would have had no problem. Define doctrine that CP is intrinsically evil, repudiate the old teachings, causa finita est . That’s not what happened.

I repeat that there is no infallible teaching on this subject.