A
Anesti33
Guest
It is God, the Holy Trinity, speaking to His appointed servants. Surely you do not deny that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit speaks with one voice, without contradiction or confusion?Anesti33:
That’s not Jesus.
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That really only applies to the specific context the Israelites were in, Jesus Himself prevented a stoning so there probably is a less violent way that Christians are called to.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
Defense of the innocent can often be a messy business.Anesti33:
That really only applies to the specific context the Israelites were in, Jesus Himself prevented a stoning so there probably is a less violent way that Christians are called to.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The “truth about history” is more complex than you’re making it out to be, however. It’s not just a “religious” or “Church” issue – it’s an issue about how governments functioned in the age of Christendom, and about civil law, and how certain groups (whether they were based on religion or not) plotted to overthrow kings and governments. It’s about how ‘heresy’ was a determination of the Church, but ‘execution’ was a function of government. Short of an analysis of these salient issues, it’s too simplistic an analysis to conclude “the Church executed heretics; bad, naughty Church!”
Again, the question becomes “was capital punishment for sedition ‘wrong’, in all of the contexts in which it existed?” If the answer is ‘yes’, then it’s not a question of the Church, per se. If the answer is “no, it was not”, then again, it’s not a question of the Church, as such.
Again, with all due respect, I think you’re misconstruing the case. The issue that led to the execution of heretics wasn’t “thought crime”, it was sedition / treason. That’s a crime of action, not merely thought.
I see it differently. The historical conditions then were different than they are now. As a result, our actions – which take place in the context of these conditions – may differ.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It does neither of these. I hope we both think that the Church doesn’t teach error – either in the past or now! Nor, though, does it force us to the conclusion that “morality is relative.” I would argue along lines that are similar to Aquinas’ thought on the question of self-defense: lethal force is morally permissible when it is necessary to attain the goal of defending the innocent. Lethal force is not the goal in and of itself. And, if there’s a way to accomplish the self-defense in the absence of the application of lethal force, then the morally licit action is to achieve the goal of self-defense without recourse to lethal force. This is the case that the Church is making – and has made, at least since JPII’s modification to the CCC – with respect to conditions in the world today.
That’s not the question. The question is “does it deprive a person – who has not yet repented – from seeking repentance in the future?” The answer is manifestly clear: it does.
No, but we’re talking about the state, which is the agent who executes criminals. And society did used to believe that serious criminals were irreformable. For crying out loud, society used to believe that we should punish the children of criminals, since they were from “bad seed”!!! So, I’m afraid that the answer is “yes, societal / cultural wisdom has changed over time, in the direction of ‘mercy’ over ‘justice’, as such.”
It hasn’t. The teaching remains intact. If capital punishment was meant for the protection of society, then there are other ways to achieve that goal today. If it was meant to obliterate a sinner from the earth, our society has matured past that notion.
Two thoughts:
- at least two popes. You’re forgetting about JPII.
- doctrine develops (read up on St John Henry Newman’s “the development of Christian doctrine”). We are seeing a development of doctrine which says “yes… but not necessary in today’s situation.”
G
Gorgias
Guest
This seems to be a favorite straw man. It’s erroneous because we’re not talking about ‘moral relativism’, which would defend the attempt to reach multiple mutually exclusive decisions in identical situations. That’s not the case here: the situations are not identical, and the fact that we’re pointing that out isn’t “relativism”, it’s discernment of different cases.
By your own example, you’re demonstrating that it’s not “moral relativism” that you’re talking about. Different situations lead to different conclusions.
It really is a very good analogy, though.
No, you’re mistaken. Moral relativism asserts that moral judgments are only valid in the context of a particular standpoint, and there is no privileged standpoint that always holds true.
The Catholic position here is not relative: murder is evil; self-defense is morally valid; the use of lethal force in self-defense is valid only when it is necessary to achieve the goal of self-defense. That’s not changed over the years.
P
phil19034
Guest
I also said some people were unjustly sentenced to death by the State & not all clergy were real men of God.phil19034:
You are making sense. But I find it difficult to believe that, say, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were a physical danger to the people.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Which is why I have repeatedly denied that I am making such a conclusion.
Interesting question, but it’s not the question I am asking. I am asking whether we can say today that killing for heresy is wrong. And you have, I recall, answered in the affirmative.
Possibly. But, I repeat, (and either I am expressing myself very badly or … ) I am not asking posters to judge the mediaeval Church. I am asking whether killing people for heresy is wrong. I believe you agree with me that it is.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
She was guilty according to the Jewish Law and Jesus is the true judge.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Except that you keep coming back with the same, unnuanced question, which makes me wonder whether you aren’t actually reaching that conclusion…
See? You keep coming to the same question that doesn’t address the complexity of the topic!
As a secular crime with religious bases? Right.
It ends up feeling like you are. So, maybe the question is “do you think that killing people for heresy today, in the 21st century is wrong?”…?
Already asked and answered: The Catholic position here is not relative: murder is evil; self-defense is morally valid; the use of lethal force in self-defense is valid only when it is necessary to achieve the goal of self-defense. That’s not changed over the years.
However, in the past, it was more likely that these did not adequately protect the public, and therefore, a defense of capital punishment could be offered. The argument being made here, though, is that we now actually have reached the point at which such protection of the innocent is possible in the absence of capital punishment.
“Divine Revelation” and “the understanding of Divine Revelation” are not the same thing, and shouldn’t be conflated. Although we expect no further Revelation, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t continuing to grow in our understanding of it!
J
johnnykins
Guest
Actually there is no doubt that Lee committed treason - he took up arms against the USA. That a political and prosecutorial decision was made not to pursue the action against him does not diminish the fact that he was a traitor. Because he was never convicted he did not bear the legal consequences of his treason…but as a matter of fact it’s indisputable he was a traitor.
So - take down the traitor’s statue.
So - take down the traitor’s statue.
T
TK421
Guest
I don’t think it’s primarily important that Lee was a traitor. Treason is something that is easy to forgive. Some of my favorite historical figures committed treason. Refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the Roman Emperor was treason, among other things. Plenty of Catholics during the French Revolution also committed treason and were executed for it.
I think the more important issue than who did or didn’t commit treason is that the South’s cause was unjust and they were defending an economic system that denigrated human beings. Harriet Tubman was a hero. Lee clearly was not.
I think the more important issue than who did or didn’t commit treason is that the South’s cause was unjust and they were defending an economic system that denigrated human beings. Harriet Tubman was a hero. Lee clearly was not.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Disappointing, because that retreat into relativism retracts your previous agreement. But, no matter, if the answer is “yes” it deals adequately with the poster who said killing for heresy is OK because it stops the heretic endangering people’s souls!
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Relativism”? How do you figure?
I’m certainly framing up the discussion more precisely, but that’s not “relativism”!
That’s certainly a view that doesn’t comport with the discussion here of ‘heresy’ in terms of ‘sedition’ or ‘treason’.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
If you are not implying that heresy might be deserving death in one century but not in another, why the reframing of the question?
It’s an abominable opinion.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because you’re missing the greater context, IMHO.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
And what context am I, IYHO, missing?
H
historyfan81
Guest
A little to vague but I think since they mentioned a heresy it most like the Albigensian Crusade ie the cathar genocide
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Could be, but I hope not. I am discussing heresy unmixed with other motivations, but curiously @GorgIas doesn’t seem to be.
H
historyfan81
Guest
Well we all know every crusade had at least one other motivation for the crusaders the king of France had instrest in the crusade to weaken the count of Toulouse
- Status