Burning Heretics at the stake

[PickyPicky]

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

Sure. History is complicated. And while the deeds of our forebears may distress us, it is pointless to criticise people of a particular time for thinking and acting the way people thought and acted. Their deeds may be evil, but they were not necessarily evil people. People are moulded by their times.

Nonetheless we are not freed from making moral decisions about deeds just because people in the past carried out those deeds in the context of the times.

Kings may in the past have cut off the tongues of people who criticised them. The fact that this was commonplace at the time, and criticising the king was considered treason, means we can judge the king by the standards of the time. It doesn’t mean we can’t agree that (a) such a punishment is brutal and (b) criticising a king should not incur such a punishment.

 

[Anrakyr]

Kings may in the past have cut off the tongues of people who criticised them. The fact that this was commonplace at the time, and criticising the king was considered treason, means we can judge the king by the standards of the time. It doesn’t mean we can’t agree that (a) such a punishment is brutal and (b) criticising a king should not incur such a punishment.

Here’s the thing that concerns me;

Assuming for a moment the church somehow magically reestablished the holy roman empire and assuming it was a just state; would it be legal to be a heathen in that state? Catholic morality is not civil morality and I happen to know for a fact there are people who hope and pray they can enact that kind of state.

For reasons not limited to sentencing women who have abortions to prison or death.

So where does the current line get drawn? Would a catholic state be a tolerant state?
I’d argue no.

 

[GKMotley]

Very likely.

 

[Gorgias]

And what context am I, IYHO, missing?

If you’re talking about “burning heretics at the stake”, you’re inherently talking about a secular authority applying a secularly-imposed penalty.

Now, if you were to say “it’s wicked to declare someone ‘heretic’ and tell them ‘you are condemned to hell for your heresy’”, then I’d understand your argument; it’s a religious pronouncement with spiritual effects.

But, since your problem is with the secular imposition of capital punishment, then singling out ‘heresy’ seems to be a bit myopic.

I am discussing heresy unmixed with other motivations, but curiously @GorgIas doesn’t seem to be.

Because you’re mixing in other punishments, outside of the religious declaration of ‘heresy’. Not so curious. It just seems odd that you’re singling out the Church in a context which is far more expansive than that.

 

[historyfan81]

i agree in not judging 13th century men based on our moral standars , they did not see their deeds as evil compared to the standar of the time but they still where , I would desagree on the cathar genocide beeing a necessary evil.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

This Catholic will say,

“We shouldn’t have done that. It was a terrible mistake. Mea culpa.”

 

[Pattylt]

@Sarcelle, I love you! :heavy_heart_exclamation:

 

[Sarcelle]

So where does the current line get drawn? Would a catholic state be a tolerant state?
I’d argue no.

Any state would be tolerant of something and intolerant of other things.

How they deal with intolerance is another thing.

Any system made by humans, Catholic or non-Catholics, will have issues and problems.

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

Or, we can say that the thought that this was merely about ‘religion’ and not about ‘overthrow of one group of leaders in favor of others’ is a misrepresentation of what happened in Europe in the wake of the Reformation.

I agree absolutely. It was of course about a variety of religious and social and political disputes. But can we not, today, say that burning people to death for religious heresy is wicked? Can we not say that today?

Yes of course we can, should, and must say that.
That is not really the question though. The question is about events shrouded in history in remote cultural and political contexts that we can’t begin to grasp. We ought to learn as best we can, admit evils and errors, and repent (literally “change our way of thinking”).
Projecting out-of-context historical events on current peoples and issues is pointless. You can smear anybody with that tactic from atheists to Bhuddists. We all have blood on our hands at some point in the past.

 

[goout]

PickyPicky:

Kings may in the past have cut off the tongues of people who criticised them. The fact that this was commonplace at the time, and criticising the king was considered treason, means we can judge the king by the standards of the time. It doesn’t mean we can’t agree that (a) such a punishment is brutal and (b) criticising a king should not incur such a punishment.

Here’s the thing that concerns me;

Assuming for a moment the church somehow magically reestablished the holy roman empire and assuming it was a just state; would it be legal to be a heathen in that state? Catholic morality is not civil morality and I happen to know for a fact there are people who hope and pray they can enact that kind of state.

For reasons not limited to sentencing women who have abortions to prison or death.

So where does the current line get drawn? Would a catholic state be a tolerant state?
I’d argue no.

You could make that argument about any state and it’s intolerance for dis-favored people or points of view.
It would especially apply to intentionally God-less regimes, if 20th century history taught us anything (I don’t think it has really…)

 

[Anrakyr]

Any state would be tolerant of something and intolerant of other things.

How they deal with intolerance is another thing.

Any system made by humans, Catholic or non-Catholics, will have issues and problems

You could make that argument about any state and it’s intolerance for dis-favored people or points of view.

Most states do not base their laws on moral absolutism.

It would especially apply to intentionally God-less regimes, if 20th century history taught us anything

I’d trust a godless state then one based on religion. I say that as someone of faith who would turn down making a society out of it.

 

[Anesti33]

I’d trust a godless state then one based on religion. I say that as someone of faith who would turn down making a society out of it.

Yes, it worked well for Pol Pot, Jozef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Slobodan Milosevic, et. al.

 

[PickyPicky]

If you’re talking about “burning heretics at the stake”, you’re inherently talking about a secular authority applying a secularly-imposed penalty.

Now, if you were to say “it’s wicked to declare someone ‘heretic’ and tell them ‘you are condemned to hell for your heresy’”, then I’d understand your argument; it’s a religious pronouncement with spiritual effects.

But, since your problem is with the secular imposition of capital punishment, then singling out ‘heresy’ seems to be a bit myopic

Determining the future population of Hell is a grim pastime, and naming names would tend to be impolite. But after all it is just an expression of opinion, and if not pressed too inappropriately need not concern us here. Killing people is on a different level.

You seem unaccountably concerned with whether the offence is civil or religious, and whether those responsible for the punishment are clergy or lay. Or perhaps it is not, after all, unaccountable.

It just seems odd that you’re singling out the Church

OK, one last time. I have made two points:

1 the posters who deny that the Church shared responsibility for the burning of heretics in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period are trying to shuffle off responsibility.

2 the poster who said killing heretics is acceptable because heretics endanger people’s souls was expressing an abominable opinion.

And I have made it clear that I am not singling out the Church. Whoever is the perpetrator — Church or State or Ayatollah, or local mob armed with clubs, or a lone creep with a firearm — killing people for heresy is wrong.

I repeat myself: it must be becoming tedious. I wish you well.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

To be quite exact, Inquisition and all Church Tribunals were preferable to Secular Tribunals. University students have often claimed they are clergy just so that Church could judge them and not the State. Church was viewed by people living in this age to be mild in punishment and fair in judgment… but if we judge that age by standards of our age this gets ignored.

Capital Punishment was not for thinking differently. John Hus came to Council, was condemned as heretic and was allowed to go home. However, he remained in the city and started preaching (which could and nearly did incite revolt). For disturbing common good and for inciting revolts he was burned. He was given safe passage, not safe stay.

Secular Rulers often derived their authority from their Faith. Abandoning the Faith meant you were very close to abandoning the State… which is why they were careful with heretics. However heresy itself wasn’t punished with death. Proof of this is that Jews and Orthodox (who were viewed by many as heretics at the time) could live among populace with ease.

 

[Gorgias]

You seem unaccountably concerned with whether the offence is civil or religious, and whether those responsible for the punishment are clergy or lay. Or perhaps it is not, after all, unaccountable.

And, from my perspective, you seem unaccountably concerned to press the notion of the Church’s guilt. Guess we’re at an impasse?

I repeat myself: it must be becoming tedious. I wish you well.

LOL! Yep… impasse.

 

[johnnykins]

The US Constitution defines exactly one crime - Treason. If you think this is easy to forgive, you have clearly never looked at the definition:
Section 3. Treason against the United States , shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

[goout]

I’d trust a godless state then one based on religion. I say that as someone of faith who would turn down making a society out of it.

Based on what?
Do the body count.
This isn’t a call for a theocracy. And that includes atheist theocracies. For all the sins of Christians over the years, atheism is more deadly to human well being than any other religion. The “benign tolerance” vision of atheism is a myth.