Catholic Heretics and the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter robert_newman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The difference is that Jesus didn’t put him on the cross. And Jesus forgave him of his sin.

Nor should the church execute or cause the willful death of any man.
 
Here is a short quote from the book by Lepicier, also approved by the Papacy and published in the 20th century -
  1. ‘De stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis’ – Fr Alexius M Lepicier, Ord. Serv, BMV, Professor of Sacred Theology in the Pontifical College De Propaganda Fide. Prefaced with a letter from the Papal Secretary saying ‘the supreme Pontiff was immensely pleased with this work’.
quote -

‘Q. Should heretics be tolerated ?

A. ‘No one can doubt that they NOT ONLY DESERVE TO BE SEVERED FROM THE CHURCH BY EXCOMMUNICATION, BUT THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE MIDST OF THE LIVING BY DEATH’ (Fr Alexius M Lepicier).
 
Please understand - the church NEVER NEVER NEVER itself, as an institution, put anyone to death for any reason. Things like heresy were punished with death in every country - Catholic and Protestant - for many centuries. This was BECAUSE heresy was ALSO a CIVIL crime, being a threat to the peace of nations. People got upset and in fact riotous and violent, over religious issues. Kings, Queens, Dukes and other CIVIL lawmakers disliked it intensely enough to themselves make laws subjecting heretics to death.

This is why, for example, Henry VIII was burning Protestants up until the 1530s or so and Catholics AFTER his break from Rome. HE didn’t like heresy, which was a threat to the peace of his realm. Catholic Canon law on what heresy was never changed - the civil law’s definition of it, during his reign, did a complete 180.

Remember Popes and some bishops were civil rulers - of sizeable physical territories - as well as religious leaders. They wore more than one hat, so to speak. The religious hat was the one that defined heresy and tried people for it. The civil ruler hat was the one that decided that heresy was enough of a *political *threat to enact the death penalty under CIVIL, not Canon, law.

Think of Jesus’ own crucifixion in the Bible. The Jewish religious authorities could try him and find him guilty of blasphemy. They couldn’t and didn’t directly kill him. They had to go to the secular (non-religious or civil) authority - the Roman governor (Pilate) to get a death sentence passed against him. Remember Pilate was reluctant to do so until the Jews kicked up enough of a stink to threaten the peace. But in the end he did.

Same principles apply in Europe in the Middle Ages.

I really hope this clears things up for you.
 
I’d defend the traditional position that dangerous heretics should be put to death (by the civil authorities in Catholic states) if no other options remain to protect innocent minds from their wiles…

BUT I’ve already been suspended once for advocating that. Though people are allowed to “debate” here in favor of the heinous murder of the unborn (I guess because, while evil, pro-abortion is still a “socially acceptable” position to hold), it seems the neocons at CAF have no tolerance for “embarassing” old positions of the Church (held for centuries mind you) if there has been policy change in merely the past 40 years and the position is no longer seen as socially acceptable…

Private Message me if you want to discuss this.
 
Dear LilyM,

Thank you for your post. Yes, I completely agree with what you wrote.

The Roman Catholic Church didn’t physically kill these people. It tried them (as you say yourself). It condemned them. And it then got the dirty work to be done by the state executioners.

This is barbaric. We still have (as you can see on this thread) similar views being taught and papally approved in the 20th century by leading Catholic scholars.

So it begs the question of what, exactly (if anything) has changed in modern times as far as Catholic teaching is concerned.
 
robert_newman said:
Dear LilyM,

Thank you for your post. Yes, I completely agree with what you wrote.

The Roman Catholic Church didn’t physically kill these people. It tried them (as you say yourself). It condemned them. And it then got the dirty work to be done by the state executioners.

This is barbaric. We still have (as you can see on this thread) similar views being taught and papally approved in the 20th century by leading Catholic scholars.

So it begs the question of what, exactly (if anything) has changed in modern times as far as Catholic teaching is concerned.
Click to expand...
If Catholic teachings dont change then the Church has done it’s job. The Church cannot go into heresy.

I still support the idea that the infamous heretics (Luther, Calvin, ect.), whose corruptions of the faith are damaging to the souls of others and who do not repent, must be isoloated or, barring that, executed to protect the faith. Not as an act of agression, but one of defense. That is as far as I will go in this.
 
Caesar,

You are simply confirming that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue of heretics is the very same as it was in the Middle Ages. Nothing has changed.

Well, I have news for you. The faith you wish to protect (even by putting to death Catholics whom you call heretics) is not the Christian faith. For, as the bible says, ‘In the way that is called heresy that is the way that I worship the God of our fathers’.

Who said this ? It was St Paul.

Or, again, ‘There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death’.

The Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself’.

Anyway, I remain with complete respect for Catholic people but not, by any means, for the system of Roman Catholicism.

Yours in Christian Service

R. Newman
 
(Edited by Moderator)
So it begs the question of what, exactly (if anything) has changed in modern times as far as Catholic teaching is concerned
Click to expand...
Nothing essential has changed really. It can’t. But they’d like you to think some things have. There have been some policy changes, but really the true traditionalist is still in favor of it.

The traditionalist judges the present in the light of the past. Therefore, we see the policy change (while somewhat understandable due to the lack of civil authorities willing to execute heretics) to be not in line with authentic, historical, traditional Catholicism, and certainly do not see the present position as somehow “more right” than the past, as if the current pope has more authority or wisdom than any other past pope (including many Saints), as if we for some reason can say that “we know better now”…

The so-called “neo-conservative” Catholic judges the past in the light of the present. They are certainly totally obedient to the CURRENT pope and hierarchy, but therefore must apologize for, and “explain away” many past practices that, no longer being socially acceptable, the neocons have tried to “sweep under the rug,” as it were. They see the present teachings as somehow superceding the past (though the “present era” in the Church has only been 40 years out of 2000, and many Saints and popes of equal authority to the current supported the old policy). The neo-cons have bought into the Modernist error that history is progressive and so if there is a discrepency between past and present practice, the present must be the better, as if we somehow “know better now”…ugh…
 
robert_newman said:
Caesar,

You are simply confirming that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue of heretics is the very same as it was in the Middle Ages. Nothing has changed.

Well, I have news for you. The faith you wish to protect (even by putting to death Catholics whom you call heretics) is not the Christian faith. For, as the bible says, ‘In the way that is called heresy that is the way that I worship the God of our fathers’.

Who said this ? It was St Paul.

Or, again, ‘There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death’.

The Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself’.

Anyway, I remain with complete respect for Catholic people but not, by any means, for the system of Roman Catholicism.

Yours in Christian Service

R. Newman
Click to expand...
First of all, I am not advocating the slaughter of every protestant man, woman and child. I merely suggest that much could have been avoided by removing the Calvins and the Luthers and the like. But once again, this is a topic I hardly want to go further into. I just wanted to state my position. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to PM or email me.

Secondly, not being Catholic yourself, I hardly see why this matters at all to you. Your history is also incorrect on many points (for example, during the middle ages, it was mostly the civil governments using the clergy to remove political enemies, not the unrestrained slaughter of millions as some protestants love to suggest).
 
The final authority of the Christian faith is not the church. It is the the Lord Jesus Christ. The word of God.

As far as killing Lutherans and Calvinists is concerned, so many WERE killed. The Massacre of St Bartholomew in Paris, the Hugenots, the Waldenses and countless others. To defend the indefensible is not Christianity. It is churchianity.

Anyway, thank you for the courtesy of this conversation. Christian greetings to all men and women of goodwill.

R. Newman
 
I don’t know if this has been said yet, but it bears pointing out that the heretics put to death were not like your average Methodist who lives down the street and minds his own business. These heretics were more like treasonous revolutionaries who were trying to undermine the very foundations of society and causing chaos in the process. Even given todays approach to the death penalty, such a person could justly receive it.
 
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, yes ?

Thanks for the exchanges. Let us trust that God and his Will (his word) will prevail.
 
robert_newman said:
The final authority of the Christian faith is not the church. It is the the Lord Jesus Christ. The word of God.

As far as killing Lutherans and Calvinists is concerned, so many WERE killed. The Massacre of St Bartholomew in Paris, the Hugenots, the Waldenses and countless others. To defend the indefensible is not Christianity. It is churchianity.

Anyway, thank you for the courtesy of this conversation. Christian greetings to all men and women of goodwill.

R. Newman
Click to expand...
I never said anything about killing the Lutherans and Calvinists.

Anyway, it doesnt really matter. There is no differance between Christianity and the Church, for you see sir, the Church is Christianity.

Has the Church commited wrongs in the past? Certainly. Will it do so in the future? Absolutely. Does this make the Church non-Christian? No. The Church is human and humans err in the actions. The Church cannot be incorrect in doctrine, but the humans of the Church can still sin.
 
You say, the church IS Christianity.

I beg to differ with you. The church is like a net thrown in to the sea. Or a vessel that contains wine. Or a woman that, at the fullness of time, bears a child, though a virgin.

Best wishes
 
Has the Church commited wrongs in the past? Certainly. Will it do so in the future? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Be careful with your terminology. People in the Church have committed wrongs, certainly. But not “the Church” as a mystical entity. Certainly not.
The Church is human and humans err in the actions.
Click to expand...
The Church is human and divine.

“It is of the essence of the Church that she be both human and divine,” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 2).

Her sons and daughters can certainly err in their actions (after all, she is meant to bring sinners to God)…but she herself, as the body of Christ, his mystical bride…cannot really sin.
The Church cannot be incorrect in doctrine, but the humans of the Church can still sin.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The HUMANS of the Church. Not “the Church” herself as a Mystery.
 
Punishing criminals has never been the duty of the Church, but was a duty of the secular government. Heresy used to be a secular crime, and it is not anymore. Whether or no that is a good thing I will not say, but the Church has never taught one way or the other about the proper civil sentence for heretics, because that is not something to do with faith or morals.

Moreover, even if the priests in these publications advocated death to heretics, this was their private opinion, and not the opinion of the Church. Ecclesiastical approval does not sanction every opinion in a book. If you want to show that the Church taught that heretics must die, please cite an actual Church statement, such as one from a Council or a Papal Encyclical.
 
You think I am lying ?

For your information, I live in London. I am a registered reader and have often been to the British Library. I can provide you with the references of the British Library to the books we are discussing.

We are not talking about the ‘proper civil sentence for heretics’. We are talking about canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Why do you confuse these two separate issues ? The canon law is the law of the church. And, after trial by canon law, these heretics were found guilty and handed over to the civil authorities as condemned criminals. They were killed. And I’ve produced two sources (both from the 20th century and both papally approved) saying what the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church IS on this issue.

I am not a liar. If you require the book references just ask. Maybe you will read them yourself and learn ?

You are the first person here to be disrespectful of this thread. Please do not accuse me of trolling. I started the thread myself.

Thank you.
 
Book Reference - British Library, London

System number 002275188
Author - personal LUCA, Marianus de.
Title Institutiones iuris ecclesiastici publici quas iuxta methodum Card. Tarquini trade bat … P. Marianus de Luca.
Publisher/year 2 vol. Romae, Ratisbonae, Neo Eboraci, 1901.
Physical descr. 8º.
Added name TAROUINI, Camillo, Cardinal.
Holdings (All) Details
Shelfmark 05107.f.30. Request
 
Book Reference No. 2 - British Library, London

LÉPICIER, Alexis Henry Marie, Cardinal.:

De stabilitate et progressu dogmatis. Editio altera ampliata. (Θαυμαστη μεταμορφωσις. Appendix.)…
Code: 
2 pt. Romae, 1910..
8º…

Collection;Shelfmk Humanities ; 4533.eee.8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top