Catholic Heretics and the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter robert_newman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir,

Before you responded I realized that I was being uncharitable, and have edited my remarks. Please accept my apology.

As for Canon Law, you have not cited a specific canon, but only the private opinions of canon lawyers. Their private opinions are not dogma. As for ecclesiastical approval, it does not mean that all of their opinions are held to by the Church, but are simply not heretical. I believe heretics should be punished by a civil government of a Catholic society, but I don’t think that people who hold differing opinions are heretics.

So, in order to prove your point, you should either give us actual canons showing specific punishments for heresy, or ecclesiastical condemnations of people who think that heretics should not be punished by death.
 
No, you are quite right, robert newman. Midieval canon laws almost certainly did mandate handing over heretics to the civil execution.

Now, this isn’t exactly “church teaching” (ie, a dogma or doctrine)…as canon law is changeable (and potentially fallible) discipline…and so you won’t find anyone who opposed this mere policy (not a doctrine of faith) being called a “heretic”…but execution of heretics by the State was certainly official Church legal and political policy for almost a millenium (though not a dogma of the faith, not a teaching about religion )

Still, the weight of history and the teachings of multitudes of popes, bishops, Saints and theologians seem to suggest that the canons in question were moral, that executing obstinate heretics is moral and even preferable.

History speaks for itself; there is not doubt you have gotten your facts correct. But how one interprets those facts is a matter of personal temperment: You find the practice barbaric and evidence against Roman Catholicism. Neocons may sympathize with you, but say “but we know better now”. I see the long history of it, give traditional practice the benefit of the doubt, and support it. Just different perspectives, I guess.
 
The woman caught in the physical act of adultery was pardoned by Jesus, though she was, according to the letter of the law, guilty. How much more should a man or woman, found guilty under the law of the Roman Catholic church of heresy, be forgiven ?

To argue that Roman Catholicism is not guilty of murder if it causes a man or woman to be put to death for heresy is a lie. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

We must therefore choose to be Christians on this issue or heathens. The choice is the difference between life and death.
 
The woman caught in the physical act of adultery was pardoned by Jesus, though she was, according to the letter of the law, guilty. How much more should a man or woman, found guilty under the law of the Roman Catholic church of heresy, be forgiven ?
Click to expand...
They encouraged repentence, and sincere renunciation of the heresy was ALWAYS accepted as a way to avoid the death penalty. You could always recant and be forgiven.

But if you showed yourself obstinate in heresy, and were seducing other souls to your lies…then to defend innocent minds from the evil idea, and to protect the religious fabric of Christendom…execution was used as a defensive measure. Jesus said to her “go and sin no more”. If you showed yourself unwilling to give up the heresy, or at least unwilling to stop trying to convert others to the heresy, then we had to think in terms of protecting others.
Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.
Click to expand...
Well, in this case especially, the Church was without sin. She stands and judges by the authority of Jesus Christ. And also the Church, by the very definition of heresy, could not teach Heresy. The Church had never taught a heresy in her life. She only gives the Truth, and it is her duty to protect people and society from pernicious error.
 
robert_newman said:
The woman caught in the physical act of adultery was pardoned by Jesus, though she was, according to the letter of the law, guilty. How much more should a man or woman, found guilty under the law of the Roman Catholic church of heresy, be forgiven ?
Click to expand...
You have great illustration here! The woman caught in adultery repented, and Jesus was free to absolve her of her sin and release her from her punishment. In the same manner, the Church, with the powers of “binding and loosing” given to Her by Her Founder, can forgive heretics who repent from ther sin of heresy. I’m sure you would agree that someone is not forgiven unless they repent of their sins?

As for unrepentant heretics, they receive the just ecclesiastical sentence of excommunication from the Church, as well as the relevant civil penalties that go with heresy, if there were any. However, the Church is not bound by any specific punishment for heresy, and can bind and loose in its practice as it will.
 
Yes, you are completely right, except for one thing. What you bind in heaven you can bind on earth. Therefore, although the punishment for heresy may be excommunication or some other penalty it cannot, ever, be physical death.
 
robert_newman said:
Yes, you are completely right, except for one thing. What you bind in heaven you can bind on earth. Therefore, although the punishment for heresy may be excommunication or some other penalty it cannot, ever, be physical death.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in the death penalty for any crime? Why should heresy be necessarily exempt? Nothing in the Bible teaches anything about how we’re supposed to treat heresy as a civil crime. Idolatry is certainly condemned in the Old Testament, and idolaters were considered criminals and executed. I don’t think that heretics have the positive right to believe in error, although whether they should have the negative right to not be molested is up for debate. Since I don’t believe in an abstract notion of human rights, I think this is a prudential matter for the government to decide.
 
By the way, God treats heretics much more worse than any civil government can by sending them to Hell.

Anyway, to return to the original point, no Catholic thinks that it’s a matter of faith or morals to believe that heretics should get the death penalty. Believing that heresy is a grave sin is one thing; deciding what to do with them in civil society is another.
 
CollegeKid said:
I think the point the other posters are making is that you may be confusing **infallibly-defined teachings on faith and morals **which cannot change, such as a papal bull addressed to the entire Church which states that it is a divinely-revealed dogma of the faith that Mary was immaculately conceived, or the constant teaching of the Church on the male-only priesthood, with a practice of the Church which has not been a part of its constant history, such as electing to recommend to civil authorities that a heretic be executed, which can be changed. In the case of executing heretics, quite frankly I’m glad it did change. Personally I would be revolted if someone today within the Church advocated burning lapsed Catholics at the stake.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%! When we look at how Christ preached, did he send sinners of any sort to the death? Heavens forbids no! The early Church was brutaly attacked as well. It seems so utterly RIDICULOUS that past “Catholics” have MURDERED people because of having differences in opinons, even if those opinons were dangerous.

The best punishment I can see fit for Christianity is excommunication, just as St. Paul talked about.
 
The_Augustinian said:
Do you believe in the death penalty for any crime? Why should heresy be necessarily exempt? Nothing in the Bible teaches anything about how we’re supposed to treat heresy as a civil crime. Idolatry is certainly condemned in the Old Testament, and idolaters were considered criminals and executed. I don’t think that heretics have the positive right to believe in error, although whether they should have the negative right to not be molested is up for debate. Since I don’t believe in an abstract notion of human rights, I think this is a prudential matter for the government to decide.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to be quick to judge, and I hope I’m not sinning by having this belief. But I do believe in the death penaly against those who no matter what you do…they’re still a danger to humanity. If you can’t stop a murderer, and I mean a cold hearted murderer who just continues to kill, shows no mercy, gets paroll and again kills, then yes they should be put to death. Is that wrong?
 
The_Catholic said:
I agree 100%! When we look at how Christ preached, did he send sinners of any sort to the death? Heavens forbids no! The early Church was brutaly attacked as well. It seems so utterly RIDICULOUS that past “Catholics” have MURDERED people because of having differences in opinons, even if those opinons were dangerous.
Click to expand...
To the Christians from Theodosius’ (382) time until the godless “Enlightenment” executing heretics was not murder, but a punishment for a crime considered worse than treason. Although it is not feasible in today’s society, I would not call more than a millenium’s worth of Christians advocates of murder. Were the Jews free to worship the Golden Calf?

Disclaimer: I would only approve of laws against heresy and false religions in states that are fully Catholic and where the Church is the state religion. Heretics in this case refer only to those who leave the Church and propagate heretical doctrines, not to those born in other Christian communities.
 
So, the bottom line seems to be that, yes, the Roman Catholic Church does not actually execute people. It gets others to do that job for it. As always.

You refer to the God of the Old Testament. And you say that He killed people.

True. But the God of the Old Testament was enforcing the Law. The letter of the law. We have the New Testament. That means we have the spirit of the Law. Those who believe this are Christians.

So, if our actions lead to the death of another human being (as in the case of a condemed heretic) we are guilty of their death. The same way that a rich man could hire an assassin to kill someone for them.

I strongly believe that the Christian Church has no business executing people, sending people to execution or getting involved in the death of heretics. But the Roman Catholic Church (as we see) reserves the right to do otherwise. That’s a decision they choose to take. I disagree with it.

But, having said this, I completely respect Catholic people and their freedom of religion. Toleration between religions is vital.

I do believe that Catholics should be told the truth about this issue. They should be told that their church still approves of the death penalty for Catholic heretics. Not to tell them is dishonest.

Regards
 
The truth is, Mr. Newman, that you came here, posed a question to which your mind was already made up as to the answer, rejected all answers given you, refused to provide the sources for your allegations, then twisted the answers you were given in a way that would make any politician proud and accused the Catholic Church of lying. That’s hardly showing the respect for all religions, much less the Catholic religion, that you agreed to when you registered on this board. Does that make you a liar because agreed to do one thing, then did the opposite? Some would think so.

Moreover, the way your initial question was asked was similar to asking a person when he stopped beating his wife. If that wasn’t an attack, I don’t know what is. I guess you’ll be calling the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon next and suggest that, before you do, you go elsewhere to peddle your vitriol. Is something insufficient in your own religion that you feel it necessary to attack someone else’s with faulty logic and lies?
 
robert_newman said:
Here is a short quote from the book by Lepicier, also approved by the Papacy and published in the 20th century -
Click to expand...
“Approved by the Papacy”. As in “I am the pope, and I approve this message”? Books are not “approved by the Papacy”.

Anyway, just as in any person making a claim, you need to provide us unbiased (that is, non anti-Catholic) links to verify the existence of these passages. If you can look them up online (as you seem to imply), let us look them up as well.
 
robert_newman said:
I do believe that Catholics should be told the truth about this issue. They should be told that their church still approves of the death penalty for Catholic heretics. Not to tell them is dishonest.

Regards
Click to expand...
You have been pointed to the current code of canon law, and you have not shown us where in that code we may find evidence of your allegation. Either point us to the canon law which backs up your statement, or retract it.
 
robert_newman said:
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
Click to expand...
How are you accessing the text from these books? We want to see the text from an unbiased source (that means, at a start, a source other than yourself).
 
I have asked this forum what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the death penalty for its own heretics. After many posts (in which I was accused of being a liar) I presented evidence by Roman Catholic writers that the death penalty is still the same today for heresy as it was in the Middle Ages.

I was then told that I had produced no evidence of such a claim. So I produced the names of two writers,

I was then told that I had not quoted them correctly. So I quoted them correctly.

I also provided the reference numbers of these same Catholic publications and provided evidence that they were papally approved in both cases.

What more do you want ?

I can provide you details of the papal approval of both sources if you want ?

But please do not tell me that I am a liar. I am not a liar. I have given you exactly the truth. And people on this forum have even defended the death penalty for heretics.

What more do you want ?

Let me know if you need details of the approval of both books (that by Lepicier and that by de Luca) and I will post in here.

You can judge for yourself who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Thank You
 
robert_newman said:
So, the bottom line seems to be that, yes, the Roman Catholic Church does not actually execute people. It gets others to do that job for it. As always.
Click to expand...
Should we not be subject to civil authorities and just laws?
You refer to the God of the Old Testament. And you say that He killed people.
Click to expand...
True. But the God of the Old Testament was enforcing the Law. The letter of the law. We have the New Testament. That means we have the spirit of the Law. Those who believe this are Christians.
Click to expand...
The moral law was not changed.
So, if our actions lead to the death of another human being (as in the case of a condemed heretic) we are guilty of their death. The same way that a rich man could hire an assassin to kill someone for them.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. A guilty man who is put to death by the state causes his own death. As in self defense a man who attacks another and is killed in the act is guilty of his own death.
I do believe that Catholics should be told the truth about this issue. They should be told that their church still approves of the death penalty for Catholic heretics. Not to tell them is dishonest.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top