Catholic Heretics and the Death Penalty

[VociMike]

Voci Mike,

1. I quote here the letter of approval for the work of Lepicier -

'‘The supreme Pontiff was immensely pleased with this work…and it will be of great value for the refutation of Modernists’. The same letter carried the pope’s benediction. This same letter from the Pope was also followed with a note of approval by the Prior-General of the monastery to which Lepicier belonged.

1. The work of Fr Marianus de Luca, of the Jesuit Order, Professor of the Decretals in the Georgian University of Rome (2 volumes) received the official sanction of his Jesuit superiors and a letter of approval from Pope Leo X111 (which is printed on the paper covers of each volume).

These authors and these approvals are sufficient evidence in reaffirming the bloodthirsty principles of Roman Catholic law on such an issue as heresy and its punishment.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue IS THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS IN THE 16TH CENTURY.

OK, that’s your claim. My claim is that you or somebody else made those words up. My claim is that the books you cite, if they indeed exist, do not contain those words.

Now, all you have to do is prove by unbiased sources that I am wrong and you are right. Produce your actual evidence, not your reporting of the evidence. A link to the British Library where we could see scans of the originals would be a good start. And then we can discuss whether words written by canon lawyers are Magisterial teachings.

 

[VociMike]

Rational discourse means that I agreed with your original post.

Rational discourse means, among other things, that you provide verifiable evidence for your claims. Like a link to the British Library where we can all view scans of the original books. And a link to the canon law which calls for the execution of heretics.

You’ve now posted about 40 times on this topic without providing either. I maintain you have not done so because you cannot do so. I maintain that all of your evidence is forged or fabricated.

 

[robert_newman]

Unless you can show clear evidence of a change in canon law on the subject of heretics and the death penalty then, by definition, the canon law remains the same today as it was in the Middle Ages.

You have seen two evidences from Roman Catholic writers on this very issue, papally approved, confirming that the death penalty is still in force for heretics in the Roman Catholic Church.
You either believe in the death penalty for Roman Catholic heretics or you do not. Which is it ? But the facts of the case are clearly stated and we do not need to go round in circles.

Show us a change in teaching on this issue or else let us finish this discussion.

Thank You

 

[MaryRose35]

Rational discourse means that I agreed with your original post. You said the Roman Catholic Church DOES have the death penalty for heretics. It does. The submitted evidence merely confirms this.

So I was called a liar and you know I am not a liar. I have produced now clear evidence of Roman Catholic teaching on this issue. The teaching on the death penalty for Roman Catholic heretics is the very same today as it was in the Middle Ages. Papally approved and confirmed in the sources I have repeatedly given.

It took time, but now you see your own Church’s position on these issues. They are very, very clear. That is the purpose of this thread. And unless you can show me a change in canon law on this issue it remains the same today.

Thank you

There is nothing wrong with the death penalty for heretics. The Church has been in favor of this since the earliest years. I provided the teaching of St. Thomas to confirm this.

However, that being said it must also be said (as I did in an earlier post) that you would probably have a very hard time finding a single member of the hierarchy today who would be in favor of it. In theory there is no problem with it, but in practice you probably can’t find anyone who would be in favor of it today.

And you also need to realize that, unlike the Protestants, it was not the Catholic Church that did the killing, it was the State.

 

[robert_newman]

VoiciMike,

You do not even know if these books exist !

Surely this proves that you have never read them, yes ? If you have never read them how can you say that I have lied ?

This becomes ridiculous. I have given you quotes from them, the title of their authors, the fact of their approval, the reference number where they can be found at the British Library, and I have given quotes from papal letters of approval for the content of these books.

I think it’s time for you, as a Roman Catholic, to at least check out this evidence. But do not blame the facts on those who point them out to you.

All you can do is say they don’t exist.

Fine, if they don’t exist, go to the website of the British Library and check their existence there.

If you can’t even do that, just ask me. I will send you the link to their archives.

Thank You

 

[robert_newman]

Well, we have come full circle. Some Roman Catholics say it’s right that heretics should be put to death. (See the thread above). Others deny that such things are taught.

It seems you are all confused about this issue.

Well, in that case, read the books of Lepicier and de Luca. They set it out very clearly.

The Roman Catholic church teaches the same on heretics and the death penalty for heresy today as in the Middle Ages.

You simply have to accept that fact. Unless you can show evidence that this has changed in the 20th century then, by definition, it still remains the same as before.

 

[fix]

Well, we have come full circle. Some Roman Catholics say it’s right that heretics should be put to death. (See the thread above). Others deny that such things are taught.

It seems you are all confused about this issue.

Well, in that case, read the books of Lepicier and de Luca. They set it out very clearly.

The Roman Catholic church teaches the same on heretics and the death penalty for heresy today as in the Middle Ages.

You simply have to accept that fact. Unless you can show evidence that this has changed in the 20th century then, by definition, it still remains the same as before.

Is it licit to put heretics to death under certains conditions? Yes.

Does the Church say those conditions exist today? No.

You claim the Church says heretics ought to be put to death today. Where can I read that?

 

[MaryRose35]

Well, we have come full circle. Some Roman Catholics say it’s right that heretics should be put to death. (See the thread above). Others deny that such things are taught.

It seems you are all confused about this issue.

Well, in that case, read the books of Lepicier and de Luca. They set it out very clearly.

The Roman Catholic church teaches the same on heretics and the death penalty for heresy today as in the Middle Ages.

The teaching is not going to change because the teaching is correct. But you need to realize what the teaching is and what it is not. It is not that all heretics must be put to death, only that putting heretics to death is a completely acceptable pracice.

But the practice is not in use today. Do you deny that? If so, tell me when the last person was declared a heretic by the Catholic Church and turned over to the State for punishment, and then put to death? That will answer your question as to whether or not it is still a practice, or just a theoretical teaching.

 

[robert_newman]

If the Roman Catholic Church decides to begin executing heretics it already has canon law to support it doing so. That is agreed by everyone on this thread.

Whether it kills heretics privately or publicly is not the issue. The issue is that no change in its position has occurred in the 20th century. If a change has occurred please show this thread. The evidence has been presented that the teaching remains the same today as in the Middle Ages. Please present evidence, if any, to the contrary.

Thanks

 

[VociMike]

If you can’t even do that, just ask me. I will send you the link to their archives.

Thank You

I can’t do even that, and I have asked you over and over and over and over for scanned images from the British Library for the text in question. And you have not yet provided a link to those images. Why in the world should anybody take your word for their existence if you cannot offer unbiased proof for their existence?

Ridiculous? In spades.

 

[MaryRose35]

If the Roman Catholic Church decides to begin executing heretics it already has canon law to support it doing so. That is agreed by everyone on this thread.

The Church does not kill heretics. For a heretic to be put to death, it would have to be against the laws of the State, and the State would put them to death, not the Church.

Whether it kills heretics privately or publicly is not the issue.

Look, I’m the one defending the practice of the death penalty here. But you are making out as somehting it is not. The Church has never put anyone to death. It has only judged the person guilty, or not, of heresy. The State, not the Church, is who puts them to death.

 

[robert_newman]

Now you are being really unreasonable.

I am the person who first told you of these books. You now say that I am a liar. You say they do not exist. I have quoted from them. I have given you many details of them. I have told you repeatedly where they can be found.

You are a Roman Catholic. Please stop being so lazy and read your own publications.

Here is an extensive quote from Lepicier on heretics from the same publication - (maybe I am ‘inventing’ this also ?) -

*‘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. For, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, if coiners of false money and other public evil doers are forthwith justly given over to death by secular princes, much less should heretics be spared, who plot against the truth faith, without which everlasting salvation cannot be had; inasmuch as it is a more serious matter to corrupt the faith than to coin false money, or to inflict an injury upon the civil life of citizens. Wherefore, as soon as anyone makes a public profession, not only should he suffer the greater excommunication, but also he should be justly put to death, lest he should destroy very many by his pestilential contagion. For a bad man, as Aristotle says, is worse and more injurious than a wild beast - wherefore as it is not an evil thing to put a wild beast (and especially a dangerous one) to death, so it may be a good thing to deprive of the exercise of his pernicious life a heretic who has withdrawn himself from the divine truth and is plotting against the salvation of others’

Lepicier p.104*

 

[fix]

If the Roman Catholic Church decides to begin executing heretics it already has canon law to support it doing so. That is agreed by everyone on this thread.

Where in the 1983 code of Canon law does it say death is the punishment for heresy?

Whether it kills heretics privately or publicly is not the issue. The issue is that no change in its position has occurred in the 20th century. If a change has occurred please show this thread. The evidence has been presented that the teaching remains the same today as in the Middle Ages. Please present evidence, if any, to the contrary.

Turning a heretic over to the state for punishment due to heresy is not wrong under certain conditions. Where does the Church state those conditions exist today?

 

[MaryRose35]

‘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. For, as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks, if coiners of false money and other public evil doers are forthwith justly given over to death by secular princes, much less should heretics be spared, who plot against the truth faith, without which everlasting salvation cannot be had; inasmuch as it is a more serious matter to corrupt the faith than to coin false money, or to inflict an injury upon the civil life of citizens. Wherefore, as soon as anyone makes a public profession, not only should he suffer the greater excommunication, but also he should be justly put to death, lest he should destroy very many by his pestilential contagion. For a bad man, as Aristotle says, is worse and more injurious than a wild beast - wherefore as it is not an evil thing to put a wild beast (and especially a dangerous one) to death, so it may be a good thing to deprive of the exercise of his pernicious life a heretic who has withdrawn himself from the divine truth and is plotting against the salvation of others’ (Lepicier p.104)

That is a great quote. It perfectly expresses the Catholic point of view. I don’t know why anyone would question it or shy away from it.

But, it should also be pointed out that this would only apply in Catholic countries where the Church and State are united - where the laws of the State are in line with the laws of the Church - which is the ideal, but not the case today. It would never be the practice in a pluralistic country such as ours.

 

[robert_newman]

Well, again, MaryRose has confirmed that this is the true position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The same position as it took in the time of Thomas Aquinas and also during the 16th century.

We are not concerned here with the role of secular governments. This thread simply wants to establish that these two works of the 20th century are a fair and accurate picture of the approved position of the Roman Catholic church on the matter of heretics.

 

[MaryRose35]

Well, again, MaryRose has confirmed that this is the true position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The same position as it took in the time of Thomas Aquinas and also during the 16th century.

and don’t forge the time of St. Jerome.

We are not concerned here with the role of secular governments. This thread simply wants to establish that these two works of the 20th century are a fair and accurate picture of the approved position of the Roman Catholic church on the matter of heretics.

Please answer this question: What do you disagree with, or what problem do you have, with what the quote says?

I ask this because based on some of your other posts I don’t know if you completely understand the Churches position on this matter. You seem to think that the Church might start killing heretics. Is that what you fear? If so, you have an incorrect understanding of the teaching and practice.

 

[robert_newman]

I have a problem with killing ‘heretics’ because, you see, many holy men and women have been killed who were, in fact, Christian.

The New Testament nowhere approves the killing of people.

I am a Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic. And you see the difference, even on this issue.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Simple, yes ?

 

[Brendan]

So the Roman Catholic Church, which has over centuries found heretics guilty under their own canon law, and which has given them over to the civil authorities for execution, has changed its own teachings on Heresy ?

No, Heresey was a civil crime that was turned over the the Church for determination of guilt or Innocence.

The Civil government would then enact whatever sentance was proscribed by civil law.

If, for example, a civil government enacted anti-heresy laws and asked a Church tribunal to rule on if a particular belief was heretical, the Church would be obliged to fulfil the same role.

The Church cannot claim that heresy is not heresy, it never could and never will.

It is true that a heretic is more dangerous to society than a murderer, as a heretic kills souls while a murder only kills bodies.

On the other hand, God has provided more effective tools in combating heresy that murders; such as the use of reason and debate and the proclaimation of Truth.

 

[MaryRose35]

I have a problem with killing ‘heretics’ because, you see, many holy men and women have been killed who were, in fact, Christian.

The New Testament nowhere approves the killing of people.

I am a Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic. And you see the difference, even on this issue.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Simple, yes ?

Do unto others also applies to the innocent ones who could be led astray (and into hell) by these heretics.

Let’s say you were led astray by a heretic and ended in hell. Wouldn’t you have prefered that the heretic was killed before he led you astray? Well, let us do unto others as we would have done for us. That is the principle for the death penalty for heretics.

And I assume that you are also against killing serial killers who kill the body, right?

If you are not, why not? What is worse? A person who kills the body, or one who killes the soul.

And let’s say that a good Christian was put to death mistakenly for being a heretic? So what? If they are a “good Christian” as you say, they went to heaven. What’s wrong with that?

A few exceptions should not lead to a denial of the rule. Killing a person who leads others astray is a positive good, just as killing a serial murder is a positive good. The exception of an innocent person being mistakenly put to death does not nullify the rule.

Let’s make this personal. I don’t know if you have any children (if not, use one of your parents in this example), but let’s say that you have a daughter who you raise to be a very good Christian, and someone who you are really proud of. And let’s say that some heretics came to her door and deceived her. Your daughter (or parent) joins the sect, dies, and goes to hell.

Wouldn’t it have been better for the heretic to be put to death before they led your daughter (or parent) to hell with them?

You can use the same example and substitue a serial killer for the heretic. The only difference is that the heretic destroys the soul and sends it to hell, whereas the muderer can only kill the body. If you are in favor of death penalty for the later, why not the former?

Think about it.

(And don’t forget that all of the Protestant reformers were in favor of the death penalty, and it was practiced by Protestants for many years.)

 

[fix]

I have a problem with killing ‘heretics’ because, you see, many holy men and women have been killed who were, in fact, Christian.

The New Testament nowhere approves the killing of people.

I am a Christian. I am not a Roman Catholic. And you see the difference, even on this issue.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Simple, yes ?

Simple? No. As we see from this thread we each can be led into heresy if we each decide we are the final authority in determining what the bible actually teaches.

Your questions here prove once again that the Church is the authority and not each of us as individuals.