CCC traditional teaching on the Church burning heritics at the stake

[Steven_Merten]

I was reading the CCC on putting people to death and it only spoke of putting to death those who threaten physical life. Has the CCC been modified for an erra when the Church no longer believes in or practices burning heritics at the stake? Does anyone have a copy of the original CCC from when the Church did believe in and practice burning heritics at the stake?

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[Della]

There are no documents stating the Church burned anyone at the stake. The Church never did any such thing. It was civil governments that executed people on charges of disrupting the social order by promoting heresies, many of which called for no marriage laws and other such things damaging to the social order. But, the Church never burned any heretics.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Della:

the Church never burned any heretics.

Della, you may be technically correct, but history seems to show that the church was complicit in the deaths of many judged heretical by the church and then handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Whether or not the church actually conducted the executions and/or the tortures is beside the point. It was complicit in them.

For an example, I would direct you to the bloody Albigensian Crusade for which Innocent III called.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[awalt]

IMHO the difference is, the Church didn’t do it because it was not based on dogma or doctrine. People did it. Do you remember the big “apology” JP II did around 2000? He was not apologizing for the atrocities of the Church, as there were none, he was apologizing for the atrocities of sinners, of people - even Popes. It was very well received as a cleansing of our collective memories, which jump-started relations with the Jewish people and others.

One of the most powerful statements about this that I have heard – the Church has always had sinners in it, which is why Jesus died on the cross surrounded by two criminals.

Remember also, Jesus said that the Church will have wolves in sheeps clothing in it - don’t be surprised…

 

[Catholic2003]

From Exsurge Domine:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

…

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

 

[marcadam]

What a can of worms! There are several topics of discussion here:
Steven Merten:

I was reading the CCC on putting people to death and it only spoke of putting to death those who threaten physical life.

This is a good observation. This does seem to depart from previous teaching which seemingly gave the state a much freer hand in imposing death. However, it is best to be mindful that it is almost axiomatic that the Church does not depart from or contradict older Magisterial teaching. It would seem this apparent “change” would be in fact an adjustment to current circumstances. This is some very good reading on the subject; I’ll be using points from it below.

Has the CCC been modified for an erra when the Church no longer believes in or practices burning heritics at the stake?

First, it’s “heretics.” They get really ticked when you misspell it.

Next, the Church never “believed in” burning heretics per se; she believed and taught that the state had the power to ordain the death penalty for egregious crimes, similar to the power of the state to declare and wage war in certain circumstances (just war theory). In a sense, the State sits somewhere between God and Man.

As to the order of the crime: in modern usage “heresy” denotes a solely ecclisiastical crime, but for most of history, the state of law was such that the state religion was integral in maintaining the moral order. Heresy was then viewed, and was often in practice, more like treason. Witness the Protestant Revolution: once the ecclisiastical order was overthrown, the secular order was quickly taken down with it.

It is true that most heretics were tried in church courts, but this is really a good thing: the church was more interested in the correction of sinners, not punishment. The secular courts at the time were much more bloodthirsty and much less fair, without any clear or consistent jurisprudence. The church courts were a check on these practices.

Does anyone have a copy of the original CCC from when the Church did believe in and practice burning heritics at the stake?

You won’t find any magisterial or catechetical document saying anything like what I think you’re looking for.

The difference between then and now is the theory of government. Whereas at one time the state was seen as deriving its power from God, it is now seen as derived frm the consent of the governed. In this, capital punishment goes from being a represetative of the judgement of God to being the mere vengeance of the victimized society. In this, I think, lay the “change of heart” in the aforementioned Magisterial teaching.

 

[batteddy]

It really depends on the current relationship between Church and State.

Intrinsically, the Church is the spiritual society, and the State is the material society. Therefore, the Church intrinsically has the power to create spiritual punishments (excommunication) for spiritual crimes (heresy, etc). The State has the power to create material punishments (fines, jail, death) for material crimes (theft, murder, etc)

For the Church to issue excommunications for material crimes, or for the State to create physical punishments for spiritiual crimes…there would have to be an organically united relationship between the Church and State…as there was back then.

In such a case where Church and State are united, one could see why death would be an appropriate punishment for heresy: if the legitimate authority can execute someone if it is the only way to protect to innocent life…surely a similar or greater punishment can be inflicted by the legitimate authority if it is the only way to protect immortal SOULS, which are infinitely more valuable than physical life.

Just as the State, which rules material society, may use the highest material punishment (death) to protect the highest material thing (life)…so to may the Church, which rules spiritual society, may use the highest spiritual punishment (excommunication or anathemas) to protect the highest spiritual thing (immortal souls)…

And if the State and Church are an organically united society, as is a possible and legitimate arrangement of the two that has been present in history, then the State can use material punishments to help the Church save souls, and the Church can use spiritual punishments to help maintain material order and justice.

But we are no longer in that situation, because their are other religions and sects now prevalent and a different relationship between the Church, the State, and the people, and so the current situation makes such an approach unnecessary, imprudent, and wrong.

 

[stanley123]

marcadam:

You won’t find any magisterial or catechetical document saying anything like what I think you’re looking for.
.

We can read what the Angelic Doctor of the Church says:
“On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.”
newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm

 

[1ke]

stanley123:

We can read what the Angelic Doctor of the Church says:
“On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.”
newadvent.org/summa/301103.htm

The “angelic doctor” is not the Magesterium nor infallible in teaching (hence his teaching on the Immaculate Conception that differs from later defined Church dogma).

 

[johnnykins]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Della, you may be technically correct, but history seems to show that the church was complicit in the deaths of many judged heretical by the church and then handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Whether or not the church actually conducted the executions and/or the tortures is beside the point. It was complicit in them.

For an example, I would direct you to the bloody Albigensian Crusade for which Innocent III called.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Les Albis - The Cathars threatened the entire social structure of feudal Europe. No oaths, no marriage, no fealty. They were indeed heretics. But, it remains that the civil authorities conducted any “bloody” campaigns. Like the Catholics put to death by Elizabeth I, they were put to death by the state - not the Anglican Church. “History” written in English by the anti-Catholic English frequently is less than reliable viv-a-vis Catholicism when it “seems” to demonstrate something. That being said, many Catholics, including clerics, were indeed less than loving at many times throughout history. Just as many Protestants and Orthodox share the same judgment. Catholicism hardly had a monopoly on improper/sinful acts of its members.

 

[Brendan]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Della, you may be technically correct, but history seems to show that the church was complicit in the deaths of many judged heretical by the church and then handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Whether or not the church actually conducted the executions and/or the tortures is beside the point. It was complicit in them.

For an example, I would direct you to the bloody Albigensian Crusade for which Innocent III called.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark,

The Church determined the Guilt or Innocence of the person charged.

What is unlawful about that? Should they Church have lied and said a guilt person was not, in fact, guilty?

Would the secular powers have been a better or more fair judge?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Brendan:

Mark,

The Church determined the Guilt or Innocence of the person charged.

What is unlawful about that? Should they Church have lied and said a guilt person was not, in fact, guilty?

Would the secular powers have been a better or more fair judge?

Brendan, there’s nothing unlawful about determining guilt or innocence in these circumstances. My point is that to do so, and then to hand them over to secular authorities with full knowledge of their ultimate fate and piously wash their hands of the whole affair afterward is quite disingenuous and not in keeping with any sort of Christian witness of mercy.

I understand the argument of church and state being joined at the hip at the time, but to claim that those who represented the church in such situations are innocent of all wrong-doing is to selectively apply the moral teachings by which the Church insists we abide.

If a person in authority in the church judges someone (or some group) heretical, and then asks secular authority to deal with them (as is the case with the Albigensians) knowing full well what “dealing with” means, that person in authority, having approved the end (extermination of heresy) while turning a blind eye to the means (massacre, torture, etc.), has, by their lack of circumspection, by their inaction and lack of censure, actually approved the means by which the end is accomplished, even if these means are, in theory, repugnant to him. In doing so, this person in authority gives their consent to these vicious means. This giving of consent makes them complicit in the ensuing horror.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that there is the Church and there are the people who represent her. The Church remains spotless irregardles of what her people do–I agree with this. For a person who represents her, however, to be complicit in acts of cruelty or murder contrary to her laws is for this person to sin against the church by misrepresenting and defaming her.

We must be honest with ourselves. The Church has called her children to a better witness. That some of her children have not heeded this call due to whatever material exigency is not her fault but the fault of those who do not heed the call. It does, however, reflect poorly on the Church. And it does not help matters much when a defense of the inviolability of the Church includes a defence of those who defame her.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[stanley123]

1ke:

The “angelic doctor” is not the Magesterium nor infallible in teaching (hence his teaching on the Immaculate Conception that differs from later defined Church dogma).

However, I don’t think that it was only St. Thomas who had this point of view? According to the wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_burning

“In 1184, the Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders up through the 17th century.”

 

[Brendan]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Brendan, there’s nothing unlawful about determining guilt or innocence in these circumstances. My point is that to do so, and then to hand them over to secular authorities with full knowledge of their ultimate fate and piously wash their hands of the whole affair afterward is quite disingenuous and not in keeping with any sort of Christian witness of mercy.
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark,

What makes you think that the Church had “full knowledge” of their ultimate fate.

The Church always hopes for the conversion of heretics, does it not?

Did either the Church or the State give the guilty a chance to renounce their error and accept the Truth of God and His Mercy.

So, unless the Church could somehow read minds, could it truely be said the Church was aware of their 'ultimate fate"

 

[Brendan]

stanley123:

However, I don’t think that it was only St. Thomas who had this point of view?

Mostly, because it’s Biblical

Deut 13:

6 "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known,
7 some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
9 but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

12 "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
13 that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known,
14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.
16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again.
17 None of the devoted things shall cleave to your hand; that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers,
18 if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping all his commandments which I command you this day, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.

Note that if a city fell into heresy, even the cattle were to be put to death.

And don’t forget the qualifications that St. Thomas gave, that the accused be given 3 chances to repent, at the accusation and 2 after conviction

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Brendan:

What makes you think that the Church had “full knowledge” of their ultimate fate.

The Church always hopes for the conversion of heretics, does it not?

Did either the Church or the State give the guilty a chance to renounce their error and accept the Truth of God and His Mercy.

So, unless the Church could somehow read minds, could it truely be said the Church was aware of their 'ultimate fate"

Brendan, I think you’re making very convenient excuses and dodging the issue entirely.

Regarding “ultimate” fate, let me clarify my use of the word “ultimate”–I was not referring to the state of the soul after death. That the church could not know. It could perhaps speculate, but it could make no determination.

What I was referring to when using the phrase “ultimate fate” was the manner in which the judged person is put to death or dealt with after being put into the hands of the secular authorities.

The situation is analogous to this–a babysitter watching many children determines that one of them needs to be disciplined. She says, “Child, no supper for you tonight. Wait outside as your punishment.” The child does so. In the middle of the night, she hears screaming and the sound of wild dogs. The next day, she discovers evidence that the child has been devoured. She’s upset.

But that night, another child needs disciplining. She does the same. The same happens. And the following night and for nights following, she continues to punish her children in this way when a child of hers persists in its trouble-making. Given this pattern of behavior, it seems that even despite the babysitter’s sorrow, she is colluding with the wild dogs to rid herself of problem children, otherwise, she would have found a different way to punish them.

Now, again, this is not an allegory of the Church, who remains spotless regardless of what people do, but it is an allegory of those in authority in the church whose responsibility it is to shepherd the Church’s children.

If the mother of the children returns and accuses the babysitter of murdering her children, is “well, I always hoped the dogs wouldn’t come,” really a viable defense?

The Church will not force us to love. The Church will not force us to ensure that we do is done with charity–such coersion is against the nature of charity itself. Any time a representative of the church acts contrary to charity, he is making a choice to do or to not do.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Shiann]

Your example is firstly not analagous because you’re assuming in your example that the “infraction” of the child is not punishable by death… which heresy IS (or was).

Secondly, those involved with determining who was guilty of heresy had CONVERSION as their goal, not putting people to death. They did not 'put people out" and let them fend for themselves, there is evidence that there was a significant effort to educate and inform. And the timeframe for this education and ‘inquisition’ was over a year.

During this year, the accused would be encouraged to denounce the heresy and embrace christianity. They were given a significant grace period where they could present their case and clear the heresy charges. If, after a years time, the accused was unwilling to embrace christianity- they were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment.

For more information and references for the above statements, I encourage you to browse the following thread:

Who is my brother?

The facts of the inquisition are presented in this thread.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello all,

I want to say WOW! Awesome responses by all.

Hello Mark,

I guess I did not realize that the Church felt that putting heretics to physical death, for the protection of spiritual life, was evil. If the Church does not see capital punishment, in itself, as evil, when used to protect physical life, why does the Church feel that putting to death heretics, for the protection of spiritual life, is evil?

What do you think of St. Peter and The Holy Spirit killing Ananias and Sapphira? St. Peter perfectly fits into the position of the baby sitter in your wild dogs killing children anology. I would certianly think that the Church does not believe that St. Peter is guilty of any evil in the killing of Ananias and Sapphira.

NAB ACT 5:1Another man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira likewise sold a piece of property. With the connivance of his wife he put aside a part of the proceeds for himself; the rest he took and laid at the feet of the apostles. Peter exclaimed: “Ananias, why have you let Satan fill your heart so as to make you lie to the Holy Spirit and keep for yourself some of the proceeds from that field? Was it not yours so long as it remained unsold”? Even when you sold it, was not the money still yours? How could you ever concoct such a scheme? You have lied not to men but to God!" At the sound of these words, Ananias fell dead. Great fear came upon all who later heard of it. Some of the young men came forward, wrapped up the body, and carried it out for burial. Three hours later Ananias’ wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell that piece of property for such and such an amount?” She answered, “Yes, that was the sum.” Peter replied, "How could you two scheme to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? The footsteps of the men who have just buried your husband can be heard at the door. They stand ready to carry you out too." At that, she fell dead at his feet.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Interesting email, Shiann. Some very nice challenges.

Shiann:

Your example is firstly not analagous because you’re assuming in your example that the “infraction” of the child is not punishable by death… which heresy IS (or was).

I do not believe that it is the Church’s job to put anyone to death or mandate the death penalty for anyone–it is the job of the Church to advocate for life. Putting a sinner to death removes all possibility of repentance from them. And as someone who associates any sort of death penalty with a culture of death, I do not see it as the Church’s job to participate in such a culture either through complicity, or through more active participation.

Regarding whether or not heresy was punishable by death, this is immaterial to me and somewhat repugnant. That the leaders of the Church which glorifies the God of Life and Mercy would at any time advocate a death penalty (whether ecclesiastical or secular) for heterodox views is reprehensible to me.

You’ll have to do more to convince me that any sort of death penalty is warranted than say, “They deserved it (at least back then).”

Shiann:

Secondly, those involved with determining who was guilty of heresy had CONVERSION as their goal, not putting people to death. They did not 'put people out" and let them fend for themselves, there is evidence that there was a significant effort to educate and inform. And the timeframe for this education and ‘inquisition’ was over a year.

I’m not talking about the determination of guilt. I’m talking about what follows. That they were interested in conversion is great and very commendable. That they were willing to give up at some point in time is not so great and not so commendable.

Re: putting people out, the allegory was just that, an allegory. I am not suggesting that the representatives of the Church made heretics become wilderness survivalists. I’m suggesting that they fed them to the secular dogs. Knowingly. And willingly.

Shiann:

During this year, the accused would be encouraged to denounce the heresy and embrace christianity. They were given a significant grace period where they could present their case and clear the heresy charges. If, after a years time, the accused was unwilling to embrace christianity- they were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment.

Great. Why just a year? Because God’s patience has limits? Because God’s mercy has limits?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Steven.
Steven Merten:

I guess I did not realize that the Church felt that putting heretics to physical death, for the protection of spiritual life, was evil. If the Church does not see capital punishment, in itself, as evil, when used to protect physical life, why does the Church feel that putting to death heretics, for the protection of spiritual life, is evil?

I don’t think the Church has made an official pronouncement on Capital Punishment (except perhaps to say that it prefers it not to be employed). I know PJPII was no fan, and I imagine BXVI is no big supporter either. I could be wrong. No doubt someone will post a reference on this and clarify the entire issue.

Whose spiritual life is being protected by the death of a heretic? The heretic’s or the congregation’s? Are there not other ways to protect the orthodoxy of the congregation without putting those who disagree to death? By removing the heretic from life, is the heretic not also removed from the opportunity to repent?
Steven Merten:

What do you think of St. Peter and The Holy Spirit killing Ananias and Sapphira? St. Peter perfectly fits into the position of the baby sitter in your wild dogs killing children anology. I would certianly think that the Church does not believe that St. Peter is guilty of any evil in the killing of Ananias and Sapphira.

The parallel here with the instant death which accompanies touching the holy Ark of the Covenant is striking. In both cases, we have instances of people who unworthily reach out to take or touch what has been consecrated to God and belongs only to him. But it is not Peter who puts them to death. The Spirit convicts them and the Spirit strikes them down. This is a supernatural event. This is not the justice of men. And this is no endorsement for advocating a death penalty either for people who tithe improperly or greedily, or for heretics. If nothing else, the story says–God can defend Godself, thank you very much.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!