Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[frobert]

Umm, didn’t you ‘hear’ Paul?
“…and if he will not listen even to The Church, [after his brother, his brother and 2 witnesses] hand him over to the civil authorities…”

Seems your question is better posed to God Himself!

Just sayin’

The responses I receive on here never cease to amaze me.

Suppose I said I do talk to God and he answers? I do and sometimes circumstances turn out and I think God may have answered me.

Still I think the questions I asked may be buried in historical records.

 

[dronald]

No! Those with bloody hands, whether Catholic, Protestant or whatever, must face God with that blood on their hands. Just pointing out that we all suffer from a fallen nature. Period. Protestant abuses are frequently ignored or forgotten, and what we forget we are condemned to repeat. No more to it than that.

Fair.

But it doesn’t change the fact that the Church had multiple chances at reform and murdered those reformers instead of dialogue.

Edit: or when dialogue fails, allow them to have their beliefs. The world of Christianity we live in now is far better than before.

 

[jinc1019]

This topic comes up from time to time. We have to look no further than under our very roof for answers.

Please see:
catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

While I think this is a fair tract, it really doesn’t address the issue. It admits the Church makes mistakes, but it doesn’t explain at all what Catholics are supposed to do when they are ordered by the Church to do immoral things.

 

[jinc1019]

… except this isn’t what the council said.

Lateran 4

Expulsion is not the same as death.

Listening to people who don’t tell the truth is a poor way to understand it.

This is such a tired argument. “EXTERMINATION” could mean either expulsion or death…It’s a fact in the Middle Ages that when heretics were excommunicated, they were often killed…so “excommunication” was, in many cases, synonomous with executing. Further, even if “expulsion” was the meaning of “extermination,” how is that justifiable? Think about what “expulsion” would mean in 1254. You would lose your home, your job, your access to food, your community, everything…You would be left with absolutely nothing. To minimize that as if it’s meaningless is really sad. Further, as I said, “extermination” often meant killing anyway-so the secular authorities didn’t agree with your interpretation.

 

[jinc1019]

Question: How are God’s command handed down to us?

Does God come down and show himself to us? Or these are prompted to someone and relayed to us?

For Saul, it was through Samuel.

What was the difference between Saul being told by Samuel to slay women and children and the command to burn heretics?

But maybe you miss the point of what I was trying to make…obedience…takes leaps of faith to trust and obey…and trusting God that He will prevent something that will cause sin… just like what happened to Abraham.

The difference is that Samuel was told DIRECTLY by God…The Pope never claimed to be told directly by God that teaching against burning heretics is an “error,” as Pope Leo X did in 1520 in his Papal Bull. Samuel was just passing the message along, but he wasn’t claiming the authority to teach on his own.

 

[jinc1019]

No, it doesn’t. You have been duped.

I am not going to get into an argument about it. I urge anyone who is interested to go read the official proclamations themselves, including those dealing with the Jews. Just read what it says. You don’t need to take my word for it.

 

[jinc1019]

I understand what you are asking, but in modern times, it is rare that churches ask anything of their parish members, whether or not this is a good thing or not is up for debate though.

I personally feel ALL christian parishes probably should be asking its members to fight abortion more aggressively…I feel God will stand with those who engage in such actions as well and will probably be blessed for their actions.

Plus, the enemy sees no problem with bringing out the big guns (literally) and using them, to protect its killing grounds, why should Gods people be any different in the fight against this genocide?

With God backing the church and its members, the fight would not last long and I dont think I need to say who would come out on top and win!

The problem is though, most people (myself included) are too worried about their lifestyle and the possibility of them going to jail for something, even if they know it is the right thing to do in their heart…after all, if someone had fought against Hitler and his soldiers back then, TODAY, they would be considered heroes and be praised for their actions, but back then, they probably would have been jailed, the same thing would happen to any group that stood up to the powers that be and put a stop to all abortions, short term, they would likely be called domestic terrorists, but long term, they would be considered heroes.

My opinion anyway.

I understand that in modern times, the Church doesn’t ask for what it once did…but in 2,000 years, the Church experiences ebbs and flows, and it’s possible it could pursue similar actions in the future. Even so, it’s necessary for Catholics to understand the nature of the authority of the Church.

In regards to abortion…You will find virtually no one is more opposed to it than I am, but your comments, which seem to suggest that abortion warrants violent reactions, is, in my opinion, quite serious, shocking, disappointing, and morally wrong. Jesus clearly taught how we should deal with those who disagree with us, as did the Apostles, and nowhere are we told to use violence. Violence, in fact, is expressly forbidden unless it is absolutely necessary. Further, the use of violence would ONLY assist those who support abortion, by making any arguments against it appear as extreme. I urge you to pray for guidance on this.

With that said, yes, there should be a greater emphasis on abortion in local parishes. It’s morally wrong and it should be exposed for what it is using science and reason, as well as faith. That doesn’t mean, of course, that those people who get abortions are evil people or wrong. They often don’t know what they are doing, and even when they do, they have been conditioned by our culture to believe it’s ok and that an unborn child is not even human.

 

[jinc1019]

Look into Protestant history. Ask the Anabaptists how they were treated by the reformers. Ask the Catholic martyrs in England how they were treated by the Church of England. How were the suspected “witches” in Salem (New England) treated?

There are bloody hands all round.

Yes, there absolutely were. 100% correct.

The difference is…those reformed churches today do not require the kind of obedience to authority that the Catholic Church does.

 

[jinc1019]

Did the church know that the heretics they handed over to the civil authorities were destined to be tortured and killed? If not why not? If the church did know does it have any culpability for their deaths? If the church did not know were they just refusing to see?

All great points. The Church did know, of course. If the Church had no culpability, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for many of these very same issues?

 

[jinc1019]

Makes my Church look pretty good now doesn’t it?

Hahah. Just kidding.

In all seriousness though, I would never join a Church that condones murder like the CC did at one point. The CC is pretty cool with not burning heretics to death, digging up remains of heretics to be burnt, or turning them over to the authorities all Pontius Pilate like. So I may join it one day, since it has been reformed; but to say that it didn’t need some serious keeping in line like other Church’s do now is false.

I think that’s a rather unfair position. You can’t condemn an organization because of the poor decisions by some of its members. The vast majority of Catholics in history have never done any such things…Further, unless you are willing to renounce your citizenship of every single country in the world and go live on an island by yourself, you are never going to be able to find a society where atrocities have not be sanctioned at any point in history.

 

[dronald]

I think that’s a rather unfair position. You can’t condemn an organization because of the poor decisions by some of its members. The vast majority of Catholics in history have never done any such things…Further, unless you are willing to renounce your citizenship of every single country in the world and go live on an island by yourself, you are never going to be able to find a society where atrocities have not be sanctioned at any point in history.

You kinda missed what I said friend. I said I would consider it now considering they’re pretty nice. However the vast amounts of Protestants has made it impossible for one Church to claim ultimate truth and use it to go on a mass killing spree.

Imagine the CC tried now? It would be a PR nightmare and all of the Catholics would have a refuge that agrees with their morals and not that of a wicked Pope.

 

[jinc1019]

You kinda missed what I said friend. I said I would consider it now considering they’re pretty nice. However the vast amounts of Protestants has made it impossible for one Church to claim ultimate truth and use it to go on a mass killing spree.

Imagine the CC tried now? It would be a PR nightmare and all of the Catholics would have a refuge that agrees with their morals and not that of a wicked Pope.

I agree that if the Reformation had never happened, the Catholic Church would likely have been very slow to make the changes they have made.

 

[pablope]

The difference is that Samuel was told DIRECTLY by God…The Pope never claimed to be told directly by God that teaching against burning heretics is an “error,” as Pope Leo X did in 1520 in his Papal Bull. Samuel was just passing the message along, but he wasn’t claiming the authority to teach on his own.

Right…but my question was how did Saul receive it?

But that was not the point I was trying to convey.

It was: Why did God order the killing of all…and not spare anyone of the amalkites?

 

[Deconi]

This is such a tired argument. “EXTERMINATION” could mean either expulsion or death…It’s a fact in the Middle Ages that when heretics were excommunicated, they were often killed…so “excommunication” was, in many cases, synonomous with executing. Further, even if “expulsion” was the meaning of “extermination,” how is that justifiable? Think about what “expulsion” would mean in 1254. You would lose your home, your job, your access to food, your community, everything…You would be left with absolutely nothing. To minimize that as if it’s meaningless is really sad. Further, as I said, “extermination” often meant killing anyway-so the secular authorities didn’t agree with your interpretation.

C’Mon Jincs! Firstly, you’ve been shown that your ‘favoured’ Bull has been ‘doctored’ and NOT at all what you claimed it to be ‘commanding’…and now you’re extending the actions of The Church as to be RESPONSIBLE for the fate of heretics, regardless Her warnings of consequences falling on deaf ears!

Perhaps you prefer the Church harbours heretics and tolerate conflicting teachings against the Gospel she is commissioned to proclaim AND protect. (Protestant much?)

It is APOSTOLIC teaching that those who do not listen or hear are to be handed over to the authorities. (see Paul)

Yet, excommunication as a process doesn’t happen in a YEAR! How do I know? Same way YOU should know! Ships, boats, messengers, proclamations, courts / tribunals…etc, do not happenstance over night. But it seems you go back to historical periods and select what you bring forward to suit your position. Understandable, yes, but blinkered.

Furthermore, the God of the universe isn’t confined to the ‘boundaries’ of His Church. There must have been spurious expulsions and/or excommunications, given the local Bishops were men!..just like today, we had and have some dodgy ones!..

 

[esieffe]

“Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.”

Lovingly borrowed from: catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

“The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.”

 

[dmar198]

I will be upfront with everyone here.

I grew up in the Catholic Church but was never really a Christian while in it. While in college, after having been challenged by my very Catholic father-in-law, I started examining Christianity and after a year of intense study, I became a true Christian for the first time in my life (thank you very much C.S. Lewis).

That was about 3 years ago or so. Since then, I have been trying to find out the truth about Christianity.

One of the great struggles I have with Catholicism is this:

If the Church’s authority is supposed to be accepted by the faithful at all times…What happens when the Church demands its members engage in immoral activities?

According to Church teaching, no one is required to obey an immoral command. “The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.” (CCC 2235)

“If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.” (CCC 1903)

“A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.” (CCC 1902, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas) Wherever unjust commands are issued, faithful Catholics are not obliged to obey them, but are in fact obliged to disobey them. That said, there are quite a few ways to interpret the historical situations you mention in the OP, and, in my judgment of these historical questions, it is wrong to say that the Church commanded anyone to do anything sinful in these situations. I’ll get to that in a bit.

For instance, at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Church demanded that secular authorities “exterminate” heretics.

First, let’s quote the relevant document:

Lateran IV, Canon 3: “[Civil rulers] ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate/expel in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.” 1215 A.D.

First, let it be noted that the most significant word in Canon 3 is translated in two different ways: sometimes as exterminate, sometimes as expel. But let us suppose that exterminate is the correct translation. In that case, there is an apparent contradiction between this teaching and the modern teaching of the Church on the just use of the death penalty.

Consider this quote from the Catechism: “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 [an] 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” CCC 2267.

The Catechism seems to say that the State must not use the death penalty if they can avoid it, and its purpose is to “defend ] human lives against [an] unjust aggressor.” But Lateran IV seems to say that the death penalty must be used against heretics. According to the Catholic Church, our teachings cannot change. How do we square this apparent contradiction?

By reading carefully. Lateran IV does not say that the death penalty must be used against heretics in all cases – it says it must be used against “all heretics pointed out by the Church.” That phrasing is important. It acknowledges the Church’s right to decide upon the moral use of the death penalty. And the Church says that the death penalty cannot be used against someone unless they are an “unjust aggressor” who is attacking “human lives” and who cannot be stopped in any other way.

Similar reasoning applies to Pope Leo X’s Bull Exsurge Domine. [cont’d next post]

 

[dmar198]

[cont’d from last post]

According to that document, Error 33 was: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” 1520 A.D.

To say the same thing in other words, what Exsurge Domine is condemning is the idea that it is contrary to the Law of God to apply the death penalty to heretics. And we do condemn that: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.” But when? “[Only] if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against [an] unjust aggressor.”

This is not a new interpretation of this teaching; this was how it was understood at the time. I think that perhaps no better proof of this can be cited than St. Thomas More, who was in charge of executions in England shortly after Exsurge Domine was published. According to this saint, writing in 1528, the Church’s teaching was tempered by the fact that heretics’ executions should only be done once they themselves have become violent. He says this several times in his Dialog Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13: “[The princes] never in fact would have resorted so heavily to force and violence against heretics if the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themselves against good Catholic folk had not driven good princes to do it.”

“[A]s I said before, if the heretics had never started with the violence, then even if they had used all the ways they could to lure the people by preaching…yet if they had left violence alone, good Christian people would perhaps all the way up to this day have used less violence toward them than they do now.”

“[F]rom the beginning [heretics] were never by any temporal punishment of their bodies at all harshly treated until they began to be violent themselves.”

“[Therefore] what the Church law on this calls for is good, reasonable, compassionate, and charitable, and in no way desirous of the death of anyone.” (More, Thomas. Dialogue Concerning Heresies. Translated by Gottschalk, Mary. 2006. New York, NY: Scepter Publishers. p. 460-464)Now I admit that this teaching was not always followed in the Middle Ages by everyone, and in the space of 1000 years from 500 to 1500 A.D. I am sure that there were people who ordered the deaths of heretics who could have been left alive. But apart from the fact that no one is obliged to follow unjust orders, it is worth pointing out that the Albigensians, against whom Lateran IV was directed, were known to have existed in 1022 A.D., almost 200 years before the Albigensian Crusade was ordered against them, and the Church’s bishops did not order anything to be done against them until the papal legate Blessed Pierre de Castelnau was murdered by them when he was trying to peacefully recover the Albigensian regions to the Catholic faith. In this case, too, it was the heretics’ violence which begot a violent response, though the violence of the Catholics was arguably beyond what was required.

Pope John Paul II himself admitted the Church has done some terrible things in its past. Yet, whenever these events have occurred, the Church has demanded obedience from the faithful.

Pope John Paul II did not attribute circumstances like these to the Church’s teachings. He apologized for the bad witness of the many evil Catholics from history, but he maintained a clear distinction in which the sins of the Church’s members are sins “in the Church” but not “of the Church.” This shows up in his “Universal Prayer [in] Confession of Sins and Asking of Forgiveness” and in the Apostolic Exhortation “Memory and Reconciliation,” which is subtitled, “The Church and the Faults of the Past.”

So my question to you is: How can the faithful approach these kinds of situations? If the Church tells me I should exterminate all the heretics (not that I think they would in the future), am I obliged as a Catholic to be obedient?

I hope the answers I have given you show that you are not obliged to obey unjust commands, but that, if ever these happen, they should not be attributed to the Church.

What if the Church says I must do this or be thrown out of the Church?

If a bishop threatened to excommunicate you for not committing a sin, it either would not be valid, or, if it was, it would seem to operate like an interdict laid over an entire region, which always prohibits the innocent as well as the guilty from receiving the Sacraments. For the guilty, it means they are in a state of sin, but for the innocent, it merely absolves them of the responsibility of receiving the Sacraments, and entails no sin for them.

I am not saying the Church will ask its faithful to burn heretics (those days are behind us I hope), but the same could be said for any command of immorality. How do Catholics know when they should be obedient and when they should reject the authority of the Church? The Catechism and the Canon make it sound like Catholics must always be obedient.

Hopefully the quotes I gave from the Catechism clarify that. But do not let it be thought that this means you can sometimes “reject the authority of the Church” – not at all. What this means is that the Church’s bishops have no authority to command sin, and so it is not a rejection of their authority not to follow such a command, if it ever was given. But as I said above, there are varying interpretations of the history of such circumstances, and we do not all admit that the Church’s leaders commanded evil actions in the circumstances you mentioned. At least, not all of them did, and there were often faithful Catholics who spoke up about the true requirements of obedience.

Any sincere help with this would be greatly appreciated. This is a huge stumbling block for me on my way to being Catholic.

God Bless,
Justin

God bless you too. I hope I was helpful.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The difference is that Samuel was told DIRECTLY by God…The Pope never claimed to be told directly by God that teaching against burning heretics is an “error,” as Pope Leo X did in 1520 in his Papal Bull. Samuel was just passing the message along, but he wasn’t claiming the authority to teach on his own.

Good Evening JINC1019:

I think every living being has direct communication with God through the experience of being alive. The world is God’s creation, and everything in it is an expression of God, from whom every outcome derives it’s potential. The wind in your hair while riding a bike, the hissing of leaves before a storm, the smell of rain before it falls - all of these things are direct communications from God. They are not laden with meaning, but with experience, and experience is our purpose. And I think living beings are the means by which God accomplishes experience, and no proper understanding is necessary. What is necessary is being fully immersed in the offices of life. Being fully alive is our ministry. When we reply on intermediaries, seers, sages, saints, ordained officials and institutions for our communication with God, I sense that we have greatly attenuated our ability to hear, see and touch God. We fail to fulfill our potential, and perhaps even our purpose. I would offer that our lives are not about dogmas, theories, and second hand knowledge of God. Our lives seem to be about our own communications with God through direct felt experience. Any person or institution that considers the experience of another to be heresy is missing the point, because other than experience, there really isn’t an meaning. Love, hate, happiness, anger, sleep, dreams, wakefulness, as well as all that is seen, heard, felt or otherwise perceived is experience, and no experience is proven in any substantial terms to be more valid than another. In the end, we all believe what we believe because of the experience of learning, and what we are taught is largely a matter of circumstance and culture. The rest is all about hoping that it’s true, and to condemn what someone else hopes because it conflicts with what we hope is a pointless enterprise, I think.

As a disclaimer, these are of course my own observations, and they carry no ordained or official heft, and are not substantiated by anything other than what I have reasoned.

 

[jinc1019]

Right…but my question was how did Saul receive it?

But that was not the point I was trying to convey.

It was: Why did God order the killing of all…and not spare anyone of the amalkites?

The reality is that your argument doesn’t hold because in one situation, God speaks directly, and in the other, God may not be speaking at all!

I understand what you are getting at…But Jesus and the Apostles are quite clear about how we should react to violence against us and to those who don’t hold the orthodox faith.

 

[jinc1019]

C’Mon Jincs! Firstly, you’ve been shown that your ‘favoured’ Bull has been ‘doctored’ and NOT at all what you claimed it to be ‘commanding’…and now you’re extending the actions of The Church as to be RESPONSIBLE for the fate of heretics, regardless Her warnings of consequences falling on deaf ears!

Perhaps you prefer the Church harbours heretics and tolerate conflicting teachings against the Gospel she is commissioned to proclaim AND protect. (Protestant much?)

It is APOSTOLIC teaching that those who do not listen or hear are to be handed over to the authorities. (see Paul)

Yet, excommunication as a process doesn’t happen in a YEAR! How do I know? Same way YOU should know! Ships, boats, messengers, proclamations, courts / tribunals…etc, do not happenstance over night. But it seems you go back to historical periods and select what you bring forward to suit your position. Understandable, yes, but blinkered.

Furthermore, the God of the universe isn’t confined to the ‘boundaries’ of His Church. There must have been spurious expulsions and/or excommunications, given the local Bishops were men!..just like today, we had and have some dodgy ones!..

I am not going to waste time debating the Papal Bull of 1520 or the Fourth Lateran Council. Nothing was doctored. I pulled the quote directly from a Catholics apologetics website (if I remember correctly), but I have read the canons featured on Fordham’s (a Catholic university) website and my position is exactly the same.

AT BEST, even if we are to assume the Church had no idea that their commands would end in the death of heretics, the canons specifically require secular authorities to essentially ruin the lives of “heretics.” They are to be expelled from their home kingdoms, their professions are to be disregarded, their families are forced to leave the only communities they have ever known…How can you defend such a position?

Again, this is a major problem with Catholic apologetics. No one ever wants to admit to historical facts, and everyone pretends that all of these very specific and clear quotes don’t mean what they obviously mean.

I urge anyone who is interested to simply read the original documents yourself and tell me if it fits into the various commands of Jesus. Are these commands of love or commands of intolerance?

Theologically, I am quite conservative, but Jesus gave people a choice! He didn’t say, “If you don’t believe what I am telling you, we are going to kill you, force you to leave our communities, mistreat you, force you into a ghetto, etc.” He commanded that we should love our neighbors. I guess that only applies to our Christian neighbors.

Like I said…if you are interested, read the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council yourself, including the canons towards the end regarding treatment of the Jews. This was held to be authoritative in the Catholic Church and I think it’s reasonable to say that these kinds of decisions make it very difficult for modern Catholics to know when we should be obedient and when we should say “No.” No one can give me a definitive answer on this, and that really does disturb me.