Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[FathersKnowBest]

1. Perhaps even more importantly, it also denies that the Church KNEW when it delivered canons such as those that we see in the Fourth Lateran Council that the result of being “expelled,” “exterminated,” or “handed over to the authorities” was the death of these individuals.

Not in the vast majority of cases.

But still, hypothetically, knowing it is possible, or even likely, that someone would be put to death upon your judgement, how much culpability do you have?

Here is a question I’d like you to actually answer: Suppose you’re on a jury for a capital crime. You don’t pronounce the sentence, you only determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. You know that there is a possibility that, if convicted, the accused could be sentenced to death. You believe that person to be guilty based on the evidence.

Do you vote to convict, or acquit?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Seems like a case of dueling translations. As was noted previously in the thread, the word under discussion was translated as “exterminate” by H. J. Schroeder, in his work Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). You can find his translation at this site.

That’s definitely a fair observation. Here’s why Tanner’s translation, I think, has the day.
(1) The qualifications at the end of the article you linked by Schroeder in 1937 should give one pause, but more importantly;

(2) From Tanner, who provides a critical Latin text, the word in question is exterminare (p. 233), which might seem like a slam dunk for Schroeder’s translation. In reality it is not in the least, as a moment’s reflection on the origin of the word will reveal. According to Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary it is ex (out of) and terminus (a boundary mark : limit : boundary). The definition is - to drive beyond the boundaries : to drive out, expel, banish.

So jinc1019 can be back to feeling relieved from his sincere struggles with authority in the CC.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It appears that a major problem lies in an individual’s ability (or not) to separate himself/herself from the ‘present’ POV and to understand that a different time (in this case, several centuries) meant that the average person had a very different POV.

I think there is a TV show on somewhere in which a character from 2011 was ‘transported’ back to 1971. He experienced quite a ‘culture shock’; no cell phones, no Internet. . .people had no idea what those things were.

Or looking at our parents and grandparents, imagine going back to 1940 or so . . The kind of equal opportunity we see as normal and natural was only just starting to stir in the ‘radical activist’ labeled people. . .the majority of people THEN would not see it as normal or natural at all, not THEN. Slowly they would learn to understand and appreciate. But it would be wrong to argue that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN and accepted something THEN, right not, that minute! just because we know and accept it now.

 

[cornbread_r2]

That’s definitely a fair observation. Here’s why Tanner’s translation, I think, has the day.
(1) The qualifications at the end of the article you linked by Schroeder in 1937 should give one pause, but more importantly;

(2) From Tanner, who provides a critical Latin text, the word in question is exterminare (p. 233), which might seem like a slam dunk for Schroeder’s translation. In reality it is not in the least, as a moment’s reflection on the origin of the word will reveal. According to Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary it is ex (out of) and terminus (a boundary mark : limit : boundary). The definition is - to drive beyond the boundaries : to drive out, expel, banish.

So jinc1019 can be back to feeling relieved from his sincere struggles with authority in the CC.

That makes sense.

As I understand it, the council’s constitutions were also originally written in Greek. Do you have an English translation for the Greek word used?

 

[steve_b]

That makes sense.

As I understand it, the council’s constitutions were also originally written in Greek. Do you have an English translation for the Greek word used?

The word in question that caused the stir among non Catholics and anti Catholics, was translated from the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. That original was written in Latin not Greek.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

That makes sense.

As I understand it, the council’s constitutions were also originally written in Greek. Do you have an English translation for the Greek word used?

I believe what you are referring to is a critical text produced in 1671 relying on a Greek and Latin codex. The Greek was a translation thought to be contemporary with the Latin original and therefore of value. It is not a complete text, however, and was found to rely on a later Latin codex, not a contemporary text. The original is in Latin, the language of the Church in the High Middle Ages. (Tanner, I, 228-9) Lateran IV was, of course, in 1215 AD.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

It appears that a major problem lies in an individual’s ability (or not) to separate himself/herself from the ‘present’ POV and to understand that a different time (in this case, several centuries) meant that the average person had a very different POV.

I think there is a TV show on somewhere in which a character from 2011 was ‘transported’ back to 1971. He experienced quite a ‘culture shock’; no cell phones, no Internet. . .people had no idea what those things were.

Or looking at our parents and grandparents, imagine going back to 1940 or so . . The kind of equal opportunity we see as normal and natural was only just starting to stir in the ‘radical activist’ labeled people. . .the majority of people THEN would not see it as normal or natural at all, not THEN. Slowly they would learn to understand and appreciate. But it would be wrong to argue that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN and accepted something THEN, right not, that minute! just because we know and accept it now.

Exactly . . . a sense of history.

Christopher Dawson says it well.

“One of the great merits of history is that it takes us out of ourselves–away from the obvious and accepted facts–and discovers a reality that would otherwise be unknown to us. There is a real value in steeping our minds in an age entirely different to that which we know: a world different, but no less real–indeed more real, for what we call the “modern world” is the world of a generation, while a culture like that of the Byzantine or the Carolingian world has a life of centuries.
History should be that great corrective to that “parochialism in time” which Bertrand Russell rightly describes as one of the great faults of our modern society.”
[Christopher Dawson. *The Making of Europe. NY: The World Publishing Company, 1932, p. 16]

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh my goodness I have homework tonight.

However, what if said person went around preaching a symbolic Eucharist without recant?

Dronald,

I don’t know how I forgot about Bartolome de las Casas! (1484-1566) [Right at the peak of the Reformation!]

1st Bishop of Chiapas in Mexico.

Bishop Bartolome spent 50 years of his life actively fighting slavery and the violent colonial abuse of indigenous peoples, especially by trying to convince the Spanish court to adopt a more humane policy of colonization. And although he failed to save the indigenous peoples of the Western Indies, his efforts resulted in several improvements in the legal status of the natives, and in an increased colonial focus on the ethics of colonialism. Las Casas is often seen as one of the first advocates for universal human rights.

 

[mardukm]

The onus is now on you to quote where I have sat on a high horse in my disagreements. I would appreciate it if you give me the exact quote(s) where I have done so.

Well, you have judged everyone for supporting murder, just because we have tried to give you a reasoned explanation of the way society was back then, and to show you what the Church actually taught (as opposed to merely allowed).

I most certainly do disagree with any interpretation of the Bible that you have quoted which can be interpreted to say burning heretics, or killing them in any way for the crime of heresy is permissible.

I guess St. Peter failed to get the memo when he murdered Ananias and Sapphira, and preached against Simon Magus with the words “may your silver perish with you?” And though you probably don’t care about extra-scriptural Tradition, the Acts of St. Peter and Paul show that they murdered Simon the Magician.

If I have become confused in your attempt to defend the mindset of those people,…

There you go again sitting on your high horse. Trying to rationally explain how they thought and what the Church actually taught about the matter is tantamount to defending murder while sitting on your high horse. You really can’t see how your language comes off as being on a high horse? Saying you disagree with how the Middle Ages thought the eternal state was more important than the temporal state is fine, but to accuse others of defending murder is sitting on a high horse.

causing me to think that you share that mindset then I wouldn’t really find that all too strange. You’re defending a position and I’m disagreeing with it, I don’t know if you agree with the position you defend or not; regardless I’m here to counter it.

You haven’t countered anything - at least not with any rational argumentation. All you’ve done is state an opinion that medieval society murdered and that the Church taught people to murder. But you have not discussed why it should be considered murder in the first place. Is self defense murder? Is execution after a trial murder? Is execution for treason murder? What is your definition of murder? The Church taught that the State should only execute violent criminals. The Church commanded its clerics not to even suggest the kinds of corporal punishment that the State could inflict. Did murder actually occur? Who can doubt it? *** But was it murder because of what the Church actually taught, or because society was taking it too far?*** You have claimed that the Church actually taught people to murder. Where is your proof?

The idea that if I remove you from Catholicism and bring you to another branch of Christianity, I could be punished or killed. Similar things go on in the Middle East at this time.

That idea also existed in the Protestant States. That’s just the way it was back then. They had different standards. That’s no argument not to join Protestantism. You have stated “I would never join a group which allowed such things.” Well, every group that existed back then DID allow such things because they simply had a different standard about which was imporatnt - the eternal state was more important than this temporary world. You don’t have to agree with it, but that’s just the way it was.

The strict doctrinal meaning? No. Were they teaching it? Sure.

You are surely stretching the meaning of the term “teach.” The burning of heretics may have been allowed, but it was never taught.

I don’t understand this Apologetic strategy, as if the Church had no influence on the State.

I don’t understand this apologetic strategy either, as if the Church had absolute power over the State. I mentioned before that secular rulers regularly challenged the Pope when their self-interest for the State overrode what the Pope commanded (even despite the threat of excommunication). If the secular authority, who determined both the criteria for and form of the punishments, had decided that heretics needed to be killed (since heresy was a crime against the State in those days), what makes you so sure Church authority could prevent it? Please respond.

If what was happening was morally wrong, why would the Church not speak out (assuming the Church wasn’t responsible at all.)

Yes, I believe the Church was not responsible at all. Individual Christians were (whether you were “Catholic” or “Protestant” depended on who held the power in the region). History has judged that these individuals were a bad witness for the Church, but the Church herself cannot be blamed.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The CC didn’t actually have a problem with what was happening, because as you said; it was theocratic.

If the CC did not actually have a problem with what was happening, why were instructions given that clerics should not engage in any way in these activities? Please ponder that and try to provide an explanation.

Again, I didn’t originally want to get into this. So I will let the reader decide what Jesus meant in Luke 9:54-56.

Why do you refuse to address the point I made? (that Jesus’ admonition had to do with giving men a chance to repent.) It has nothing to do with your claim that capital punishment (by burning or what ever) is murder.

While being a perfect moral example for the rest of the world; I also made that clear in the part you did not quote.

The problem is that you have not shown, biblically nor logically, that capital punishment for heresy is inherently evil (i.e., morally wrong).

Oh, I understand where they’re coming from but I’m just saying they were wrong. “We think Spiritual death is worse than murder so we’re going to kill you” could have been the mentality, I just disagree with the killing part.

Again, you have not proven, biblically nor logically, that capital punishment for heresy is inherently evil (morally wrong). It is certainly wrong per modern sensibilities.

Can you cite chapter and verse please? I was as confused as dmar when I first read this:
I read Romans 13, but I can’t find that quote. I do see “Do not murder” in verse 9

The part that says that we must obey government and that their role is to punish.

and I do believe that’s what the Catholics did to John Hus and Waldo’s followers who only wanted to preach Christ.

I see you took Wycliffe off your list. Yes, Christians killed Hus and Waldo’s followers.

Again, I understand the mentality at the time; I just don’t agree with it and I certainly won’t defend it.

Another high-horse statement. You judge mere explanation as a “defense” and accuse everyone of supporting murder.

I can’t think of a more appropriate time to insert a, “When in Rome” joke.

Except this was not a case of “when in Rome,” but a case of society as a whole with no actual locus of the idea that heresy was a crime against the State (even Protestant countries worked on the same principle during this period). You are definitely wrong here, and it seems to reflect an underlying anti-Catholicsm.

And people certainly had every right to distance themselves from said “secular authorities” or whoever is turning them over to the authorities to be murdered. Except, they didn’t have those rights; it was “believe what we believe or be killed eventually.”

You admitted you are not an historian. Please take the time to read this:
newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
It is the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Inquisition. After reading it, you might discover how ridiculous is the claim that the Church taught the murder of heretics. In fact, the execution of heretics had been a regular practice of the imperial government since the 4th century. Heretics were historically seen by emperors (especially after the secular power had become Christianized) as threats to the security and well-being of their lands.

Let’s wait to see if you will judge this very reasonable article as a “defense of murder,” like you’ve judge everything else written that has been contrary to your opinion.

The actions of the Church were a reflection of its teachers.

I definitely disagree. Rather, the actions of SOME (maybe many, but not most) of its teachers (i.e. bishops) was a bad reflection on the Church. Is that what you were trying to say?

The Church has great teachers now, but I don’t blame people from being afraid of it in the middle ages.

That’s a reasonable statement, just like early Christians were struck by fear when St. Peter murdered Ananias and Sapphira.

Btw, please answer these questions:
(1) Is capital punishment always immoral?
(2) Would you believe that it is murder to kill for the sake of independence?
(3) Do you consider executions for the sake of national security murder?
(4) Do you consider the Old Testament as teaching murder?
(5) Why did not Jesus or the Apostles actively teach and preach against the practice of stoning?
(6) Why did not the Apostles directly teach and preach against the murder of Christians by Rome? Surely, it was wrong. Why did they not actively preach against it?
(7) Does their lack of preaching against the murder of Christians in Scripture mean they are blameworthy for the murder?
(8) Would you agree that St. Paul knew that the political authorities were pagans and executed Christians?
(9) If you say “yes,” would you say that his preaching in Romans 13, as well as St. Peter’s preaching - that government authorities should be obeyed and are used by God to punish offenders - means he supported the murder of Christians? Does this mean he was teaching that murder is OK?

Blessings

 

[dronald]

Well, you made some decent points, while some being outright ridiculous (imo). I’m not sure what the mentality of most Catholics is when they read your posts, especially considering I’ve been reasonable and you’ve been insulting.

I think everyone here can agree with me that although I am not Catholic and do not accept everything within the Catholic Church I am open to some things. Definitely not some of the things you’ve said, but again I don’t buy that all Catholics agree with the majority of your points.

You can have the last word there, because I didn’t (as I’ve stated three times now) want to get into a silly debate like this anyways. I’ll continue to let the reader decide.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

dronald:

Well, you made some decent points, while some being outright ridiculous (imo). I’m not sure what the mentality of most Catholics is when they read your posts, especially considering I’ve been reasonable and you’ve been insulting.

I don’t believe you are being either fair or reasonable.

Some of your statements have been called “high horse.” You may have been offended, but that may be your pride speaking and not your intellect. I have been quietly observing these posts regarding Church history (and history in general, for that matter,) and they are extremely biased based on 21st century sensibilities.

Sometimes I fantasize about the shock and horror that people would experience, if they were somehow taken up and plopped into some remote time in history. The shock and horror would not be because of the times themselves, but rather because of the party or group with which they would find themselves in agreement.

 

[clem456]

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?
…
God Bless,
Justin

One basic thing that might be overlooked here is the nature of the Church. What is it? The word Church has very deep spiritual meaning and reality, it is full of divine mystery.
“Church” is not merely a group of men making rules for the flock. We tend to think of Church as a human institution, and as such we get caught up in the sinfulness of it’s members. This limits our vision of the Church to earthly concerns. The sins of the members do not define the Church. God continues to draw us to communion with him and each other despite our failings.

760 Christians of the first centuries said, "The world was created for the sake of the Church."153 **God created the world for the sake of communion with his divine life, a communion brought about by the “convocation” of men in Christ, and this “convocation” is the Church.**The Church is the goal of all things,154 and God permitted such painful upheavals as the angels’ fall and **man’s sin **only as occasions and means for displaying all the power of his arm and the whole measure of the love he wanted to give the world:

Just as God’s will is creation and is called “the world,” so his intention is the salvation of men, and it is called "the Church."155
761 The gathering together of the People of God began at the moment when sin destroyed the communion of men with God, and that of men among themselves. the gathering together of the Church is, as it were, God’s reaction to the chaos provoked by sin.

The Church is not created by humans to be the home of perfect human virtue or judgment. It is the body of Christ himself, sinners called to unity with the head, by carrying the cross of our own limitations and sins. It is a hospital for the sick, not the home of prideful perfection. This is not an excuse for any immoral behavior, it’s just a fact that we are all human sinners, including Popes. We make serious mistakes.

766 **The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving **for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. "The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus."171 "For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’"172

The Church is on a pilgrimage. Those that shepherd the flock have not “arrived” at perfection, we are all on a journey.

The Church - perfected in glory

769 "The Church . . . will receive its perfection only in the glory of heaven,"179 at the time of Christ’s glorious return. Until that day, "the Church progresses on her pilgrimage amidst this world’s persecutions and God’s consolations."180 Here below she knows that she is in exile far from the Lord, and longs for the full coming of the Kingdom, when she will "be united in glory with her king."181 The Church, and through her the world, will not be perfected in glory without great trials.

What is obedience? Obedience is not slavish subservience.

I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to **submit freely **to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

When Church authority becomes mixed up in politics and power, the idea of obedience can be perverted. At particular times in particular cultures, certain ways of behaving were seen as just which we now know are unjust. As the Church progresses in holiness we can come to see that God calls us to a better way.
As the Gospel this week contrasts:

You have heard it said…
But I say to you

This is the authority of Christ calling us to a better way. He is the model and root of obedience. Obedience is not the blind following of sinful human directives, or the complacent participation in social evils. The obedience of faith lives in the light of reason with a properly formed conscience. No Catholic is called to obey authority that commands sin. Such a command would not be authority at all, as it is not of Christ.

The authority of the Church must be seen as a whole, appreciating the divine mystery that is it’s source, not through the limited perspective of man’s sins.
The authority of the Church is of God, expressed through revelation…Scripture, living Tradition, living Magisterium.

 

[dronald]

I don’t believe you are being either fair or reasonable.

Some of your statements have been called “high horse.” You may have been offended, but that may be your pride speaking and not your intellect. I have been quietly observing these posts regarding Church history (and history in general, for that matter,) and they are extremely biased based on 21st century sensibilities.

Sometimes I fantasize about the shock and horror that people would experience, if they were somehow taken up and plopped into some remote time in history. The shock and horror would not be because of the times themselves, but rather because of the party or group with which they would find themselves in agreement.

I’m not offended; if my character is attacked and the counter points are weak then I have no reason to be offended given that this is a debate.

 

[jinc1019]

One basic thing that might be overlooked here is the nature of the Church. What is it? The word Church has very deep spiritual meaning and reality, it is full of divine mystery.
“Church” is not merely a group of men making rules for the flock. We tend to think of Church as a human institution, and as such we get caught up in the sinfulness of it’s members. This limits our vision of the Church to earthly concerns. The sins of the members do not define the Church. God continues to draw us to communion with him and each other despite our failings.

The Church is not created by humans to be the home of perfect human virtue or judgment. It is the body of Christ himself, sinners called to unity with the head, by carrying the cross of our own limitations and sins. It is a hospital for the sick, not the home of prideful perfection. This is not an excuse for any immoral behavior, it’s just a fact that we are all human sinners, including Popes. We make serious mistakes.

The Church is on a pilgrimage. Those that shepherd the flock have not “arrived” at perfection, we are all on a journey.

What is obedience? Obedience is not slavish subservience.

When Church authority becomes mixed up in politics and power, the idea of obedience can be perverted. At particular times in particular cultures, certain ways of behaving were seen as just which we now know are unjust. As the Church progresses in holiness we can come to see that God calls us to a better way.
As the Gospel this week contrasts:

This is the authority of Christ calling us to a better way. He is the model and root of obedience. Obedience is not the blind following of sinful human directives, or the complacent participation in social evils. The obedience of faith lives in the light of reason with a properly formed conscience. No Catholic is called to obey authority that commands sin. Such a command would not be authority at all, as it is not of Christ.

The authority of the Church must be seen as a whole, appreciating the divine mystery that is it’s source, not through the limited perspective of man’s sins.
The authority of the Church is of God, expressed through revelation…Scripture, living Tradition, living Magisterium.

I greatly appreciate your well articulated and wise response.

Justin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If the Church knows that excommunicating someone leads to the murder of that individual, then excommunication is as good as a death sentence. It makes no difference who the executioner is.
FathersKnowBest;11724183:

But still, hypothetically, knowing it is possible, or even likely, that someone would be put to death upon your judgement, how much culpability do you have?

Here is a question I’d like you to actually answer: Suppose you’re on a jury for a capital crime. You don’t pronounce the sentence, you only determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. You know that there is a possibility that, if convicted, the accused could be sentenced to death. You believe that person to be guilty based on the evidence.

Do you vote to convict, or acquit?

It’s been a while, jinc1019. Will you answer my question?

I hope that if you don’t answer it, or can’t answer it, you’ll at least cease using this objection in the future.

 

[StopDropandBowl]

It’s been a while, jinc1019. Will you answer my question?

I hope that if you don’t answer it, or can’t answer it, you’ll at least cease using this objection in the future.

I’ll take a stab at it:

You have full culpability for the results of your judgement if you are made aware of the possible results of said judgement. If you are the jury member in a case where the death penalty is a possibility, you are fully responsible for your decision AND for the consequences of said decision.

Let us say that I am on a jury, and I think the defendant is innocent of the charged crime (capital murder). But let’s say that I saw the defendant make a rude gesture to someone in the past, so I say he’s guilty, even though I think he’s innocent. And then let’s say that my “guilty” verdict leads directly to his execution. Am I not guilty of murder? Were my actions not directly responsible for the death of the innocent man? Obviously, we are held responsible for the actions we take. Otherwise it would be no sin to hire a hit-man to kill your wife! You could argue that HE committed the sin, not you.

Now, let’s take a different turn. Let’s say that you are on a jury for a man convicted of a crime. And let’s say that you believe he did commit the crime. But let’s say that the crime should not b a crime. Suppose that the society you live in has made abortion mandatory, and this man is a doctor who did not commit an abortion, and the penalty for this crime is death. You know that the honest answer would be to tell the judge that you believe he is guilty. However, doing so would result in the man’s unjust death.

Now the Church. They knew that the authorities at the time were enforcing unjust laws with unjust punishments. And yet they handed people over to them anyway, and now claim to have no part in the punishment or the law?

When Jesus saw the authorities of his time unjustly punishing a woman for a crime she WAS guilty of, did he sit back and wash his hands of it and say: “oh well, she broke their law!” NO! He defended the woman, and rebuked the people who were attempting to punish her. And might I add that the crime the woman had broken and the punishment they were proscribing were both thousands of years old, and in fact were held to be holy and righteous; direct commandments of God. Jesus was flying in the face of their religious and secular laws.

Also, Christians should be the LAST people to defend someone for “washing their hands of the consequences” when it comes to applying the law against a person accused of breaking it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I’ll take a stab at it:

Thanks, you answered some interesting questions, but you did NOT answer the question I asked.

Let us say that I am on a jury, and I think the defendant is innocent of the charged crime (capital murder).

Not what I asked. My premise was that he WAS guilty.

Now, let’s take a different turn. Let’s say that you are on a jury for a man convicted of a crime. And let’s say that you believe he did commit the crime. But let’s say that the crime should not b a crime.

Again, not my postulated scenario.

Now the Church. They knew that the authorities at the time were enforcing unjust laws with unjust punishments. And yet they handed people over to them anyway, and now claim to have no part in the punishment or the law?

See, you’re making a judgement that is possibly unscriptural, and AFTER scrupously avoiding the scenario I had asked about.

Why do you say that the laws were unjust? On what basis?
Don’t forget that St. Paul specifically says that the secular governments have the power of the sword (capital punishment) given to them by God.

Will you or someone else actually address the question?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Will you or someone else actually address the question?

Convict, given that the evidence is conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt (through my 21st century democratic eyes ).

As a jury, my job is to convict or acquit.

Law Enforcement’s job is to present the facts found on the investigation.

The Prosecuting attorney’s job is to interpret the facts from the investigation.

The Defense attorney’s job it to ensure that due process was followed and that the law is being dutifully enforced and to present any facts, not revealed or overlooked in the investigation, in regards to the defendant’s innocence or mitigating circumstances.

The Judge’s job is top preside over the issue at hand and enforce any matters of the law in regards to both attorney’s and to what is and is not admissible for the particular case. The Judge also is responsible for sentencing once the jury has declared a guilty verdict.

This is, of course, in a nutshell.

 

[dmar198]

Thanks, you answered some interesting questions, but you did NOT answer the question I asked.

Not what I asked. My premise was that he WAS guilty.

Again, not my postulated scenario.

See, you’re making a judgement that is possibly unscriptural, and AFTER scrupously avoiding the scenario I had asked about.

Why do you say that the laws were unjust? On what basis?
Don’t forget that St. Paul specifically says that the secular governments have the power of the sword (capital punishment) given to them by God.

Will you or someone else actually address the question?

I think you are bringing up a very important point, that even if we disagree with the use of capital punishment, changing that is not the juror’s job, his job is just too give a verdict. But I think the Church’s medieval hierarchy would be more admirable, viewed from a historical perspective, if they had protested the use of the death penalty in the case of non-violent heresies and if they had acted more strongly to change the law that applied the death penalty to non-violent heretics.

To be clear, I am not saying that the Church’s leaders never did protest, or that their typical silence or even support for the use of the death penalty against heretics constitutes proof that they overturned the early Church’s more merciful attitude (because even when some of their writings supported it, this support was never asserted with dogmatic authority), but it sure would make the medieval Church look more admirable if brave souls more often stood up against this use of the death penalty as leaders of the Church. And perhaps they did, and I just can’t find translated records of it yet. But I’ll keep looking.

Either way, since the Church never asserted with dogmatic authority that non-violent heretics may be executed, the argument that the Catholic States of the middle ages sometimes used the death penalty in immoral ways is no proof against the holiness or infallibility of the Church.