Church Authority and Church Atrocities

[Rence]

Remember the story of Abraham? He was told to sacrifice Isaac…and Abraham did as he was told. And Abraham found favor with God.

Being told to do something immoral by God Himself, or his unearthly messenger, and being told by a mere man, are completely different. Entirely different.

And,

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? For instance, at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Church demanded that secular authorities “exterminate” heretics. Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520 stated that it was an “error” to teach that burning heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit. 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.

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

No, you’re not obliged as a Catholic to obey immoral commands by Church representatives. If it were me, I’d just go on with my life as usual being the best Catholic I can be while ignoring the hypothetical immoral command that you’re worried about. Period.

 

[TRH1292]

dronald,

As I said, I understand your concern. But is it really surprising that the Church(even if its true) would contain some sort of atrocities, considering the long lists of killings and practical genocides contained in the Old Testament of the Bible, often apparently ordered by God?

 

[Rence]

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 Saul trusted the word of Samuel, and did so during Biblical times. IN addition, I don’t think we as Catholics are required to believe that story literally. It’s a story to teach about obedience. That said, we still have the common sense that God gave us to follow commands that are good, and not follow commands that are evil. Most people these days (post biblical times) with an ounce of common sense wouldn’t trust the word of someone who commanded them to do evil in the name of God. In fact, those people in this time period usually end up in padded cells or in jail.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So are you saying that the Church leaders (often and most likely with agreement) took a moral high ground by handing them over to authorities to be murdered over their beliefs instead of doing it themselves?

That seems to be the argument that is consistently put forth to me, even if it wasn’t true that the CC would support the actions of the authorities.

That is jumping through many hoops.

1st the Church would try to educate the person. We don’t know how the person got to the Church - Was the person taken into custody by the State and handed over to the Church? How exactly the person got charged and accused of the alleged crime? If the State gave the Church a body, it’s pretty safe to assume that the custody of said body is accountable to the State. We are also dealing with people here, some Church leaders were probably more lenient than others, some Church leaders were probably more forgiving and protecting than other. We need to have more details.

It was very different times, where freedom of speech is not like we have in the U.S. now. Heck, even in early U.S. history there was no such thing as freedom of speech as we have now.

The lines between Church and State were very muddy at the time and unless you truly understand the historic period, the opinions formed will be unqualified at best. How about the Old Testament practice of stoning? For things that were considered sins? Even Paul was stoned repeatedly!!! (Maybe that’s why he seems to have been so hard headed ).

We have come a long way as far as human rights are concerned.

I personally think that there has to be separation of power between Church and State.

The truth is in the details my friend, the details.

 

[Rence]

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.

Most of us have seen it and know what you’re talking about. I don’t know why others deny it.

 

[dmar198]

So are you saying that the Church leaders (often and most likely with agreement) took a moral high ground by handing them over to authorities to be murdered over their beliefs instead of doing it themselves?

No, the clerics handed them over to the civil authorities without requesting or commanding the shedding of blood, because that was forbidden by Canon 18 of the IV Lateran Council: “A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.” “No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.”

I think it is important to read Canon 3 with Canon 18 in mind. The execution of heretics was to be done specifically for “all heretics pointed out by the Church” (Canon 3), but ordinary clerics were forbidden from requesting such executions. Perhaps what these canons really show is how seriously the Church regarded the execution of heretics; it seems to have specified that executions should happen *when a Church organ other than an individual cleric investigated the matter and found it to be necessary. That is a very limiting principle on the right of nations to execute heretics, and perhaps it shows why the usual examples people can come up with were internationally controversial figures like Hus, Wyclif, Waldo, and the Albigensians.

In the Reformation period, St. Thomas More also remarks on this point, defending the Church from the accusation that it was merciless by saying that the Church’s clerics did not request the State to execute heretics anyways; that was a State administered penalty, and, in More’s opinion, they showed themselves to be Christ-like when they showed a history of avoiding the use of violence until it became necessary for defense against violence by the heretics themselves. (I provided quotes to that effect from him in a previous post; see post #55-56 of this thread.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Most of us have seen it and know what you’re talking about. I don’t know why others deny it.

Denying what? Nobody’s denying that an expulsion (not a killing) of heretics (who were dangerous to the soul) was requested of secular leaders at the time, as a protection for the souls of others… Even today we have forced detention of people who are deemed dangerous to society, thus ‘expelling’ them from their ‘home’, don’t we?

 

[dmar198]

Denying what? Nobody’s denying that an expulsion (not a killing) of heretics (who were dangerous to the soul) was requested of secular leaders at the time, as a protection for the souls of others… Even today we have forced detention of people who are deemed dangerous to society, thus ‘expelling’ them from their ‘home’, don’t we?

I don’t think the gentlemen in this thread are trying say that it is never okay to punish a criminal (occasionally with capital punishment, sometimes with expulsion, but usually with lesser penalties, depending on the crime), but the major point they are driving at is that it was morally irresponsible to punish people in the Middle Ages merely for doctrinal disagreements with the majority religion. This seems to be the teaching of the Church today qua Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, and in the early Church, the Fathers were definitely in line with this, because they opposed the State when it attempted to punish heretics merely for doctrinal disagreements (see the Priscillians for an example).

The questions we should be answering are: How come we see so much less opposition to the persecution/coercion of heretics during the medieval period, and why do we occasionally see Church leaders seeming to endorse the persecution or coercion of heretics? And, if the Church leaders ever commanded the civil leaders to engage in such persecution/coercion, would you be required to obey such commands? And how do we reconcile the promotion of immoral actions by some (many?) medieval Church leaders with the fact that the Church is holy?

I don’t think these questions are answered merely by the statement that the State considered heresy a crime. The Church would not stand for that today and it did not stand for that in the early Church; why didn’t the medieval Church stand up against it? (And if they did, where is the evidence?) For my attempts to answer these questions (so far), see posts #55-56, 89, and 125.

 

[Vectivus]

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

The slaughter of Christians happened on both sides of the schism, for one.

Two, when dialogue fails with your child about how dangerous it is to play out in the street, do you ground them for their safety or let them dance in the streets anyway?

Are you saying that the Church should not have been allowed to follow its conscience, but only yours instead?

 

[MarkInOregon]

First,

I greatly appreciate your very long and detailed response. You have, by far, provided the most logical, intelligent, and insightful responses to these issues. I am very thankful for your efforts.

Second,
I disagree with your view of history. I think the facts show quite clearly that secular authorities, in many, many situations, used these kinds of councils and Papal Bulls to kill, torture, or expel numerous people who didn’t deserve it.

You reasonably point out that many heretics engaged in political as well as religious rebellion, but you completely ignore the fact that one of the primary reasons why this occurred was because they were not allowed to have any religious freedom at all. In other words, in order to have differing religious views, you often HAD to be viewed as a political rebel as well.

You also seem to justify burning people at the stake, as St. Thomas did, by pointing to violence on the side of the “heretics.” But is that what Jesus taught? That doesn’t sound like “turning the other cheek” to me.

While I think it is totally fair to say that the Church OFTEN did NOT engage in violence, it’s unfair to say the violence the Church did endorse can somehow be separated from the Church itself. If the Church says “burning heretics is not an error,” it not only denies the teachings of Jesus, who never taught such things, but it also leaves the door open to the possibility of burning heretics…I think it is an error to say that there are situations when burning people alive fits into Christianity.

Third,
The primary problem I have with your argument is that at the moment these events occur, the Church IS ARGUING that their teachings are moral. And that to me is the most difficult aspect of this. You suggest that we should ignore immoral commands, but who decides what is immoral and what is moral in a church where the hierarchy has the monopoly on those decisions? The laity are required by canon law to follow all moral commands…but the Church is never going to command the laity or other members of the Church to do something it says is immoral. In other words, because the laity have no control over what is and what is not moral, does it matter if there are provisions that say we don’t have to follow immoral teachings? In the case of the Fourth Lateran Council, for instance, the Church warned that ignoring the command to “exterminate” or “expel” meant that a secular authority would lose his or her authority and be excommunicated. So how can you even argue that a choice exists?

Fourth,

I don’t want these criticisms to take away from the many valid points you made. I am very appreciative of them and they are quite persuasive, but again, I just don’t know how you can argue on the one hand that Catholics can ignore immoral commands and on the other suggest that “morality” is decided by the Church. This is precisely what the Catechism does.

I also don’t know how you can argue that the immoral and official commands of the Church are somehow separate from the Church itself. It just seems like a lot of unreasonable mental gymnastics. Why isn’t it more reasonable to say: The Catholic Church made mistakes by arguing that it was morally acceptable to “expel” or “exterminate” people just for thinking differently on religious matters. Why isn’t it more reasonable to just admit that the Church can teach things that are wrong? The Church undermines itself by trying so hard to balance demands of absolute obedience with a clear historical record of making immoral demands.

Please take a look at what “turning the other cheek” would have implied in Jesus time–what his hearers would have heard. It is not quite the same as how it appears you are hearing it today. Not that it will impact the current discussion much–but we should strive to hear Christ’s words as they would have been heard by those to whom he spoke them.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[dronald]

Good points all around. Thank you for the discussion everyone.

The main point I came to defend was that the killings for apostasy and preaching contrary to the Catholic Religion can not be found in Scripture. I really only chimed in on that point at first because I know Scripture pretty well. However, dmar has explained his points well and I think he’s more suited than I am in history. I can’t be entirely sure what’s propaganda and what truly happened because I’m not a historian.

So in conclusion, yes Protestants can be bad too and have been, the NT does not call for killing those who disagree on doctrine. It would be nice if some historians lingered around to discuss the tougher points on how things would have been run and how Popes would have influenced.

God bless, everyone.

 

[jinc1019]

Denying what? Nobody’s denying that an expulsion (not a killing) of heretics (who were dangerous to the soul) was requested of secular leaders at the time, as a protection for the souls of others… Even today we have forced detention of people who are deemed dangerous to society, thus ‘expelling’ them from their ‘home’, don’t we?

As it was already pointed out, the Church knew when it excommunicated and “expelled” others that this action often led to death or, at the very least, the complete decimation of one’s life. To deny otherwise is to deny the facts, as unfortunate as they are.

 

[jinc1019]

The slaughter of Christians happened on both sides of the schism, for one.

Two, when dialogue fails with your child about how dangerous it is to play out in the street, do you ground them for their safety or let them dance in the streets anyway?

Are you saying that the Church should not have been allowed to follow its conscience, but only yours instead?

People should have freedom…that has been a PROVEN recipe for success. Your view, which seems to support the merging of the Church and states, has been proven to corrupt the faith, cause schism, and has led to the murder of innocent people in the name of religion. It has done incredible damage. I really cannot believe that any American would actually WANT the Church closely tied to the government. Have you not noticed how corrupt government is? Do you really want that corruption spilling further into your faith?

 

[jinc1019]

Please take a look at what “turning the other cheek” would have implied in Jesus time–what his hearers would have heard. It is not quite the same as how it appears you are hearing it today. Not that it will impact the current discussion much–but we should strive to hear Christ’s words as they would have been heard by those to whom he spoke them.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I am honestly not sure what you mean by that…but what I do know is that Jesus wasn’t telling his disciples to burn people at the stake for having false, yet still positive, beliefs about Jesus.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am honestly not sure what you mean by that…but what I do know is that Jesus wasn’t telling his disciples to burn people at the stake for having false, yet still positive, beliefs about Jesus.

Could you explain a 'false yet still positive belief about Jesus?"

Jesus is all Truth. How could anything FALSE be ‘positive’?

 

[jinc1019]

Dear jinc,

Thank you for the well thought-out reply. You are correct that my last post to you was not very detailed. I hope to supply that want in this post.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,
As always, your reply is very well thought out and patient, qualities I admire.

You rightfully suggested that the Church often handed “heretics” over to the authorities, who could have reasonably decided NOT to engage in the kinds of behavior I was discussing here. However, I think this view is slightly misleading for three reasons:

1. It acts as though the Church had no hand in shaping civil law or authority. This simply isn’t true. As history has shown, the Church, for better or worse, had a great deal to do with how civil laws were shaped, including laws about punishing people. In many cases, the Church was a moderating force, but there are also examples of the Church using its influence to ensure it would get its way. This, I am willing to admit, could be argued to be the work of individuals within the Church rather than the Church itself, but to say that the Church is innocent is a bit unfair. I am sure secular leaders in certain nations at certain times in history felt compelled by Church authorities to do one thing or another. How, after all, can you argue with someone who has binding and loosing authority over your soul?
2. 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. To separate the Church’s religious punishment from the secular is unfair. 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.
3. Admittedly, I have not studied the area I am about to embark on in great detail (especially since it is an argument based on silence), but where is the outrage in the Church over unjust executions of heretics? If what you say is true…then the Church should have been adamantly against the killing of heretics, and I don’t see any evidence of that fact. Yes, the Church has been a moderating force in many instances, but when it comes to people the Church deemed to be dangerous to the soul (heretics and others), I don’t see any outrage. It seems to me that, at the very least, they looked away because it was convenient. I am sure that this isn’t the case in all places at all times, but it certainly was the case in many situations at many different times.

In regards to the Jewish question, I could not agree less.

While it is true that the Jewish state, when in existence, did elevate Jews to a higher level than other religious and ethnic groups, I don’t see how that is relevant. Since when is the standard for pre-Roman occupation Israel also the standard for Christian morality? Two wrong don’t make a right.

Further, again, your view seems to look at the Church as though, in 1254, it existed apart from governing bodies and society and had to work with whatever it was given. The Church didn’t kill heretics-the state did. The Church didn’t mistreat the Jews (as a whole), it merely operated within the social mores of the time.

But is that true? Or is it more correct to say that since the overwhelming majority of educational institutions, schools of philosophy, and kingdoms (in the West) were dominated by the Church, the Church itself formed the society, the social conventions and attitudes, and the morality of the day? In other words, you can’t make the argument that the Church had to operate separate from the culture of society when it essentially was the primary force behind the creation of the culture that existed.

I just think it’s so easy today for Catholics to argue that the egregious behavior of the secular authorities has nothing to do with what the Church did when history shows that was definitely not the case. The Church endorsed many of these same rulers and could have easily had a harsh stance against those that were violent against heretics, but I have never seen any evidence that this happened. The Church wanted to separate itself from the Church when it was convenient (so the Church’s hands wouldn’t be dirty) and then merged with the state in others…at least that’s how it appears to me.

When the Church says, “it’s not an error to burn heretics” and that “heretics should be exterminated,” they understood at that time what the repercussions of their positions would be. They knew what would happen and they were often involved in the formulation of policy anyway. The idea that the Church had nothing to do with secular policies in the Middle Ages is also, I think, a myth. The Church did have a great influence on what the secular authorities decided to do.

 

[jinc1019]

Could you explain a 'false yet still positive belief about Jesus?"

Jesus is all Truth. How could anything FALSE be ‘positive’?

I meant, as I am sure you know, that they weren’t even actively opposing Jesus. Surely you can’t tell me that a group of people who believe something that is wrong about Jesus but still confess him to be their savior are just as “false” in your view as a group of people who actively say Jesus was a fraud?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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? For instance, at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Church demanded that secular authorities “exterminate” heretics. Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull of 1520 stated that it was an “error” to teach that burning heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit. 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.

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

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.

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

FathersKnowBest post (Feb 14, '14, 7:11 pm) shows the quote that disturbs you is inaccurate. The actual Constitution from the Council says “expel.” I haven’t seen your acknowledgement of this. Shouldn’t that relieve you somewhat? Given your sincere struggles with “exterminate”?

More than that if you are going to discuss facts of history 800 years ago, you’re going to have to think like a historian. Catholicism is 2000 years old. Thinking like a historian includes checking your sources. Mine for the quote? . 2 vols. Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, I, 233-4. One must also take into account the cultural and historical context for events in a vastly different time, with a vastly different set of social assumptions, where heresy has vastly different implications for a very different culture.

If you have the inquiring mind you present yourself as having, I would suggest purchasing and reading . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989Inquisition. Peter’s teaches at Penn. At the Google books link included you can browse. Peter’s demonstrates how far what he calls the myth of the Inquision is from historical fact viewed in the context of the times.

Regarding Pope John Paul II, what he actually did is ask pardon for the sins of individuals in the Church as you can read his Homily on the “Day of Pardon” yourself which must be studied in relation to the statement of the International Theological Commission, “[Memory And Reconciliation: The Church And The Faults Of The Past](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#The Use of Force in the Service of Truth).” It is individuals, even though they are sons and daughters of the church, who commit sins.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

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. To separate the Church’s religious punishment from the secular is unfair. 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.

Do you have any proof that most of those excommunicated and handed over to secular courts were executed?

 

[cornbread_r2]

FathersKnowBest post (Feb 14, '14, 7:11 pm) shows the quote that disturbs you is inaccurate. The actual Constitution from the Council says “expel.” I haven’t seen your acknowledgement of this. Shouldn’t that relieve you somewhat? Given your sincere struggles with “exterminate”?

More than that if you are going to discuss facts of history 800 years ago, you’re going to have to think like a historian. Catholicism is 2000 years old. Thinking like a historian includes checking your sources. Mine for the quote? Norman P. Tanner, SJ, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, I, 233-4. One must also take into account the cultural and historical context for events in a vastly different time, with a vastly different set of social assumptions, where heresy has vastly different implications for a very different culture.

…]

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.