Fourth Lateran Council: "exterminate" the heretics?

[Pistos]

I am a Catholic.

Canon 3 of the fourth Lateran Council has been brought to my attention, in particular, the first paragraph which employs the verb “exterminate”.

My questions are:

(0) Does this have to do with doctrine? Or, more to the point, does this exemplify fallibility of the pope or the ecumenical councils at all?
(1) Did the Church really mean for persons deemed heretics to be killed? I’ve heard that the original text can also be translated “expel” (as seen, for example, in this translation). Expulsion, of course, is a much softer term. My search (on the web) for the original, non-English text of the council canons didn’t turn up anything.
(2) If so, was it right or wrong for the Church to have commanded this?
(3) If it was right, how can that be reconciled with the Church’s current teachings on murder and war? (CCC Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5)
(4) If it was wrong, how can it be that an ecumenical council, supposedly falling under the sphere of infallibility of the Church, make this error?

I am not a Church historian by any stretch of the imagination, so any “further reading” type URLs are appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Apologia100]

In its primary sense, exterminate means to obliterate completely. It applies to heresy as a vice or error as well as it applies to a group of people. However, within the context of the document you referred to, it means to cut off or root out.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Church has always taught that a Catholic state has the right, and the duty, to defend the true religion against false ones, including heresy. And so heretics can be subject to criminal prosecution and, if it be necessary, even capital punishment be employed. [However, the Church’s prudential judgement today is that execution, for any crime, is virtually unnecessary in our own day and age. This is because we have prison systems which, for the most part, can render a criminal harmless to society, and can give punishments proportionate to grave crimes and still preserve the criminal’s life.]

Thus, Pope Leo X, in the bull Exurge Domino, condemned as heresy Luther’s initial belief that it offends the Holy Spirit to have heretics burned. (Luther himself changed his view later in life when he advocated the persecution of the Anabaptists).

This right of the state to persecute heretics is, however, nuanced. The Church has always taught against forced conversions (i.e. forcing someone raised a non-Catholic to convert to the Catholic faith).

However, with formal heretics and apostates (i.e. Catholics who leave the Catholic faith) it’s different. By their example, and by their proselytizing, they lead souls to Hell, and for the Catholic state to tolerate this out of a spirit of indifferentism is an offense against God. Therefore, the state* can * prosecute heretics, though this need not include the death penalty (though there might be rare situations where this is necessary). Punishments can include prison terms, fines, exile, etc.

Even then, however, the Catholic state *can tolerate * false religions, if it be necessary to preserve the common good of the people. It’s a prudential judgement. However, in our own day and age, where we have a better understanding of human psychology and we know that the motives for heresy and apostasy are not always malicious, the Church prefers that we err on the side of tolerance, if we must.

Admittedly, the Church has yet to issue a single document that reconciles previous teaching on this matter with the developments articulated by Vatican II concerning religious freedom. However, Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom itself says (rather ambigiously) that it’s teachings were not meant to abrogate the “traditional teaching,” and the Catechism itself syas that the right to religious freedom is not absolute (for example, when natural law is contradicted).

Also, throughout history we see the Church protesting the forced conversions enjoined by many Catholic rulers, like Charlegmaine; and we also have her historic tolerance of Judaism, and in some cases even classical or native paganisms.

Regarding the non-Catholic state, the Church says that it has no right to persecute any religion, unless its tenets go against natural law (e.g. one that advocates infant sacrifice).

Hope this helps.