'Nuff sed!Yes, but one must also consider the norms of the time and place in which he lived. Even a great mind can find difficulty breaking free from them.However, one day I ran across an opinion of his that made him less of an icon in my mind and I never admired him as much from then on. He said that the church should not execute heretics. So far, so good. But then, he went on to say that the church should turn heretics over to the civil authorities and they should execute them!
Code:'Nuff sed!
In the days of Aquinas, and for centuries after, heresy was a crime, not only against the law of the Church but also against the civil law. It was considered a threat to the fabric of society (about which, come to think of it, they may have had a point), and therefore, it lay within the jurisdiction of the secular authorities. It should be noted that only the obdurate were given over to the secular power for punishment.However, one day I ran across an opinion of his that made him less of an icon in my mind and I never admired him as much from then on. He said that the church should not execute heretics. So far, so good. But then, he went on to say that the church should turn heretics over to the civil authorities and they should execute them!
How exciting! However, the only parish in my area that, to my knowledge, offers the Tridentine Mass is apparently not in communion with Rome.Young Thinker: the Angelical’s feast according to the pre-conciliar calendar is March 7th, so if you are fortunate enough to have Mass in the Extraordinary Form in your area, you can observe it again then!
Dear Young Thinker,Yes, but one must also consider the norms of the time and place in which he lived. Even a great mind can find difficulty breaking free from them.
aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.htmlFirst of all, we must closely examine Thomas’ actual words. He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished. Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society. Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers.
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.
traditioninaction.org/religious/n012rp_DeathPenalty_Aquinas.htmThey also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
Thank you. I agree with basically all that you have said.Dear Young Thinker,
Cordial greetings.
Yes very good point. The same sort of thing is said respecting the Protestant Puritan saints and the Salem witch trials, the Protestant burnings under Mary Tudor of England and Calvin’s part in the execution of Servetus. Whilst not defending or whitewashing their actions, all of these were products of their times and what they did was not considered barbaric or wrong at the particular period in history when they occured. Thus it is unwise and the height of folly to judge them from our own modern and enlightened perspective. Of course wrong is always wrong but men live and move and have their being at a certain point in the history of the world and hence cannot be appraised by modern day standards. In my experience men only resort to this when they are desperate to defame the character of an individual or individuals with whom they profoundly disagree or disrespect.
We should continue to bless God for St. Thomas Aquinas and hold him in high esteem as a great doctor of Holy Mother Church.
Warmest good wishes
You know…I wouldn’t be giving us too much credit for being enlightened in our time. Whatever else may be said about the High Middle Ages, they were a great age for the Catholic faith, and an age that produced many saints. People may not have enjoyed the material comforts we now have, but I bet a lot fewer of them were on the greased skids to hell than there are now.Yes very good point. The same sort of thing is said respecting the Protestant Puritan saints and the Salem witch trials, the Protestant burnings under Mary Tudor of England and Calvin’s part in the execution of Servetus. Whilst not defending or whitewashing their actions, all of these were products of their times and what they did was not considered barbaric or wrong at the particular period in history when they occured. Thus it is unwise and the height of folly to judge them from our own modern and enlightened perspective. Of course wrong is always wrong but men live and move and have their being at a certain point in the history of the world and hence cannot be appraised by modern day standards. In my experience men only resort to this when they are desperate to defame the character of an individual or individuals with whom they profoundly disagree or disrespect.
One thing: the Church didn’t execute heretics. The secular authorities did, for the reasons set forth in one of my earlier posts above.so, in sum, I think Aquinas’s stance on capital punishment and the treatment of heretics is completely in order and reasonable, but is easily taken the wrong way. Would it be just if the Church were still to execute heretics? Maybe in principle, but not very practical. But Aquinas is dealing with both principle and practicality, and the fact that something might be correct in and of itself does not mean that it is necessary or advantageous to carry out (i.e. practical circumstances, such as Aquinas’s suggestion that not all evil should be legislated against).
thanks for the correctionOne thing: the Church didn’t execute heretics. The secular authorities did, for the reasons set forth in one of my earlier posts above.
Aquinas was brilliant, but - as I stated - when I read his approval of murdering heretics my respect fell dramatically. I presume I've been 'brainwashed' by living in a country where freedom of religion flourishes and is guaranteed.If you read the two excerpts I posted, it details 1. that he was not directly advocating their execution, just stating a conditional logical conclusion, and 2. furthermore details why executions could be justified.Please! No more feeble attempts to justify the position Aquinas took on heretics. He believed they should be executed. The fact that this was a common attitude back then doesn’t justify it anymore than widespread acceptance of slavery justified slavery or overnment support of abortion in, say, China justifies abortion.
Code:Aquinas was brilliant, but - as I stated - when I read his approval of murdering heretics my respect fell dramatically. I presume I've been 'brainwashed' by living in a country where freedom of religion flourishes and is guaranteed.
Logic in that? You might argue so. But logic isn't always decency, morality and/or common sense. I saw a bumper sticker today which I liked. As I recall it read: "God favors no group. Only religions do." I tend to agree. The narrowness of so many Muslims, Christians and Jews is a sickening form of primitive and arrogant tribalism that has resulted in centuries of bigotry and even violence (e. g., 9/11). When certain Christians think they alone have the truth Jesus must be sickened.
Yes, Aquinas was a brilliant man, an incredible scholar. a remarkable organizer and writer of material. But on this issue of heresy he was badly mistaken, and I was especially annoyed because I had been trying to find 'elements of democracy in the political thought of Thomas Aquinas'. What a shock and disappointment to discover that he was so tragically influenced by the intolerance of his era.
Again, thank God for the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion to all of us.Dear Victorious,You know…I wouldn’t be giving us too much credit for being enlightened in our time. Whatever else may be said about the High Middle Ages, they were a great age for the Catholic faith, and an age that produced many saints. People may not have enjoyed the material comforts we now have, but I bet a lot fewer of them were on the greased skids to hell than there are now.
Today, it’s just the opposite. Today Christendom is fractured into tens of thousands of pieces. We have just emerged from the bloodiest century in human history; and right after the bloodiest fratricidal slaughter ever, somehow we got the idea that we had evolved beyond the need for penance and prayer and discipline. The rot of modernism has penetrated even the Catholic Church. Jihad is on the rise. Cloning is emerging. Babies are being created in test tubes for the express purpose of having medical experiments conducted on them, or as spares for purposes of artificial insemination. Little children are sexualized. The media are saturated with every kind of filth. The nuclear family is mocked and ridiculed as a relic of the 1950s, divorce is rampant and practically as easy to get as a loaf of bread at the store, and millions of children are born out of wedlock. Sexual perversion is touted as a valid “lifestyle choice.” And Catholic acceptance of contraceptives has led inevitably to the exaltation of abortion on demand as a constitutionally guaranteed right. Just the number of babies murdered in their mothers’ wombs in the United States since 1973 dwarfs the number of people executed for heresy during the Middle Ages. Not even close.
In short, far be it from us to give ourselves virtuous airs for being more enlightened than past generations. The people of the Middle Ages could never have conceived of the workaday horror and depravity of our own times.