I
Has the Catholic Church apologized for burning Giordano Bruno at the stake?
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
Late Vatican position[edit]
Further reading has revealed this…
The Vatican has published few official statements about Bruno’s trial and execution. In 1942, Cardinal Giovanni Mercati, who discovered a number of lost documents relating to Bruno’s trial, stated that the Church was perfectly justified in condemning him. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno’s death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno’s death to be a “sad episode” but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno’s prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors “had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.”[49] In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for “the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth”.[50]
So there has been an apoligy for violence used in the service of truth.
But i have another question because this is perplexing to me. Is it ever morally justifiable to kill somebody for having heretical views?
Further reading has revealed this…
The Vatican has published few official statements about Bruno’s trial and execution. In 1942, Cardinal Giovanni Mercati, who discovered a number of lost documents relating to Bruno’s trial, stated that the Church was perfectly justified in condemning him. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno’s death, in 2000, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno’s death to be a “sad episode” but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno’s prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors “had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.”[49] In the same year, Pope John Paul II made a general apology for “the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth”.[50]
So there has been an apoligy for violence used in the service of truth.
But i have another question because this is perplexing to me. Is it ever morally justifiable to kill somebody for having heretical views?
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
They didn’t understand how to deal with someone so pig headed. It was an overreaction but it was inline with the current knowledge. I believe he was probably mentally deranged. A sane person would’ve recanted and fled!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
My personal opinion is that killing someone just for having different views when they are living a peaceful life is wrong. If they’re waging war on you or trying to kill you or others because of their views, then maybe justifiable.
As for death by burning, we find it abhorrent today and some found it abhorrent then, but looking at it in the context of its time, it was a common punishment, not only from the Church but from various civil authorities for civil wrongs. And people wrote all sorts of defenses for it ranging from burning being necessary to expel the demonic, to burning being a great way to convince other doers of the same evil to leave the area, to burning being better for women because hanging, drawing and quartering required the victim to be seen naked, whereas if burnt the woman could stay dressed and modest (never mind that her clothes burned first so she was seen naked anyway).
So burning was just kind of business as usual. It does show however that the Church’s views can and do evolve.
As for death by burning, we find it abhorrent today and some found it abhorrent then, but looking at it in the context of its time, it was a common punishment, not only from the Church but from various civil authorities for civil wrongs. And people wrote all sorts of defenses for it ranging from burning being necessary to expel the demonic, to burning being a great way to convince other doers of the same evil to leave the area, to burning being better for women because hanging, drawing and quartering required the victim to be seen naked, whereas if burnt the woman could stay dressed and modest (never mind that her clothes burned first so she was seen naked anyway).
So burning was just kind of business as usual. It does show however that the Church’s views can and do evolve.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Yes. I see that. I could never imagine the Church doing something like this today even if they were the government…
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Just imagine if there was a CAF forum back in that era with threads about “Burning: should it be banned?”
D
dmar198
Guest
The Church did not burn Giordano Bruno at the stake, the State did. The Church tried to save his life. In fact, according to the records of the trial against Giordano Bruno, his sentencing included these words:
“ti scacciamo, dal foro nostro ecclesiastico et dalla nostra santa et immacolata Chiesa, della cui misericordia ti sei reso indegno; et dover esser rilasciato alla Corte secolare, sì come ti rilasciamo alla Corte di voi monsignor (name removed by moderator)e di Roma qui presente, per punirti delle debite pene, pregandolo però efficacemente che voglia mitigare il rigore delle leggi circa la pena della tua persona, che sia senza pericolo di morte o mutilatione di membro.” (The Sentence of Giordano Bruno as delivered to Governor Ferrante Taverna by Flamino Adriano the Notary of the Inquisition of Venice)
That is: “We cast you out from our ecclesiastical forum and from our holy and immaculate Church, of whose mercy you have been made unworthy; and since we must deliver you to the secular court, we release you to the Court of the good gentleman the Governor of Rome here present, to be punished with heavy penalties, but efficaciously pleading that he may mitigate the rigor of the laws concerning the punishment of your person, that it may be without danger of death or mutilation of your members.” (This translation is my own and is likely imperfect. Corrections appreciated.)
As with all trials by Inquisition, Church authorities were forbidden by Canon Law either from executing anyone or from requiring a sentence of death. (Corpus Juris Canonici Book 3 Title 50 Chapter 9) Instead, they were required to release convicted heretics to the secular court and to make an effort to save the lives of convicted heretics and to plead against their execution. (Directory of the Inquisition Section 3a by Inquisitor General Nicholas Eymeric) As recorded in the proceedings of the trial of Giordano Bruno, they followed this requirement and, as quoted above, pleaded for his life in the presence of the governor asking him not to execute him. The Governor of Rome – by his civil authority, not by Church authority – executed him four days later.
“ti scacciamo, dal foro nostro ecclesiastico et dalla nostra santa et immacolata Chiesa, della cui misericordia ti sei reso indegno; et dover esser rilasciato alla Corte secolare, sì come ti rilasciamo alla Corte di voi monsignor (name removed by moderator)e di Roma qui presente, per punirti delle debite pene, pregandolo però efficacemente che voglia mitigare il rigore delle leggi circa la pena della tua persona, che sia senza pericolo di morte o mutilatione di membro.” (The Sentence of Giordano Bruno as delivered to Governor Ferrante Taverna by Flamino Adriano the Notary of the Inquisition of Venice)
That is: “We cast you out from our ecclesiastical forum and from our holy and immaculate Church, of whose mercy you have been made unworthy; and since we must deliver you to the secular court, we release you to the Court of the good gentleman the Governor of Rome here present, to be punished with heavy penalties, but efficaciously pleading that he may mitigate the rigor of the laws concerning the punishment of your person, that it may be without danger of death or mutilation of your members.” (This translation is my own and is likely imperfect. Corrections appreciated.)
As with all trials by Inquisition, Church authorities were forbidden by Canon Law either from executing anyone or from requiring a sentence of death. (Corpus Juris Canonici Book 3 Title 50 Chapter 9) Instead, they were required to release convicted heretics to the secular court and to make an effort to save the lives of convicted heretics and to plead against their execution. (Directory of the Inquisition Section 3a by Inquisitor General Nicholas Eymeric) As recorded in the proceedings of the trial of Giordano Bruno, they followed this requirement and, as quoted above, pleaded for his life in the presence of the governor asking him not to execute him. The Governor of Rome – by his civil authority, not by Church authority – executed him four days later.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
We err if we judge historic human behavior through a modern lens. Heretics were responsible for leading souls to damnation. Given the totality of the circumstances, perhaps execution was an act of mercy.
Rather, why do we have such a casual attitude today toward those who lead others, millions of them, to perdition?
Relativism. It was far less accepted in the 16th century.
Rather, why do we have such a casual attitude today toward those who lead others, millions of them, to perdition?
Relativism. It was far less accepted in the 16th century.
D
Debbie_Kono
Guest
Bruno was also excommunicated by Luther and Calvin. The Church excommunicates in the hopes of bringing the person to their senses and back to the fold. Too bad it’s not used today.
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
Jesus died a barbaric death.
Had a conversation within this past year with someone who is very anti-Catholicism/Church, who made a lot of claims about what this person thinks the Church has done in the past.
So then, I asked this person what they thought of the very bloody civil war that this country had in more recent history (as compared to ancient times) under a person of a similar religion to theirs. And this person said that that was different.
What’s my point? For some reason, while defending God’s truths aren’t a good enough reason to some people to have a war, having a war for man’s reasons is “different” therefore justified. Meaning that to this person, SOMETIMES it IS OKAY to kill/have a war/etc.
Now, for the record, I don’t agree with wars. Imo God has given man enough intelligence to find a better way to settle our differences. And I realize that - thanks be to God - things were done a bit differently years ago. However, man’s inhumanity to man has been a fact of life since Abel was killed by his brother, and Jesus DID say there would be wars and rumors of war. Which of course has been proven to be a sad truth in THIS world even to this day - again, just like Jesus said it would be.
Had a conversation within this past year with someone who is very anti-Catholicism/Church, who made a lot of claims about what this person thinks the Church has done in the past.
So then, I asked this person what they thought of the very bloody civil war that this country had in more recent history (as compared to ancient times) under a person of a similar religion to theirs. And this person said that that was different.
What’s my point? For some reason, while defending God’s truths aren’t a good enough reason to some people to have a war, having a war for man’s reasons is “different” therefore justified. Meaning that to this person, SOMETIMES it IS OKAY to kill/have a war/etc.
Now, for the record, I don’t agree with wars. Imo God has given man enough intelligence to find a better way to settle our differences. And I realize that - thanks be to God - things were done a bit differently years ago. However, man’s inhumanity to man has been a fact of life since Abel was killed by his brother, and Jesus DID say there would be wars and rumors of war. Which of course has been proven to be a sad truth in THIS world even to this day - again, just like Jesus said it would be.
M
mattp0625
Guest
In these matters, folks seem to conflate monarchy (which may have professed to be catholic) with the magisterium of the church
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
True…
Some consider them to be the same, which isn’t accurate.
Look at Henry VIII. If he hadn’t broken away from the Catholic Church, some today would probably blame the Church for all the trouble he caused.
Some consider them to be the same, which isn’t accurate.
Look at Henry VIII. If he hadn’t broken away from the Catholic Church, some today would probably blame the Church for all the trouble he caused.
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
The Church isn’t anti-life/pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia, even though some governments are.
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
The Salem witch trials come to mind.
And the Church can only “evolve” to a degree. As today there are apparently those who think it will “evolve” to the point where it will okay certain sins, which will never be the case.
And the Church can only “evolve” to a degree. As today there are apparently those who think it will “evolve” to the point where it will okay certain sins, which will never be the case.
I
IWantGod
Guest
That’s a fair point. But then one has to ask why the State as an independent body was executing people for matters pertaining to the faith and why the Church had no power over the fate of these people??
Last edited:
S
sainteriksrose
Guest
Throughout history, and in our lifetime, the Church HAS tried to influence the leaders of various countries…and what has happened?
In the case of Henry VIII, he understood full well what the Pope said, but broke away and declared himself the head of the Church of England and did what he wanted to do, anyway. And in OUR day and age when the Pope has advised (for instance) not to go to war, he gets maybe the equivalent to a smile and a pat on the head and the various countries do what they want to do, anyway.
So yes, while the Church speaks for God and will until the end of time as we know it, man is STILL free to listen and proceed wisely, or not.
In the case of Henry VIII, he understood full well what the Pope said, but broke away and declared himself the head of the Church of England and did what he wanted to do, anyway. And in OUR day and age when the Pope has advised (for instance) not to go to war, he gets maybe the equivalent to a smile and a pat on the head and the various countries do what they want to do, anyway.
So yes, while the Church speaks for God and will until the end of time as we know it, man is STILL free to listen and proceed wisely, or not.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The State used any old excuse to destroy people it perceived as bad influences or political enemies. Even today there are countries where a religious offense can get you killed by the State. Religion is a great way to get a lot of people to agree with you.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
At the hands of the State, but for allegedly committing a religious “crime” that threatened to cause civil unrest.
It’s too bad so many people who said they followed Jesus went through centuries of killing and torturing people on much the same grounds, or tacitly okaying the State doing it for them. I’d like to think Catholics and Protestants have all finally had the light come on in the icebox so they do not engage in any more of this.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Burning people to death was an act of mercy? Did I just read that?
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
- He was a heretic.
- There is a despicable habit among modern men to “apologize” for the actions of others. To so so is wrong.
- Everyone dies. This guy ran afoul of the law and burned for it. Pray for his soul.
- Status