How would this hypothetical affect one's view of Catholic history?

[Della]

Thank you, NovusFidem for saving me a lot of typing! I agree with all you wrote.

I just wanted to add that if we must accept the impeccability criteria in order to determine if a Christian eccelesial body is the true one, then Christianity itself fails. The NT itself shows us, quite clearly, that the Apostles themselves weren’t impeccable, and that’s after Christ’s Resurrection and Pentecost. We’d have to say that Chirst failed in his mission to bring redemption to the world if his promises were false. But, Christ never promised that the Magisterium of the Church would impeccable in their personal lives nor in decisons they make regarding how to apply his teachings, only that his teachings and the morals he taught were infallible, and that his Church would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit in those matters. How the Church diciplines and governings are not covered by that promise. We all, bishops, priests, deacons, lay alike are all “working out our salvation with fear and trembling” because we are all fallen creatures.

The other side of the coin would mean that the reformers had to be impeccable because, if they had truly restored the ancient Church, and impeccability is supposedly the mark of that Church, then they failed to meet that criteria, as well. So, we’re stuck with a false religion, a false head of that religion and nothing to which we can cling for the truth. Not such a nice idea, IMHO. Those who put forward such a premise seem to forget that the same criteria they place upon the Church must be placed upon their faith community as well.

Nowhere in the Bible is the claim of impeccability made, nor in any of the Creeds, nor any Church councils, ecumenical or otherwise. It’s simply not a criteria to determine who is teaching the truth, in whom the true Church subsists, nor is it reasonable to suggest that fallen human beings should become perfect people incapable of making mistakes upon ordination. That was never promised to anyone by Christ. Because our leaders can be flawed in their decisons in discipline and in governing the very good reason why we need to pray for our pastors daily, as we pray for ourselves–that we might be holy as the Father is holy, just as Jesus commanded us to be, and to make the right choices in all we think, say, and do no matter the short-term consequences.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, impeccability is a bit too much to ask for. But if God can prevent Popes from defining error as truth without violating their free will, why couldn’t God ensure that all the Popes were at least basically decent, sincere people? Why is it more unthinkable that God could keep Church leaders from sanctioning the killing of people than that God could keep them from making even a small official error in theology?

This seems to imply either that

1. God cares more about right theology than about loving action, or that
2. God can prevent bad doctrine without violating free will but can’t prevent bad actions.

Now to be fair, the protection afforded doctrine is really very harrow. Clearly popes and bishops have engaged in all kinds of bad theology. So I think there’s a reasonable way to restate the position. But the common line taken on this forum and in other apologetics circles, of sealing off doctrine from morality as if only the former mattered, is actually a bigger problem for Catholicism than the moral scandals themselves.

While it would be nice if leaders flaws were limited could it be that the level of discomfort with the moral failings is a result of the claim of doctrinal purity? In other words, would you be as concerned if there was not a claim of doctrinal infallibility? What if the Church claimed neither that churchmen were impeccable nor that teaching was infallible?

Many non-believers point to the failure of religious leaders to live up to their doctrine as a reason to not believe. But I don’t think they typically join to that idea the notion of infallibility. I think they are content to dispute the object of belief without any consideration of doctrinal purity.

It has always seemed to me that we are likely to fail when we strive for perfection. We are likely to fail when we lift ourselves up towards God. We could avoid failing to live up to our teachings by jettisoning the teachings. We could avoid failing to live up to our teachings by making what is good not what we ought to do but what we actually desire and do in fact do. Both seem to be popular ways of handling the discord between doctrine and practice.

I’d also think you can make a good argument that an error in dogmatic teachings on faith and morals would be a more serious error than not living up to the teachings. Consider the case if the Church were able to declare mathematical rules. If the Church declared 2 + 2 = 5 would that not be worse than the Pope doing his sums wrong? The rule would live on until the end of time and affect everyone. The bad sums would have a limited direct effect in time and place.

 

[Peter_J]

Ideally, when it comes to disagreement and dissent, the Catholic Church is supposed to act with love and charity toward those who disagree with it. A more modern perspective also brings the expectation of non-coercion, although this was not always the expectation. But that has been a discussion for a couple of different threads.

At any rate, here is the hypothetical. Suppose that the Catholic Church has, in fact, not acted with love and charity toward dissenting parties, whether they are heretics otherwise known as Protestants or earlier heretics that are lesser-known on account of dying out. Mysteriously. If necessary, you may treat this as a counter-factual. If you like, you may assert that of course the Church has always acted with love and charity toward heretics and dissenters, but this is a question of what would be at stake if it had not done so.

Suppose, instead of acting with love and charity, the Church actually acted with wrath, coercion, violence, and hateful enmity toward the sorts of people that it was supposed to show love and charity toward, at least on some level. In this hypothetical, we are assuming that the Church should have done a certain type of thing by acting with love and charity toward a certain type of people, but instead of doing that it did the wrong thing on a pretty consistent basis.

If this were so, and I ask that you at least imagine it is so for the sake of the hypothetical, what would that mean for a historical perspective on Catholic history? I will go ahead and assume that it does not have anything to do with doctrine or dogma or with the Church’s teaching authority, so let us agree to leave that untouched. But what would this do to one’s historical perspective on the history of Catholicism, if it were true that the Church should have acted in a certain way and it very often acted in a completely wrong way while failing to display any form of love or charity toward certain people that it should have? What would it mean from a perspective of historical inquiry, and what would it mean for your interactions with Protestants that you might speak to on matters pertaining to our Christian past?

Hi BNB.

I’m trying to keep a lid on my weekly (and daily) participation on IDFs (internet discussion forums) so let me apologize in advance if my responses are too short/hasty/inadequate, or if I don’t read as many of the other responses as I ought to.

I appreciate that you’re using the term Catholic to mean in communion with Rome, but an issue remains: namely, what can be attributed to the Catholic Church. And this is not just a modern, post-schism issue. For example, in the fifth century were the Council of Ephesus, the Second Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon … but the Second Council of Ephesus was not an act of the Church, whereas the other two were.

 

[simspt]

Ideally, when it comes to disagreement and dissent, the Catholic Church is supposed to act with love and charity toward those who disagree with it. A more modern perspective also brings the expectation of non-coercion, although this was not always the expectation. But that has been a discussion for a couple of different threads.

At any rate, here is the hypothetical. Suppose that the Catholic Church has, in fact, not acted with love and charity toward dissenting parties, whether they are heretics otherwise known as Protestants or earlier heretics that are lesser-known on account of dying out. Mysteriously. If necessary, you may treat this as a counter-factual. If you like, you may assert that of course the Church has always acted with love and charity toward heretics and dissenters, but this is a question of what would be at stake if it had not done so.

Suppose, instead of acting with love and charity, the Church actually acted with wrath, coercion, violence, and hateful enmity toward the sorts of people that it was supposed to show love and charity toward, at least on some level. In this hypothetical, we are assuming that the Church should have done a certain type of thing by acting with love and charity toward a certain type of people, but instead of doing that it did the wrong thing on a pretty consistent basis.

If this were so, and I ask that you at least imagine it is so for the sake of the hypothetical, what would that mean for a historical perspective on Catholic history? I will go ahead and assume that it does not have anything to do with doctrine or dogma or with the Church’s teaching authority, so let us agree to leave that untouched. But what would this do to one’s historical perspective on the history of Catholicism, if it were true that the Church should have acted in a certain way and it very often acted in a completely wrong way while failing to display any form of love or charity toward certain people that it should have? What would it mean from a perspective of historical inquiry, and what would it mean for your interactions with Protestants that you might speak to on matters pertaining to our Christian past?

Why aren’t you including in your hypothetical the opposite as well? All the love and charity throughout history? Why aren’t you also including the Protestant tradition as well? From ecumenical standpoint of course it’s important to acknowledge past mistakes.

 

[LSK]

Ideally, when it comes to disagreement and dissent, the Catholic Church is supposed to act with love and charity toward those who disagree with it. A more modern perspective also brings the expectation of non-coercion, although this was not always the expectation. But that has been a discussion for a couple of different threads.

At any rate, here is the hypothetical. Suppose that the Catholic Church has, in fact, not acted with love and charity toward dissenting parties, whether they are heretics otherwise known as Protestants or earlier heretics that are lesser-known on account of dying out. Mysteriously. If necessary, you may treat this as a counter-factual. If you like, you may assert that of course the Church has always acted with love and charity toward heretics and dissenters, but this is a question of what would be at stake if it had not done so.

Suppose, instead of acting with love and charity, the Church actually acted with wrath, coercion, violence, and hateful enmity toward the sorts of people that it was supposed to show love and charity toward, at least on some level. In this hypothetical, we are assuming that the Church should have done a certain type of thing by acting with love and charity toward a certain type of people, but instead of doing that it did the wrong thing on a pretty consistent basis.

If this were so, and I ask that you at least imagine it is so for the sake of the hypothetical, what would that mean for a historical perspective on Catholic history? I will go ahead and assume that it does not have anything to do with doctrine or dogma or with the Church’s teaching authority, so let us agree to leave that untouched. But what would this do to one’s historical perspective on the history of Catholicism, if it were true that the Church should have acted in a certain way and it very often acted in a completely wrong way while failing to display any form of love or charity toward certain people that it should have? What would it mean from a perspective of historical inquiry, and what would it mean for your interactions with Protestants that you might speak to on matters pertaining to our Christian past?

I know that there have been leaders within the Catholic Church who have not behaved charitably towards heretics and dissenters.

The difference, and this may seem too fine a point to some, is whether or not there were actual doctrinal teachings that directed us to hunt down heretics and kill them OR if there were sinful men and/or women urging the faithful, under the banner of authority, to hunt down heretics and kill them.

I would expect there to be those who misuse their authority.

Why would I expect this?

Concupiscence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

badnewsbarrett;13137582]Ideally, when it comes to disagreement and dissent, the Catholic Church is supposed to act with love and charity toward those who disagree with it. .

Look to the historical Catholic saints and martyrs who give a true historical witness and example of Christ towards the historical enemies that came against the body of Christ. The acts and actions of the True Catholic faithful out number your hypothetical assumptions.

At any rate, here is the hypothetical. Suppose that the Catholic Church has, in fact, not acted with love and charity toward dissenting parties, whether they are heretics otherwise known as Protestants or earlier heretics that are lesser-known on account of dying out. .

When the Catholic Church acts, she acts in feeding and tending the flock of Jesus Christ in Love. When the Catholic Church acts to defend the flock of Jesus Christ against wolves and false shepherds (as she is commissioned by Jesus Christ ), She binds and looses with the keys Jesus Christ gave her in order to separate the flock of Jesus Christ from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Here I introduce to you the historical actions of the Catholic Church councils.

From these councils the Church acts. In no where will you find the Catholic Church that councils to exercise any form of capital punishment, when she never has the power to exercise any capital punishment.

Your hypothetical wrongly places the secular (Christian) Caesars acting in the name of the whole Catholic Church. Here your hypothetical wrongly mixes the Catholic Church which belongs to God with what belongs to the secular Caesars.

It is the Caesars who alone exercise capital punishment within their own borders and peoples. The Catholic Church never has the power to exercise capital punishment because God never gives that power to her.

Suppose, instead of acting with love and charity, the Church actually acted with wrath, coercion, violence, and hateful enmity toward the sorts of people that it was supposed to show love and charity toward, at least on some level. In this hypothetical, we are assuming that the Church should have done a certain type of thing by acting with love and charity toward a certain type of people, but instead of doing that it did the wrong thing on a pretty consistent basis.

Your hypothetical already occurred during the infancy of the Catholic Church. When Peter (our first Pope) took up a sword to fend off the Jewish soldiers who arrested Jesus. When Peter declared to Jesus, that he would prevent Jesus from going to His Crucifixion and was rebuked by Jesus. When Peter denied Jesus three times. From all these historical actions by our first Pope, God never leaves Peter and God never abandons His body the Church. One thing is for sure; God acts providentially within His Catholic Church. God always saves a remnant who remain faithful to Him and a Father chastises his son because of Love.

If this were so, and I ask that you at least imagine it is so for the sake of the hypothetical, what would that mean for a historical perspective on Catholic history?

“For the sake of the hypothetical”, the hypothetical history would prove Jesus to be a false prophet, that Jesus lied, when He promised never to leave His Church orphans and the love and peace that Jesus Christ gives to His body the Catholic Church does not exist.

If? your hypothetical perspective of history was true. Protestantism would of never survived the onslaught of your hypothetical perspective of the Catholic Church and the many unending deaths and wars brought about by Catholic secular Caesars towards anyone who protested your hypothetical perspective of the Catholic Church. In fact, Islam today would of been a long forgotten religion of the past and the Orthodox Church’s (plural) would all be speaking Latin today.

Your hypothetical historical perspective of the Catholic Church would not of survived 2000 years of Unity in One faith, One baptism in One Lord, which would prove Jesus Christ did not resurrect from the dead and TRUTH revealed by God does not exist.

To persecute against the body of Christ in the Catholic Church is to persecute Jesus Himself.

The Catholic Church as a whole speaks from her councils in unity world wide and from Peter on faith and morals. From this platform the Church tends (protects) and feeds (teaches) the flock of Jesus Christ in peace and Love.

If you add or subtract any more from this, you have an incorrect understanding of the body of Christ the Catholic Church. The historical witnesses to this fact are revealed in the lives of the Catholic Saints and Martyrs of the Catholic Church since Pentecost.

Jesus taught; “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God”. History proves the Catholic Church battled and continues to fight to hold to this teaching by our Master. Did her members fall into temptation at times? Yes, but the Catholic Church herself remains Immaculate today, not because of her members, but because of Jesus Christ and His Sacramental life that lives within the body of Christ who is the Catholic Church the “bulwark and pillar of TRUTH”.

Peace be to you

 

[Contarini]

Think of it this way. You have a hospital. One that preaches “washing hands” as a way to prevent diseases.

There are some doctors that work in this hospital, but do NOT wash their hands. Because of this, some patients get ill due to bad care of their doctors.

The question is: is the policy of “washing hands” wrong?

This is why Catholics differentiate between the men of the Church and the Church itself. The policy of “washing hands” IS effective; if some people get ill, it is because they are not following the policy.

On the same note, the teachings of the Church ARE truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. If people commit excesses and are corrupt, it is because they are not following the teachings.

Good analogy that helps clarify the issue.

I’ve probably fallen into the trap of confusing two separate but related issues:

1. Moral scandals that clearly violate Church teaching; and
2. Times and places where it appeared that the Church was in fact teaching things that we would now agree were wrong or immoral.

Let’s take the first example, which is covered by your analogy, first. My argument is that it’s not self-evident that God could not have limited the sinfulness of Church leaders so as to allow the Church to be a better moral example, by the same means by which Catholics believe God has prevented Church leaders from formally teaching error. I do not think that this consideration disproves Catholic claims. I just wish Catholic apologists would take it more seriously instead of sneering, “you are confusing infallibility and impeccability,” as if that settled the issue.

The second issue, though, is really more serious and more relevant to the OP. Church leaders did not necessarily hand over heretics to the civil authorities for execution because they (the Church leaders) were bad people. Sometimes of course they were, but actually when that happened, at least some of the time the hierarchy stepped in. For instance, one of the Popes criticized the Spanish Inquisition because it was prosecuting people for heresy out of greed and political rivalry.

The real problem is someone like Thomas More or Jacques Fournier or Thomas Aquinas. These were, as far as we can tell, pious and humane people. The two Thomases are saints. Yet Aquinas explicitly advocated for the execution of heretics, and More and Fournier were actively involved in the process of prosecuting heretics. There is evidence that they were restrained and humane in how they did so. For instance, I believe that for the three year period in which we have detailed records of Fournier’s activities, he didn’t hand over anyone for execution.

But precisely because these people were not bloodthirsty villains, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that they said what they said and did what they did because they thought Church teaching required them to do so.

That is, in a way, a much bigger problem than the existence of scoundrels who acted contrary to Church teaching.

To get back to your analogy: if the hospital had doctors who didn’t wash their hands because they didn’t believe in germ theory, and if in fact the formal regulations made no mention of washing hands and even, on a less than entirely official level, seemed to discourage it–then we would have a bigger problem.

Religious tolerance was, in fact, looked on with some suspicion until Vatican II. This isn’t a case of the Church clearly teaching one thing and people doing the opposite.

It is a case of the Church apparently teaching the wrong thing, but doing so in such terms and at such a level of authority that it could be reinterpreted and developed, with proper nuance and qualifications.

We did atrocities, because we are fallible. The infallible Church told us NOT to do, but we decided to follow our own judgement instead…

But the Church did not, in fact, tell people not to kill heretics.

Popes and theologians said the opposite–that heretics should be killed.

You can argue that this wasn’t “the Church” speaking. But you can’t argue that the Church did anything on the other side between, say, 1200 and 1700 (this is a very conservative estimate).

Why should He do that? What would change if God had put only good Popes there?

The Church would be much more credible to the world. Far more people would be Catholics, Catholics would have much less excuse for their sins, and those who weren’t Catholics would have a high respect for Catholicism even if they disagreed with the teachings.

He couldn’t (or could; there is a theological debate on this) prevent bad actions WITHOUT violating the free will of Popes.

Precisely. There’s a debate on it. It’s not at all clear.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

While it would be nice if leaders flaws were limited could it be that the level of discomfort with the moral failings is a result of the claim of doctrinal purity? In other words, would you be as concerned if there was not a claim of doctrinal infallibility? What if the Church claimed neither that churchmen were impeccable nor that teaching was infallible?

Then there wouldn’t be a problem. It would be clear that, in fact, the Church is messy and broken and we struggle to follow Christ while often failing.

When I say “there wouldn’t be a problem,” I mean really “there wouldn’t be this problem.”

I agree that the lack of infallibility does have problems.

Or at least, the lack of indefectibility does, and indefectibility implies some degree of infallibility.

What I’m really upset about isn’t infallibility per se so much as the overly cut-and-dried way it’s presented, as if it were crystal clear which teachings were binding and which aren’t, so that there is a coherent, definable, totally obvious body of “Church teaching” which must be either accepted or rejected.

Reality is a lot messier than that.

I’d also think you can make a good argument that an error in dogmatic teachings on faith and morals would be a more serious error than not living up to the teachings. Consider the case if the Church were able to declare mathematical rules. If the Church declared 2 + 2 = 5 would that not be worse than the Pope doing his sums wrong? The rule would live on until the end of time and affect everyone. The bad sums would have a limited direct effect in time and place.

I think that it depends on the degree of the error and the degree of the moral failure.

It’s pretty hard for me to see, for instance, that the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, or the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity, is more important than whether or not the “Vicar of Christ” is at least a person of basic decency (and to be fair, all the Popes for at least the past two centuries have been), or whether priests and nuns teaching in Catholic schools behave in a way that at least does not irrevocably embitter children against the Faith. (Not just talking about sexual abuse here but about the extremely frequent accounts of priests and nuns being harsh, unloving, and just generally not very nice people.)

Edwin

 

[Duane1966]

Ideally, when it comes to disagreement and dissent, the Catholic Church is supposed to act with love and charity toward those who disagree with it. A more modern perspective also brings the expectation of non-coercion, although this was not always the expectation. But that has been a discussion for a couple of different threads.

At any rate, here is the hypothetical. Suppose that the Catholic Church has, in fact, not acted with love and charity toward dissenting parties, whether they are heretics otherwise known as Protestants or earlier heretics that are lesser-known on account of dying out. Mysteriously. If necessary, you may treat this as a counter-factual. If you like, you may assert that of course the Church has always acted with love and charity toward heretics and dissenters, but this is a question of what would be at stake if it had not done so.

Suppose, instead of acting with love and charity, the Church actually acted with wrath, coercion, violence, and hateful enmity toward the sorts of people that it was supposed to show love and charity toward, at least on some level. In this hypothetical, we are assuming that the Church should have done a certain type of thing by acting with love and charity toward a certain type of people, but instead of doing that it did the wrong thing on a pretty consistent basis.

If this were so, and I ask that you at least imagine it is so for the sake of the hypothetical, what would that mean for a historical perspective on Catholic history? I will go ahead and assume that it does not have anything to do with doctrine or dogma or with the Church’s teaching authority, so let us agree to leave that untouched. But what would this do to one’s historical perspective on the history of Catholicism, if it were true that the Church should have acted in a certain way and it very often acted in a completely wrong way while failing to display any form of love or charity toward certain people that it should have? What would it mean from a perspective of historical inquiry, and what would it mean for your interactions with Protestants that you might speak to on matters pertaining to our Christian past?

Hypothetically, what are your standards for *love and charity? *
Because, what one person believes is an act of love, another may deem cruel.

Hypothetically speaking Badnews, since we know that acts of love and charity should have been practiced by the Reformers, but we know that they did not always act up to many people’s standards of love and charity, and you are a child of them, would it make you rethink being Christian?

 

[Duane1966]

I thought this from New Advent was interesting.

The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is theirnature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son isjustand may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where thepunishmentexceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of theInquisitionviolated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity offaith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, whenheresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. Inproofof which it suffices to remark that theinquisitorsonly renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to thelawsframed by emperors and kings.Medievalpeople found no fault with the system, in factheretics had been burned by the populace centuries before theInquisitionbecame a regular institution. And wheneverheretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the samelaws: so theHuguenotsinFrance, theHussitesinBohemia, theCalvinistsin Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and thePuritansinEngland.Tolerationcame in only whenfaithwent out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of theKulturkampfinGermanystill smoulder; the separation and confiscationlawsand the ostracism ofCatholics inFranceare thescandalof the day.Christsaid: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The history ofheresy verifies this prediction. (see*INQUISITION).

 

[Peter_J]

Good analogy that helps clarify the issue.

I’ve probably fallen into the trap of confusing two separate but related issues:

1. Moral scandals that clearly violate Church teaching; and
2. Times and places where it appeared that the Church was in fact teaching things that we would now agree were wrong or immoral.

Let’s take the first example, which is covered by your analogy, first. My argument is that it’s not self-evident that God could not have limited the sinfulness of Church leaders so as to allow the Church to be a better moral example, by the same means by which Catholics believe God has prevented Church leaders from formally teaching error. I do not think that this consideration disproves Catholic claims. I just wish Catholic apologists would take it more seriously instead of sneering, “you are confusing infallibility and impeccability,” as if that settled the issue.

The second issue, though, is really more serious and more relevant to the OP. Church leaders did not necessarily hand over heretics to the civil authorities for execution because they (the Church leaders) were bad people. Sometimes of course they were, but actually when that happened, at least some of the time the hierarchy stepped in. For instance, one of the Popes criticized the Spanish Inquisition because it was prosecuting people for heresy out of greed and political rivalry.

The real problem is someone like Thomas More or Jacques Fournier or Thomas Aquinas. These were, as far as we can tell, pious and humane people. The two Thomases are saints. Yet Aquinas explicitly advocated for the execution of heretics, and More and Fournier were actively involved in the process of prosecuting heretics. There is evidence that they were restrained and humane in how they did so. For instance, I believe that for the three year period in which we have detailed records of Fournier’s activities, he didn’t hand over anyone for execution.

But precisely because these people were not bloodthirsty villains, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that they said what they said and did what they did because they thought Church teaching required them to do so.

That is, in a way, a much bigger problem than the existence of scoundrels who acted contrary to Church teaching.

To get back to your analogy: if the hospital had doctors who didn’t wash their hands because they didn’t believe in germ theory, and if in fact the formal regulations made no mention of washing hands and even, on a less than entirely official level, seemed to discourage it–then we would have a bigger problem.

Religious tolerance was, in fact, looked on with some suspicion until Vatican II. This isn’t a case of the Church clearly teaching one thing and people doing the opposite.

It is a case of the Church apparently teaching the wrong thing, but doing so in such terms and at such a level of authority that it could be reinterpreted and developed, with proper nuance and qualifications.

But the Church did not, in fact, tell people not to kill heretics.

Popes and theologians said the opposite–that heretics should be killed.

You can argue that this wasn’t “the Church” speaking. But you can’t argue that the Church did anything on the other side between, say, 1200 and 1700 (this is a very conservative estimate).

The Church would be much more credible to the world. Far more people would be Catholics, Catholics would have much less excuse for their sins, and those who weren’t Catholics would have a high respect for Catholicism even if they disagreed with the teachings.

Precisely. There’s a debate on it. It’s not at all clear.

Edwin

Hi Edwin. I don’t know if I’ll respond to this at some point (as already mentioned, I’m really trying to keep a lid on my participation on forums) but I want to at least take a moment to acknowledge that it’s a good post.

Thank you.

 

[NovusFidem]

1. Moral scandals that clearly violate Church teaching;

My argument is that it’s not self-evident that God could not have limited the sinfulness of Church leaders so as to allow the Church to be a better moral example, by the same means by which Catholics believe God has prevented Church leaders from formally teaching error.

I understand your frustration with apologists, and I can relate. But I would like to keep on discussing with you, so give me a call if I annoy you suddenly!

As in regards to free will+sin=imperfect Church, I wonder if, instead of it not being self-evident, perhaps it is a different opinion on the matter of what free will is? Calvinists believe in determinism, for example; their understanding of free will is different from the Catholic understanding, so when we pose our stance, they might understand something else entirely!

However, as valid as this reasoning is, it is a bit unseemly to engage Catholics (or anyone, for that matter) in a discussion, without understanding first the barriers in communication.

(It is for these barriers that the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate always boils down to “The Bible says so!” and “I don’t care about the Bible!!”… :slapfight

If people came to discuss infallibility KNOWING what Catholics understand of it, perhaps we wouldn’t have to go back and sneer: “You are confusing infallibility and impeccability!”.

The discussion would veer towards moments where the Catholic Church truly declared something as true and then said the teaching was wrong.

1. Times and places where it appeared that the Church was in fact teaching things that we would now agree were wrong or immoral. …]

[This] issue, though,** is really more serious and more relevant to the OP**. …]

The real problem is someone like Thomas More or Jacques Fournier or Thomas Aquinas. …] Aquinas explicitly advocated for the execution of heretics, …]

But precisely because these people were not bloodthirsty villains, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that they said what they said and did what they did because they thought Church teaching required them to do so. …]

Sorry for the cuts. I agree with you, this is more relevant to the original question!

Ok, so let me get things straight:

1. the Church taught something before that, today, is not acceptable;
2. teachings that were misinterpreted. (which you consider far more dangerous)

On the first one: I believe this question is in line with current discussion in regards to death penalty - the Bible allows it, the CCC ALLOWS it, and yet current Popes advocate against it.

Just to add perspective. While it CAN be both moral and needed to kill a man** (to protect another, for example), the teaching of the Church is that, if you can avoid killing and still protect the other, then you SHOULD avoid killing. Death penalty made sense when we had no means to lock dangerous people up; so, in order to protect society, they had to be killed. Nowadays, we have means to keep people locked up HUMANLY (see Norwegian prisons), so killing is unadvised.

So, perhaps, there is a valid reason for a Doctor of the Church to preach that killing heretics is reasonable. (not that I believe it ever was a teaching; so far the only sentence I’ve found for heresy is excommunication. I’ll keep you updated on this )

On the same question still:

It is a case of the Church apparently teaching the wrong thing, but doing so in such terms and at such a level of authority that it could be reinterpreted and developed, with proper nuance and qualifications.

In this, we get to a difference of opinions. “The Church teaching the wrong thing” is a subjective interpretation of what the “wrong thing” is. Just to put on perspective:

• The Church teaches against contraception → while it make sense for our beliefs, society believes we are wrong;
• The Church teaches against same-sex marriage → while it makes sense to our beliefs, society believes we are wrong.

Killing heretics sounds too different when compared to contraception,** but if** (big IF here) that is a Church teaching, then it stands true still, just like the morality of death penalty. As much as current society may deny, for Catholic the Truth doesn’t change and the Church always teach the Truth. So, it was moral then, it should be moral now…

On the second: if people did what they did, because they understood wrong… again, is it a fault of the Church or of the individual?

For example, if instead of “wash hands” the hospital said “do not disseminate diseases” (in a time when they didn’t know HOW to avoid diseases - those silly Middle Ages ). Doctors back then would amputate infected members, or burn suspicious pustules. And some doctors would kill the ill and burn the body! - problem solved…?

The teaching may still hold true - it is good to not disseminate diseases. But the doctors (specially the Inquisition ones) did poorly on the execution of the order - they forgot that, as doctors, there are other (bigger) rules they must follow (such as “do no harm” :doh2. While today we know that washing hands is enough; back then they had to study the policies as a whole - if the Hospital didn’t order them to kill the ill, then they had the obligation of studying both policies (“stop dissemination” and “do no harm”).

Phew!

The CCC calls us to form our conscience with the whole of the revealed Truth. It is not a mere “I thought it meant”.

(I might have to go on a second post here, sorry about the lenght…)

** people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem1.htm - interesting reading on "why it could be moral to kill a man"

 

[NovusFidem]

Finally, (I’ll try to keep it short):

Imagine that, back then (Inquisiton, Crusades and all that jazz), society was not as developed as today. Remember that adultery, homosexuality, theft, witch and wizardry** all carried a death penalty**.

In some Christian States, heresies were considered a serious crime. You can reason it however you like:

• different opinions generated dissent and conflict (like today - people die because of football games results!);
• the dissenting opinion resulted in death or ill for the rest of the population - as was the case of witches and wizards, who would bring about “plagues” and “curses”;[1]
• the grievance caused was considered serious - adultery brought a great harm to society (as it affected the cell called Family); or homosexuality, which offended the in-vogue/current God.

The first to declare heresy a capital crime was Theodosius, a Christian Roman EMPEROR. It wasn’t the Church who declared it, but the State - the reason being that they considered heresy a crime against the State.

In this site: www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm they put some light on the subject. They say that, under ecclesiastical discipline, nothing much could be done to the heretic in this life - the only option was to excommunicate them. Only under secular forces was heresy truly hunted.

While they do say that the** intolerance towards heresy was acceptable** (and, by the logic used, it was and still is), the punishment was only such (death) because the times asked for it - when heresy was considered worse than treason, the State had the power to do what they did.

“In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings.”

My head is spinning, so I’m going to bed. But, just to play the Devil’s Advocate, I’ll raise the question: did the Church CONDEMN the murder of heretics? Did the Church ignore it?? Or the Church didn’t have any teaching on the matter? (Avoiding Trouble 101 - Excommunicating Kings, Emperors and Dictators for Killing in the Name of God)

Edit1: The Church protested against the State for the first heretic executed - Priscillian. The Pope censured the Emperor for it.

Edit2: Pope Innocent II (1199) declared it was the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics (BEWARE!!!). It doesn’t seem it was spoken infallibly.

[1] No, I don’t believe in wizardry! (my letter for Hogwarts never came…). Just reasoning their reasons…

 

[exnihilo]

What I’m really upset about isn’t infallibility per se so much as the overly cut-and-dried way it’s presented, as if it were crystal clear which teachings were binding and which aren’t, so that there is a coherent, definable, totally obvious body of “Church teaching” which must be either accepted or rejected.

Reality is a lot messier than that.

I understand your objection. But I’d ask how would this certainty be achieved? What would it look like? Do you think there is really a way to completely remove all doubt and uncertainty? It seems to me that in all human affairs this is an impossibility.

New objections, which may really be old objections, are raised. New knowledge may cause people to question something or at least look at it differently. Words change meaning over time and usually can be interpreted in at least slightly different ways.

I think that it depends on the degree of the error and the degree of the moral failure.

It’s pretty hard for me to see, for instance, that the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation, or the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity, is more important than whether or not the “Vicar of Christ” is at least a person of basic decency (and to be fair, all the Popes for at least the past two centuries have been), or whether priests and nuns teaching in Catholic schools behave in a way that at least does not irrevocably embitter children against the Faith. (Not just talking about sexual abuse here but about the extremely frequent accounts of priests and nuns being harsh, unloving, and just generally not very nice people.)

Assuming it does depend on the degree of error who is it that determines the seriousness of the error? The Catholic Church says it does. But that will never stop someone from disagreeing.

Regarding harsh teachers I have no direct experience with that. I’m certainly aware of the cultural idea that Catholic schools were harsh. But how do we know if they really were? Was a comparison ever made? If a child only was ever in Catholic schools they couldn’t compare that experience to an outside experience. I went to public schools and I had several harsh, generally not very nice teachers. But since they weren’t tied to anything other than the school I couldn’t link their attitude to anything else.

It is like a guy I know. His father was a Baptist minister. He dislikes Christianity and Churches. From his viewpoint his father was always attending Church meetings and prioritizing the Church over him. From his viewpoint his father eventually was treated badly by one of the Churches he served. He blames all of these negative things on the Church. But his dad could have just as easily been an insurance salesman who worked all the time and neglected (I don’t think his father was neglectful) his kids. Would he blame insurance for that?

The Catholic Church teaches we should be growing in holiness. That Christians don’t always act the best, that they sometimes act downright terribly, shouldn’t exactly be a shock. It is certainly a disappointment. But it isn’t something that disproves Christianity or the Church. In fact it actually provides real evidence for the Church’s central claim that we are in fact sinners.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I’m going to go ahead and add a post that should give some clarity as to where I’m coming from on this thread. Imagine this, if you please.

Imagine that the Catholic Church is on trial for some alleged wrongdoing. Is it on trial for burning heretics? No. Is it on trial for murder? No. Is it on trial for making false claims about its ability to teach dogma absent any error? No. It is very important to understand what charges are being brought against the Church. It is not whatever charges you heard from someone somewhere, these are not charges that you hear frequently from some random people whenever. I am telling you what the charges are, and I expect that these will be treated as the actual charges that will be dealt with on this thread.

The charges are as follows- that the Catholic Church has, at various points throughout its history, inappropriately compelled and/or forced and/or silenced dissenters who were baptized Catholic as infants, but later developed different beliefs and likely began teaching beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith. Despite the fact that these beliefs were contrary to the Catholic faith, the Catholic Church does not and has never had the right to force these people into silence- although it can control what happens within the walls of its own property, it has no right to force such people to silence in toto. It has no right to compel anyone to state beliefs that they do not want to state. And it has no right to prevent people from leaving the Catholic faith in some sense and starting a different church, or of disagreeing with the Catholic claims to truth as if they know better than the Catholic Church. Even if they do not know better, they get to do all of these things, it is their God-given right to do so, and the Catholic Church stands charged of violating these rights and freedoms through compulsion and force.

Notice that I am completely excluding violence, murder, executions, burning, and any sort of claim by the Catholic Church that it is special, and I exclude these things in order to forestall tangents that prevent me from getting answers to the thing I want answered. I am also excluding the idea that the Catholic Church forced people of other religions to become Catholic- I acknowledge a good track record from a doctrinal standpoint. The focus is on people who were born Catholic, baptized Catholic, and later dissented in some way. Know what the charges are, and know what they are not.

I hope that is sufficiently clear. What I ask you to do is assume, for the sake of this hypothetical, that the Catholic Church is guilty of these charges. Even if you are 100% sure that the Catholic Church is guilty of no such thing, can you at least imagine what is at stake? What would be the consequences if the Catholic Church were guilty of this?

Allow me to give you an example of a response from an Evangelical perspective. I would say that these sorts of charges are very serious, I would even say it is the moral equivalent of rape. This is not to say the CC is guilty of actual rape- I am stating a moral equivalence, on account of the use of force, compulsion, and completely ignoring the will of someone who doesn’t want to go along with what you’re doing.

Indulge me for a moment and try to imagine a rapist. Probably a creepy looking guy, right? The rapist says “Why don’t you look at all the good stuff in my life? I’ve done lots of good things.” Well, rapist, this crime is so serious that it pretty well defines you as a person, and no one cares about anything else you may have done. The rapist says “It has been a long time since I raped anyone, I made a mistake…well, maybe two or three…but it’s been a few centuries since I raped anyone! Isn’t there a point where we stop talking about this?” Again, no, rape is so serious that once you are a rapist, that is For Eh Ver. You are forever a rapist, no matter how much time goes by. The rapist says “Well, even if that were so- that I am a rapist, or whatever you’re getting at here- that doesn’t affect my ability to promulgate completely true doctrine when I am properly convened and when I say that I am free from error.” The answer- What in the world does that have to do with anything at this point in time? The rapist says, “Why don’t you go after some other rapists? Look at what that other guy did, stop looking at me and go give him a hard time.” And that needs hardly any response, all rapists are worthy of criticism on some level. The rapist says “I’d really like to focus on the joy of sex and what a good thing it is.” And anyone would respond that this obscures the seriousness of using force and acting against what the other person wills.

Just one more. The rapist says, “Well, I know I raped these specific people, but it’s been quite awhile now and I would really like to have an actual romantic relationship now. Specifically with the person that I raped.” And the response is no, never, how do you even have the stones to ask for that?

I hope this allows everyone to better understand where I am coming from. Please take a look at the hypothetical, understand what the charges are, and go right ahead and tell me if it is actually the moral equivalent of something besides rape, please make an argument for it. I’d like to hear what a Catholic thinks is the actual moral equivalent of compelling someone in this manner. Also, where do you wind up at with the appropriate consequences in the event that the Catholic Church is guilty of the thing I’ve described?

I’ll tack on one more thing at the end. If it is true that the Catholic Church tried to force/compel the Protestant Reformers into submission against their will, is it ever appropriate for the Catholic Church to ask for their willing submission at a later time? You can guess what I say about that, but I’d like for someone to make a cogent, non-abusive argument for a different point of view.

 

[NovusFidem]

What I ask you to do is assume, for the sake of this hypothetical, that the Catholic Church is guilty of these charges. Even if you are 100% sure that the Catholic Church is guilty of no such thing, can you at least imagine what is at stake? What would be the consequences if the Catholic Church were guilty of this?

Let’s PRETEND, for a second, that all of this happened. The Church not only ordered the murder of dissenters and heretics, as the Church was the one to actually be the one acting on those murders (instead of the State, as it usually was the case, they actually sent armed monks after heretics).

Then you ask that we see what is at stake here - a Church teaching that evil is good.

We don’t see any of that.

If we truly believe the Church to be infallible, then all that which she did remains moral. It was moral to kill heretics then (given the circumstances), and it would be moral to kill heretics now (if the circumstances ask for it).

“Oh, but that is immoral! The Church is teaching immorality!” - again, no. You may perceive those actions as immoral, but that is YOUR judgement on those actions. Just like what the Church believes of contraception vs. what society thinks of contraception is at odds. Just because you think those (hypothetical) actions are immoral, doesn’t make them immoral in the eyes of the Church and, in fact, are probably supported by Scriptures, Tradition, Magisterium, and the many Doctors of the Church.

Not that, you know, the Church did any of this.

Just for comparison - Islam **extremism **believes in “holy wars”, and actively start them. They bomb schools, sell young virgins into prostitution, and decapitate people of other faiths. Are they being immoral?

According to their belief: NO, they are not. They are, in fact, acting in complete accordance with what they believe.

We, however, disagree with them. To the Catholic Church, they are committing atrocities and must be stopped.

Just like Protestants looked at the Inquisition and thought: “Those are atrocities, they must be stopped!”

This is the essence of moral relativism: what is moral to one, is not moral to another. Everyone is right and wrong at the same time!

I, like you, also believe in objective morality. The fact that my religion teaches infallibly makes me BELIEVE that all who teach differently (such as Islam, Protestants, Buddhist) teach immoralities, to different degrees. If my Church does “evil things” (as is perceived by society), such as discriminating against homosexual acts and other sexual acts, it is because that is the truth of the matter, and society as a whole is wrong on this matter.

I would say that these sorts of charges are very serious, I would even say it is the moral equivalent of rape. This is not to say the CC is guilty of actual rape- I am stating a moral equivalence, on account of the use of force, compulsion, and completely ignoring the will of someone who doesn’t want to go along with what you’re doing.

You can’t ask an ideology to judge itself as immoral. You can try, using Scripture (as it’s the one thing all Christians have in common), to show that the Catholic Church was wrong in having a role in holy wars. However, you’ll see as we defend ourselves, that Scripture DOES give leeway to Holy Wars.

On another topic people are discussing the Book of Joshua. Someone denied it, saying it was not a historical account. Even if it wasn’t, the book is there in the book where we place the inspired revelation of God. Why would God allow the author to tell a tale of God allowing murder of women and children?

You use the example of a rapist, saying that “I haven’t done that in a long time”. While I understand the decision to use a rapist (it is easier to understand the disgust for the crime), I do not believe the analogy is proper.

As the Church considers itself the True Deposit of Faith, she also believes she was always justified in her actions. She doesn’t back away from the “crimes” she supposedly committed.

She would be more like a soldier.

Back in the war, to protect the country, the CC soldier killed many, bombed cities, muffled dissent in the ranks, hunted traitors. It was, on her understanding, a needed and moral “evil”. It wasn’t right to kill, but it was far** more MORAL to kill those soldiers, than to let the enemy get to the country and abuse the civilians**. In fact, not only was it moral, but the soldier acted in great love, and was justified by this love. It was a harsh action, but done in love and for a good reason.

Today, as society lives times of relative peace, the soldier doesn’t kill, and many see wars as a bad thing (even if that one war protected their chances of living free today). “I haven’t killed since the last Crusade…”. Says the CC soldier.

She says that killing is bad, and has always been.

She looks at other countries killing for “holy wars” and says - they are doing evil! That is immoral! They should stop!"

“Wait, is that hypocrisy?” - asks another

“Of course not. We fought for the Truth. They fight for Lies.”

Because, in the end, for the Church their war was holy, even if others look upon her and say “No, it was not the will of God”. For the Church, it was. The same way that, for Islam, it is the will of God. For the Church? It is not.

We may not be right, or moral, to the world. But to our own beliefs, the Church never erred. If the need came to defend faith, maybe the Church will support another war. Say, against ISIS? The Church won’t send soldiers, but they might look and say: “Yes, there is no other way. A war is needed. A just war against terror.”

 

[Duane1966]

The charges are as follows- that the Catholic Church has, at various points throughout its history, inappropriately compelled and/or forced and/or silenced dissenters who were baptized Catholic as infants, but later developed different beliefs and likely began teaching beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith.

Was it the Catholic Church, or civil authorities that silenced these dissenters. Again, heresy back then was considered a crime against the government. Catholics who were silenced in Protestant countries, was it Protestantism, or the civil authorities that silenced them?

Despite the fact that these beliefs were contrary to the Catholic faith, the Catholic Church does not and has never had the right to force these people into silence- although it can control what happens within the walls of its own property, it has no right to force such people to silence in toto. It has no right to compel anyone to state beliefs that they do not want to state. And it has no right to prevent people from leaving the Catholic faith in some sense and starting a different church, or of disagreeing with the Catholic claims to truth as if they know better than the Catholic Church. Even if they do not know better, they get to do all of these things, it is their God-given right to do so, and the Catholic Church stands charged of violating these rights and freedoms through compulsion and force.

Does the Catholic Church have an army? Have they at any time throughout history? In the early days of the United States, probably 99% of the military was Protestant. Does that fact somehow make it a Christian military and not the military of the United States?

God given right? Maybe. But civil authorities throughout most of Christianity did not espouse that view, nor did many Protestants. But civil authorities have always held the right to enact laws that would promote the well being of the people of that country. Heresy was viewed as treason. Are you saying that the civil authorities should pick and choose what laws to enforce?

Verdict. Not Guilty.

Prosecuting attorney BNB, please produce an official Catholic Church document that supports your hypothesis.

 

[KathleenGee]

Heresy destroys families, cultures, peoples…their souls if these heresies lead to serious violation of the 10 commandments.

There are theologians who have been silenced because their reflections are not in accord with the Sacred Scripture and the truth of Who Jesus Christ is.

When Spain was free of the governing of Islam, Muslims were allowed to stay there and live. But when they committed atrocity in a certain region of Spain, then that led to their expulsion.

Also about kings, emperors, rulers…they kill people. Their job is to protect their people and property and national boundaries and before the Reformation, these rulers were Catholic/Orthodox. Constantine most likely postponed his baptism until days before his death.

The pope called all temporal rulers to go to Constantinople to save the Christians from the Turks…but the kings wanted to go to the New World for riches and land. The fault there is not on the Church but on the temporal rulers.

Or the 2000 Jews killed in the Rhineland Danube at the beginning of the Crusades…a bishop and another Cistercian monk who left his monastery, incited Christians to attack and kill those in that region…to the public prohibition by the Church and bishops. That massacre was a reflection on the monk and bishop and those who did it…but still the Church is blamed.

You have to check out the context. And if the Church…represented by the popes and bishops actually ordered these things…or if it was rogues … remember those times did not have the type of communication we have today.

 

[annem]

Contarini

The real problem is someone like Thomas More or Jacques Fournier or Thomas Aquinas. These were, as far as we can tell, pious and humane people. The two Thomases are saints. Yet Aquinas explicitly advocated for the execution of heretics, and More and Fournier were actively involved in the process of prosecuting heretics.

Hi, however, sorry, I believe you haven’t thought this through. Is the church to blame for the beliefs or actions of every single person in the church? Or is the church even to blame for every single word or action of every saint, irregardless of the culture and era the saint lived through?

Of course not. Only for those actions which were known to be sinful at the era as revealed by the church. Knowledge grows as time passes, and so does the understanding of the church, while at the same time never changing the magisterium.

Popes and theologians said …that heretics should be killed

And they lived in an era when people were hung for stealing bread. But most of all, treason resulted in execution. Heresy was considered a form of treason and all governments of the era followed the practice.

The Church would be much more credible to the world. Far more people would be Catholics, Catholics would have much less excuse for their sins, and those who weren’t Catholics would have a high respect for Catholicism even if they disagreed with the teachings.

Um, no. No and no and no. If they were really interested in the church and church history, they would be truthful enough with themselves to hunt also for the good things the church had done, the amazing cornucopia of good the church has showered the world with throughout its history.

I argue there has never been - ever, or ever will be - any other religion that rivals Catholicism as a force for good throughout the world. I fear there has to be something preventing those who don’t see the blinding truth .

Don’t mean to be harsh here, but of all the atheists I know (many in my own family), of all the pagans and fad yoga lady Buddhists (yet more in my family) not a single one has rejected Christ for any reason save one: sin. They love their sins more than they love God.

Of course there some people are really ignorant of the church and Jesus. But those in the secular west who reject God are much more likely to do so because they are mired in ugly sin. Whatever reason they give, I am afraid the real truth is that they can’t see past their own darkness.

God bless, Annem

 

[KathleenGee]

A Pope Gregory of the past wanted priests who committed personal crimes against their flock to be executed.

But we have to look at what heresy does to families’ faith…it erodes it with divisions so finally after several generations faith is lost.