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

[Aslan10]

I’ll jump in late. Since the OP seems to be referring to reformation times, if I was Catholic, I would point to the first 1000 years of Church history, the last 300 (outside of the recently tragic scandal), and the overall positive treatment of disagreeing individuals by the Church throughout history.

As a someone who is not Catholic, I see the reformation as a tragic necessity. It was not glorious, it was not good, and we should work our tails off to try and restore unity. The bad treatment of others by the Church in history is not shocking because it is made up of sinners. Not too mention, the Protestant churches are just as guilty of treating Catholics and non-Christians with hatred. So too me, this argument honestly means nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially when one is in search of the truth.

 

[Contarini]

Most (if not all) cases where the Church “went back” on a teaching relates to the “change on teachings” on slavery - people believe the teaching changed, because they misunderstood the teaching completely. The ban of Bibles for the lay is a good example of this: you are misunderstanding both the decree (not a teaching) and the reason - the Church didn’t prohibit it because she thought it was wrong for the lay to read Scripture; she didn’t allow those Bibles because the translation was not reliable. So, basically, she was protecting the lay people.

But that’s not what the condemnation of Quesnel says. It condemns the proposition that the difficulty of reading Scripture is not a reason to prevent laypeople from doing it, and other propositions saying that people ought to read Scripture. The specific translation is not mentioned.

As to the Death penalty. My intention was to show that the Church doesn’t “back away” from infallible teachings; the teachings usually hold true forever, such as is with death penalty.

Certainly the Church has so far stopped just a hair short of repudiating its earlier affirmations of the validity of the death penalty

Remember that the Church condemned PUBLIC heresies. You could be an heretic in your head, no one would know. But if you started speaking aloud your ideas, ANYONE could hear you.

Usually, you ended up being questioned by the Inquisition because someone accused you of crimes. In a time where “vigilantism” was norm, and civilians would burn anyone accused of being a witch; having the Church decide on the case was suddenly a very good idea.

The Church declaring you heretic was just confirmation to your own public declarations. She had, then, nothing to do with your death - you were basically asking for it.

That’s a lot of nonsense. The fact that Catholic faith leads some people to reason like this (good, nice, intelligent people such as you appear to be) is one of my huge problems with Catholicism, even though I know that it’s only a certain version of Catholicism that leads to this.

Church leaders taught that heretics should be executed, they urged rulers to carry out their duty of suppressing heresy, and they handed people over knowing that they would be executed.

Also, it isn’t true that they only went after public heresy. Obviously they had no proof until you said or did something. But that could be a casual remark to a friend or family member, a private journal, etc.

It just isn’t true that the Church only went after heretics who disrupted society. That’s an apologetics claim first made, to my knowledge, by St. Thomas More. But it just ain’t so.

In order for it to be Objective, there MUST be an anchor from which morality comes or refers to. Although many have tried, the only acceptable explanation relies on religious belief pertaining to “god”. (a god, God, an entity, etc).

A god isn’t very helpful, actually.

I agree that morality requires God–it does not, however, require divine revelation.

That’s the mistake I think you are making.

If there is ONLY ONE TRUTH, then** I can accept it “blindly”**.

No, if there is only one truth, you had darn well better use every faculty you have to figure it out.

By accepting it blindly, you are subordinating your moral reasoning capacities to your extremely fallible judgment that a particular source of religious authority is the correct one.

That is a really, really bad thing to do.

If God decided to make the Catholic Church infallible in regards to MORAL and faith, and DEPOSITED on it the ENTIRETY of Truth, WHY on heavens should I doubt its authority??

Because your belief that the Church is infallible rests on your own fallible judgment.

(And just in case you’re tempted to invoke the atrocious “spiral argument” here, let me point out pre-emptively that the historical judgments on which the argument rests are fallible, so that doesn’t solve the problem at all, even apart from the problems with the argument’s claims about what can be proven by historical methods concerning NT reliability. If this is all gibberish to you, ignore it and move on.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Now, why do I defer to the authority of the Church… for starters, let me make it clear that I do not trust **BLINDLY **the teachings of the Church. Specially the ones I disagree with, I usually study to UNDERSTAND the position of the Church.

(Which is why I had a link to prove how homicide could be moral - I had to understand why the Church allowed death penalty when the Bible says clearly “thou shall not kill”.)

I try to discern as much as possible, compare Church teachings and interpretations with Scripture and my own interpretations, to reach both true UNDERSTANDING and peace with Church teachings.

Now, I also defer to Church teaching because the Church actually studies the issues before declaring binding teachings. She, guided by the Holy Spirit, recognizes how something (say, contraception, pornography, drug use) relates to: 1) What the Bible says; and 2) Our moral lives.

As I said, I usually do my own research to put against Church teachings but, so far, She has been proven to be smarter, RIGHTer, than me. Whereas I once defended positions in opposition to the Church, as I sat down to study Her position, I saw that She was right.

Tl;dr: As a Catholic, I DO believe in infallibility, mostly because - as I’ve found out - the Church has always been right on matters of faith and morals.

This is entirely different from what you seemed to be saying above. I entirely agree that it’s reasonable to make a decision to trust the Church based on these and other weighty reasons. But there would always be the possibility that further evidence might radically change your view.

The obvious example, not related to morality, would be if really convincing evidence surfaced that Jesus’ body had been found. Of course it would have to be really, really convincing. But if faith isn’t blind, then there is a tacit willingness to reconsider if the rational beliefs on which faith was originally based turned out to be clearly wrong.

In moral matters, the Church commanding an intrinsic evil might be such evidence.

No, it doesn’t. Christianity calls us to judge ourselves, but never to doubt the Scriptures. We may judge (as in, DISCERN - study) the teachings, to bring about a true understanding (meaning= not trust blindly). This doesn’t mean, however, that Scriptures may be wrong.

Actually, I didn’t say the Scriptures were wrong. I was speaking of the Christian tradition in general. It is, at its best, a highly self-critical tradition. And yes, that includes questioning face-value interpretations of Scripture.

God allowing bad things to happen does not equal with God TELLING people to do bad things. Which only serves to proof that: 1) either God is not all-good; or 2) Holy Wars are a good thing.

No, you omit the third possibility:

1. God never commanded a Holy War.

That is possible either under
3a. Scripture is wrong (obviously unorthodox) or
3b. Scripture, read as a canonical whole through the lens of the Tradition with a Christocentric focus, does not teach that God ever commanded a Holy War that killed whole populations including children (this is my position).

You missed the point completely; I am sorry, but did you understand what the Trolley Problem was about?

Yet again, you go for a gratuitously insulting and patronizing move, when you could just reiterate your reasons for interpreting the Trolley Problem as you do.

Because it served to clear the position of the Church perfectly:** that actions by themselves are NEITHER good NOR bad.**

That is not the Church’s position. CCC 1756:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Now to be fair, it may be that you and the CCC are defining “circumstances” differently. So, for instance, killing an innocent person is always wrong, but you appear to consider the innocence of the victim as a “circumstance.” Adultery and fornication are always wrong, but again, by your terminology it may be that the marital status of the participants is a “circumstance.” The CCC seems to be using the term for more extrinsic factors, listing things such as being under duress, an emergency, social pressure, etc.

So if you understand “circumstances” broadly enough, perhaps you can always locate the morality of the act in the circumstances. But that’s not the CCC’s terminology.

That is what I meant when I said that you were contradicting the Church’s teachings in my previous post. I wasn’t talking about your affirmation of legitimate defensive force, but about your claim that something intrinsically bad can be good if done for the right reason. (It now appears that you are actually arguing that no act is intrinsically good or bad, which as I’ve shown is also contrary to Church teaching.

The excesses? When members in power of the Church made use of a good teaching to do bad things? He asked for forgiveness for ACTIONS committed.

I was responding specifically to your claim about holy wars.

Please explain how speaking of the evils of contraception is demon worship.

Why would I explain something that has nothing to do with anything I actually said?

I am talking about your consequentialism and authoritarianism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Could it also be that what God intended, was something like 20 theses? And that, perhaps, just perhaps, the other 75 were born of Luther’s pride?

The proposition in question wasn’t actually in the 95 Theses, if I remember rightly.

But the point stands. I am not defending Luther’s teachings as a whole. (Actually his most clearly unorthodox teachings came later.)

I use the alias I do because the original Cardinal Contarini essentially held this view–that Luther had some valid insights but had erred greatly in rejecting Church authority.

Here is a problem I have with this point of discussion. Is the problem the killing of heretics, or the problem the way they were killed? You must say it is the killing of heretics, because any way of killing them could be viewed as cruel.

To add to that problem, most of the reformers had no problem with the mode of burning. Surely if it is against the will for the burning of heretics, it would be against the will for the burning of witches.

Well, I think it was. I think burning people at the stake is never morally justifiable, period.

I also think that executing people for sincerely held beliefs is wrong.

What occurred to me while writing this was how much Leo X saw into the future. To condemn the burning would be condemning the death penalty. If that had happened, how do you think the European rulers would have reacted?

Well, that doesn’t follow. One can quite easily say that heretics should not be burned without saying that no one should be executed.

Church representatives routinely urged rulers to burn heretics. This was one of the things Erasmus complained about, and was censured by the University of Paris theology faculty for so doing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Again, you misunderstand the idea of The Trolley Problem. The idea is to propose a reasoning, a LOGIC by which we can define moral and immoral actions. You can apply it to just about any action.

I’m questioning the idea that we should derive our basic logic from such a contrived and extreme example. Most of the time the effects of our actions are not that certain, and there are more options than those the Trolley Problem allows. I am opposed to any moral philosophy that rests primarily on “limit cases.”

Also, the example doesn’t suggest “consenquentialism”; Thomas Aquinas said that morals came not only from the consequences of an action, but also by the action used and the reason. Saving 5 > 1 is good, but not if those 5’s lives are saved as a result of a bad consequence (the 1’s life). It is a good action to push a button to save 5 lives, even if one dies as consequence - the first problem, - but not to push someone into the tracks to save the same 5 lives. The consequence in both is the same (5 live, 1 dies), so OF COURSE he was not judging the action by the CONSEQUENCE ALONE.

Here you’re right that I wasn’t distinguishing sufficiently between the “basic Trolley Problem” and the “fat man problem,” and that a double effect case can be made for flipping the switch because you aren’t intending to kill the one person. This article has some helpful criteria for double effect, and argues that double effect would (or at least that many think it would) justify flipping the switch.

However, there is a debate among Catholic moral philosophers even on the basic Trolley Problem. Elizabeth Anscombe, one of the most famous Catholic philosophers of the 20th century and a friend (at least initially) of the philosopher who first came up with the Problem, completely rejected the idea that this was an appropriate way to do ethics (as I did above).

The exercise uses a Problem (Trolley Problem) in order to PROVE a Principle (Principle of the Double Effect).

Yes, but the problem I see with the TP, even apart from my bigger worries about highlighting such problems as a way to do moral philosophy, is that you’re choosing to give the life of the one person less value than the life of the five.

One way to mix up the Trolley Problem is to ask “what if the one person was your spouse or child?” Personally, I would never flip the switch and kill a family member in order to save five strangers, nor do I think that I would be morally obligated to do so.

Now that might still leave your basic argument intact. Perhaps my obligation to protect my family rightly tips the scale. (Then we might ask: what if someone else were at the switch? Would it be right for me to stop the other person in order to save my spouse/child? What if I had to kill the other person to do that?) But making the “one person” a family member highlights the fact that your “double effect” argument makes individual human life worth less than that of a group, and that we don’t in fact accept this when we have a personal bond with the one individual being considered. Should we therefore engage in this calculus even with strangers? (But then, of course, we can ask what we’d do if the five people were family members and the one person was a stranger. . . . )

I am not sure that any of this really helps the present discussion that much. But I’m happy to talk about wacky moral problems till the cows come home

Edwin

 

[Thorolfr]

1. God never commanded a Holy War.

That is possible either under
3a. Scripture is wrong (obviously unorthodox) or
3b. Scripture, read as a canonical whole through the lens of the Tradition with a Christocentric focus, does not teach that God ever commanded a Holy War that killed whole populations including children (this is my position).

I’m genuinely interested to know how you would use the position in 3b to understand the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the use of the ban (herem) as described in the Books of Joshua and Judges and Samuel. In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God explicitly commands that children be slaughtered:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

If Scripture is not wrong, is it only the interpretation of such passages by some people that is wrong?

 

[Contarini]

I’m genuinely interested to know how you would use the position in 3b to understand the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the use of the ban (herem) as described in the Books of Joshua and Judges and Samuel. In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God explicitly commands that children be slaughtered:

It was certainly part of ancient Hebrew belief that their ancestors had waged such war at God’s command.

I would respond, however
a) on a literal -historical level (i.e., asking about the intentions of the “original author” of the text as we have it) was the author intending to affirm the validity of herem warfare or rather seeking to make some other point using traditions about herem warfare to do so? For instance, in 1 Sam. 15, Saul isn’t condemned for showing mercy. (He happily kills all the women and children, but saves animals for loot and sacrifices and the king as a trophy.) He’s condemned for perverting a holy war into a war for greed and ambition. In other words, this could actually be read as a condemnation of “real-life” warfare by comparing it to an ancient ideal of war that was motivated solely by zeal for God. In itself, this won’t get us to the proposition “herem warfare was bad/not commanded by God,” but it indicates that the intention of the human author may not have been to encourage herem warfare per se.

b) on a theological/canonical level, reading Scripture as a canonical whole centered on Christ, through the lens of Sacred Tradition, the stories are about a zeal for God that is exemplified primarily through Christ’s death on the Cross–forgiving rather than destroying his enemies. Jesus’ redemptive death was the ultimate example of holy warfare–utterly defeating God’s enemies and giving oneself up to God rather than using God’s cause as an excuse for one’s own gain and glory (as Saul and Achan did). That is why early Christians such as Origen could allegorize the conquest of Canaan–ultimately it is about Christ’s victory over evil through death and resurrection and our participation in that.

In the end, Augustine’s principle must be applied: any meaning of Scripture that does not build up faith, hope, and charity is not the meaning God inspired.

Edwin

 

[NovusFidem]

One way to mix up the Trolley Problem is to ask “what if the one person was your spouse or child?” Personally, I would never flip the switch and kill a family member in order to save five strangers, nor do I think that I would be morally obligated to do so.

I would love for a new topic to discuss just that. Perhaps we could find out exactly how to safely decide what is moral and what is not. I, for one, would question your decision, as you were moved by an **emotional **preference instead of saving as many strangers as you could. God allowed for the trolley to hit Jesus, our basis for human perfection, in order to save all sort of sinners inside the trolley

I am not sure that any of this really helps the present discussion that much. But I’m happy to talk about wacky moral problems till the cows come home

That makes two of us

(really tempted to keep going on this )

 

[Contarini]

I would love for a new topic to discuss just that. Perhaps we could find out exactly how to safely decide what is moral and what is not. I, for one, would question your decision, as you were moved by an **emotional **preference instead of saving as many strangers as you could

You keep engaging in this head/heart dichotomy.

My love for my family and my duty to protect them are not simply “emotional preferences.”

But I’m not arguing that we should sacrifice strangers. I’m arguing that perhaps our unwillingness to sacrifice a relative means that we shouldn’t throw the switch no matter who is on the other end, and no matter who will die if we don’t.

God allowed for the trolley to hit Jesus, our basis for human perfection, in order to save all sort of sinners inside the trolley

The Trinity and Incarnation make this a highly inaccurate statement.

That is to say, God wasn’t sacrificing someone other than Himself.

Edwin

 

[NovusFidem]

The fact that Catholic faith leads nice people to reason like this is one of my huge problems with Catholicism, …]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but your problem here is that the Catholic Church says that some “bad actions” might be “good actions”.

To put it in perspective, lets use a smaller example. Killing animals is often a bad action. Anyone that went around saying that the “mass genocide of a species CAN be moral”, just like the Church saying that “heretic BBQ CAN be moral”, would sound terribly suspicious, am I right? Is this your problem? (I might have understood wrong, so sorry for anything).

Then comes the Bird Flu, and suddenly everyone backs up China’s decision to kill all those birds. “It is mass genocide of a species, but it is for a greater good”, we reason. The crazy genocidal guy suddenly is “right”, because everyone now agrees with him.

This is, basically, what the Church is doing in regards to all these “you can be a monster” situations. Generally speaking, burning heretics is incredibly unnecessary. Even humanly killing them is hardly acceptable. But the Church’s position is to simply leave a space open for discussion, IN CASE the Heretics Flu hit China and we have to make such a harsh decision.

(can you imagine, in a few years, what the world will say about war against ISIS? Either “the Church didn’t do anything to help!” or “the Church endorsed violence!”…)

It just isn’t true that the Church only went after heretics who disrupted society. That’s an apologetics claim first made, to my knowledge, by St. Thomas More. But it just ain’t so.

Dude, they burned St. Joan of Arc. Of COURSE there were cases done in bad faith, with little to no proof, for political reasons (such was Joan’s case, by a Bishop no less), etc etc.

That doesn’t make the teaching wrong - it was just badly used.

I agree that morality requires God–it does not, however, require divine revelation.

…]

No, if there is only one truth, you had darn well better use every faculty you have to figure it out.

Then how you suggest we find out what is right, if people reach different conclusions through reason? If even the Bible can be interpreted in different ways?

I mean, even murder is open to debate. Take some Brazilian indigenous groups, for example. They kill “defective” newborns by placing them in holes underground. It’s moral to them. If they were to reason this, they would probably reach the conclusion that “defective people bring burden to whole tribe, making everyone weak” and that is a great reason to commit infanticide. They do not believe in the Sanctity of Life (Divinely revealed), and they do not believe in the Commandments (thou shall not kill - also DR).

I’ll admit that I am putting a heavy burden on you. Not even Philosophers are able to define morality outside of religious grounds (DR), so there might still be a way.

However, I am inclined to believe that the Bible contains all we need to define morality and that, if science ever gets around to defining morality on objective terms, they will only prove the Bible right.

By accepting it blindly, you are subordinating your moral reasoning capacities to your extremely fallible judgment that a particular source of religious authority is the correct one.

That is a really, really bad thing to do.

Because your belief that the Church is infallible rests on your own fallible judgment.

To the highlighted: then, what protects my moral reasoning from my own fallible judgement? Without an infallible Church left by Christ to guide me, how can I ever be sure that I have reached the right reasoning? (because, if I don’t, then I’ll be sinning without knowing)

Trust the Church or don’t trust the Church; either way I am going to be subjected to my ever present fallibility.

And again: I do question the Church. However, I first give preference to her judgement, and try to understand it, instead of relying on MY judgement and leaving Her. In other words, my first reaction is to trust her and doubt me, instead of doubting her and trusting me.

It is like with a Wife: her behavior gets weird, as if she were hiding something (a lover?) from me. If I rely on my judgement alone, this will end in divorce before she can even utter a word. If, instead, I trust her (faith), perhaps she will explain what is going on.

If her explanation shows that she is, indeed, lying to me? Divorce. But at least I gave her a chance to explain herself. If I mistrusted her first and she was just hiding my birthday present, then I would be divorcing a great woman. (and losing the chance of receiving a great gift uch

So far, the Wife has been able to explain all her moral oddities to me, which is why I am still married to Her (a Catholic). I am still working out some problems on faith (I have some trouble with use of images here and there), but nothing too great as to make me move out and back to my mother’s house.

Also, in regards to dissenters, St. T.Aquinas said that “[he] who disbelieves [even] one article of faith does not have faith, either formed or unformed”. So, you either have faith in ALL doctrines, or you don’t have faith on the Church. Dissenters, by this, simply have no faith in the Faith they profess; they are welcomed, however, to stay and raise their faith in Catholic Faith.

Or, as the analogy goes, to stay put, trust your Wife and question her first (and, perhaps, check under the bed and behind the curtains, if you know what I mean ). I am sure such a docile Wife won’t be annoyed by your questions. With so many neighbors calling her a courtesan, she’ll understand if you have doubts…

 

[NovusFidem]

You keep engaging in this head/heart dichotomy.

My love for my family and my duty to protect them are not simply “emotional preferences.”

Isn’t it? You are considering an attachment to someone (who you love dearly, I am sure) instead of doing what MIGHT be what God wants you to do: to Sacrifice.

You know, to “pick your Cross” and all that jazz? God loved Jesus dearly, but Sacrificed Him so that we had a chance to be saved. And isn’t God, and Jesus, the example we must follow?

I wouldn’t be able to sacrifice anyone I know, I’ll admit to that. But this is because of my emotional attachment to them, my dependence not in God, but in my mortal life. I am, despite all knowledge of Catholic doctrine, a terrible Catholic still. (working my way up to Saint!)

Jesus did say that we should leave behind mother and father, and wife, and son, and follow Him. He WANTS sacrifice. Sacrifice your pleasures, your belongings, your own flesh and blood for His cause - to save as many as you can.

But I’m not arguing that we should sacrifice strangers. I’m arguing that perhaps our unwillingness to sacrifice a relative means that we shouldn’t throw the switch no matter who is on the other end, and no matter who will die if we don’t.

Try to discern those words according to the Bible. Find out what God says about it.

Or try to imagine: to God, is your mother worth more than any of those on the Trolley? To God, who loves every mother as special for giving birth and raising kids, for baking muffins and kissing good nights - to HIM, is your mother any more special than mine?

Would it be “moral” for me to pull the lever (since it’s your mother on the tracks), but not for you? Isn’t this moral relativism?

(PLUS: God told us to love even our enemies; why should your friends be more important than anyone else? Isn’t this belief - that those closer to your heart are more important - a decision made on feelings rather than reason? If personal attachments such as these are subjected to the individual, wouldn’t morality become subjective, such as the above mentioned “mom” case?)

Do you think His choice would be to save 5 moms, or just yours?

I’m not suggesting to you what God would do. I’m just saying that we should try to understand what HE wants first, and **then **making our own judgments on what is right.

That is to say, God wasn’t sacrificing someone other than Himself.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold yer horses!

The Father and Son share one nature, but they are two persons. The Son sacrificed himself at the cross, not the Father. So saying GodFather sacrificed himself is innaccurate, as it was GodJesus who sacrificed himself. Jesus, as the Son, sacrificed himself for mankind. The Father did not sacrifice himself. (just like when Jesus directed His prayers to the Father - two different persons)

 

[Duane1966]

Well, I think it was. I think burning people at the stake is never morally justifiable, period.

What about hanging, shooting, gassing, lethal injection…?

I also think that executing people for sincerely held beliefs is wrong.

What about for treason? The Rosenbergs sincerely believed it was wrong for only the US to possess atomic capabilities. Ergo, their execution was wrong.

Well, that doesn’t follow. One can quite easily say that heretics should not be burned without saying that no one should be executed.

Actually it does follow. For over 1000 years, heresy was considered a form of treason. Here is just one example: nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs2.htm. If you say no to burning of heretics, you could reasonably say hanging, shooting, and any other form of execution is cruel, and against the will of the Spirit.

So in reality, if Leo agrees that burning is against the will of the Spirit, and since heresy in that time and place IS considered treason, he would be saying execution for treason is wrong. There is no way that any monarch would accept that.

Only with the separation of heresy from treason could one say it is wrong to kill heretics, but not people who perpetrate treason, but that would not happen for hundreds of years.

Church representatives routinely urged rulers to burn heretics.

Do you have a link with quotes?

In summary:

A.) Heresy was considered treason.
B.) Treason was punishable by death.
C.) If it is wrong to burn heretics as a form of execution, surely it is wrong under any other mode, as someone could reasonably say any mode is cruel.
D.) Did any government during that time period say heresy was not treason?
E.) Since heresy was considered treason, and treason punishable by death, Leo would have had to say that execution of people that committed treasonous acts was against the will of the Spirit. Would any government back then or even now go for that?

Exsurge Domine = Brilliant

 

[Duane1966]

But that’s not what the condemnation of Quesnel says. It condemns the proposition that the difficulty of reading Scripture is not a reason to prevent laypeople from doing it, and other propositions saying that people ought to read Scripture. The specific translation is not mentioned.

1. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

If this is the quote you are talking about, isn’t Quesnel advocating forced reading of the Scriptures? This is what you are for?

 

[Contarini]

If this is the quote you are talking about, isn’t Quesnel advocating forced reading of the Scriptures? This is what you are for?

Nothing about forcing here.

You guys really go out on some weird limbs trying to defend all previous papal statements.

What he’s saying is that just because Scripture is obscure, that doesn’t mean that laypeople shouldn’t read it.

And yes, I’m for all Christians reading the Scriptures, along with prayer, fasting, reception of the Sacraments, works of charity, and other basic acts of Christian piety.

Edwin

 

[Duane1966]

Nothing about forcing here.

You guys really go out on some weird limbs trying to defend all previous papal statements.

You are better than this.

What he’s saying is that just because Scripture is obscure, that doesn’t mean that laypeople shouldn’t read it.

1. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

Earlier you said in regards to this statement, that because it was obscure, the Church was preventing the laity from reading scripture.

But in that above statement, obviously some of the laity did not want to read scripture because of its obscurity, and they chose to not read it. If they cannot choose to not read it, wouldn’t that be forcing them to read it?

In your eyes, is there something wrong with someone who admits that the gospel is over their head, and are content to follow Jesus by going to church every Sunday, hearing the gospel preached and explained to them, but they personally do not read scripture?

And yes, I’m for all Christians reading the Scriptures, along with prayer, fasting, reception of the Sacraments, works of charity, and other basic acts of Christian piety.

Edwin

So am I. I also have known people who have never read scripture (they were illiterate), who would put to shame many a person who is well versed in the bible. Their faith, charity, and piety was something I can only hope and pray to one day attain.

 

[Contarini]

What about hanging, shooting, gassing, lethal injection…?

I am not a fan of executing people at all, but I can see how the methods you describe might appear at a given time and place to be the most humane available. Burning someone at the stake is always gratuitously cruel.

What about for treason? The Rosenbergs sincerely believed it was wrong for only the US to possess atomic capabilities. Ergo, their execution was wrong.

Well, I think it was.

However, there’s a huge difference–they were actually acting on their beliefs in ways that directly harmed the country.

Also, treason is a crime against the state, purely and simply. Heresy was a crime tried by Church courts, and the Church courts handed heretics over for execution. Yes, there were legal formalities to try to distance the Church from the actual execution, but everyone understood that a condemnation as an impenitent heretic and “relaxation” to the temporal arm was intended to mean death.

Actually it does follow. For over 1000 years, heresy was considered a form of treason.

Treason against Christ, not treason against the state.
The state was expected to punish it, but it was not, per se, a crime against the state and it was not the same thing as secular treason.

Here is just one example: nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs2.htm.

Why exactly am I expected to accept this as an authoritative source? There’s no primary source cited here, and no scholarly secondary source either.

It just isn’t true. They were separate crimes and usually punished differently (though female traitors were, I think, burned).

Certainly people were, at least in the sixteenth century, sometimes punished as traitors for their religious convictions–particularly Catholics in England. But that was because of the specific issue between the Papacy and the English monarchy, which concerned authority. Hence, denying the Royal Supremacy under Henry, or attending a Mass said by a foreign priest under Elizabeth, was understood as treason.

Catholic governments did not punish Protestants as traitors–unless they had actually done something treasonous. (The conspirators of Amboise in France, for instance, were punished as traitors–they had tried to seize the king and kill his Catholic advisors.)

If you say no to burning of heretics, you could reasonably say hanging, shooting, and any other form of execution is cruel, and against the will of the Spirit.

Well, of course I could, but that’s not the issue here. The one doesn’t imply the other. One can quite reasonably say that burning is more inhumane than some other methods, and one can quite reasonably say that the killing of people for heresy (a religious crime consisting, in its “pure” form, simply in obstinately professing opinions contrary to the faith) is wrong, while the killing of people for treason may not be. (I am not interested in defending any kind of execution, and particularly not in defending the brutal and idolatrous means that governments have used in order to punish those who dared to give their loyalty elsewhere, including to the Catholic Church. But those issues are in principle separate from the question at hand.)

So in reality, if Leo agrees that burning is against the will of the Spirit, and since heresy in that time and place IS considered treason, he would be saying execution for treason is wrong. There is no way that any monarch would accept that.

Only with the separation of heresy from treason could one say it is wrong to kill heretics, but not people who perpetrate treason, but that would not happen for hundreds of years.

You have no evidence for this. The website you cited has no authority. You reasonably ask me to support my assertions. I ask the same of you.

Do you have a link with quotes?

It’s hard to substantiate a generalization with one link (and some things aren’t on the Internet), but try this link to Google books. If the link doesn’t work, you can Google it yourself. The work is “Clarifications Concerning the Censures Published at Paris in the Name of the Theology Faculty There,” but the volume is printed with the title Controversies (one of several volumes with that title, in the Collected Works of Erasmus series, published by the University of Toronto Press. In this work, Erasmus was responding to a censure of his earlier writings by the Paris theology faculty (who in the sixteenth century were seen as an arm of the Magisterium and issued formal doctrinal censures–in fact they were typically stricter than Rome, at least with regard to Erasmus’ ideas). The relevant pages are 217-226. Erasmus says that “the fierceness of some monks, if it were not restrained by the leniency of princes, would turn into a more than Scythian cruelty.” This of course might just be Erasmian polemic. But the Parish faculty bear out what he’s saying. In the pages i cited, they consistently condemn him for saying that Church leaders ought not to urge the persecution of heretics “who are simply heretics” and don’t disturb the commonwealth.

 

[Contarini]

In other words, Erasmus is arguing exactly what you guys are claiming the Church taught–that heretics may sometimes need to be suppressed when their behavior amounts to sedition or treason (this was also Luther’s position later on), but that the Church ought to be a voice for mercy and should not be urging rulers to kill heretics. And the Paris faculty find this view to be heretical.

A couple of quotes from the censure by the Paris faculty:

p. 217:

And when princes are gravely delinquent by not exterminating heretics who conspire to destroy the Christian community and draw very many into their heresy, orthodox bishops are bound to use every means to induce them to do so: otherwise they themselves would sin.

p. 219:

This proposition, alleging that it is not licit for orthodox bishops and priests to give advice and use general exhortation to lead to the extirpation of heretics who are nothing more than heretical, that is, erring in the faith stubbornly and contumaciously but not stirring up insurrection and uprisings, is set forth against the disposition of natural, divine, and human law. For if according to their office bishops and other priests ought to admonish princes to execute justice upon other malefactors according to God’s arrangement and their own duty (for it is not without reason that they carry a sword), certainly they have an even greater duty to do so against heretics who are nothing more than heretics, insofar as heresy is a graver sin and does more harm to the Christian commonwealth.

A.) Heresy was considered treason.

No, they were separate crimes. You have been seriously misinformed here and have no evidence for your allegation (other than a poorly informed British government education website that cites no primary sources).

B.) Treason was punishable by death.
C.) If it is wrong to burn heretics as a form of execution, surely it is wrong under any other mode, as someone could reasonably say any mode is cruel.

One could, in my opinion, but some are more clearly cruel than others.
Hence, your logic doesn’t hold up. It is not true that if it’s wrong to burn heretics it’s wrong to kill them in any other way, just as it is not true that if it’s wrong to execute heretics then it’s wrong to execute anyone. This does not constitute an argument for executing anyone for any reason.

D.) Did any government during that time period say heresy was not treason?

That’s an odd way to put it. Surely the question to ask first is, “Did any government say that it was?” Again, the two words meant different things. Of course they were related, because heresy was held to harm the commonwealth. But as the quote I gave above indicates, the prevailing opinion was that heresy harmed the commonwealth just by being heresy.

Erasmus held the position you are attributing to the Church–that heresy should be punished only if it was obviously socially disruptive–and he was censured for doing so. His friend More, who was himself actively involved in the prosecution of heretics, made a semi-Erasmian argument to the effect that
a) heretics wouldn’t originally have been punished if they had just been “quiet heretics” (More did not, however, claim that in his own day only “noisy heretics” were punished, or that it was wrong to punish “quiet heretics,” only that the whole practice had become necessary because of the noisy ones), and
b) it was the state’s action and not that of the Church.
But even More, persecutor though he was, was still a humanist reformer and friend of Erasmus and doesn’t represent the full ferocity of mainstream early-sixteenth-century Catholic opinion, as we see it in the censure of the Paris faculty.

E.) Since heresy was considered treason, and treason punishable by death, Leo would have had to say that execution of people that committed treasonous acts was against the will of the Spirit. Would any government back then or even now go for that?

For the reasons I have detailed, this argument fails utterly. Heresy and treason were not the same, and it was quite possible to say, as Erasmus said, that heresy should only be punished when it spilled over into sedition or treason (these were not quite the same–sedition was a broader term that could cover anything that disrupted the due order of things, whereas treason was a more heinous, deliberate attempt to kill the monarch or change the form of government). But this is not what the Paris faculty said, and it is not what Pope Leo said.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are better than this.

That’s not a particularly substantive response. You are consistently torturing the historical evidence, as I have just demonstrated with regard to the persecution issue.

Earlier you said in regards to this statement, that because it was obscure, the Church was preventing the laity from reading scripture.

But in that above statement, obviously some of the laity did not want to read scripture because of its obscurity, and they chose to not read it.

Nothing obvious about that. It is well documented that the early modern Catholic Church put limitations on laypeople’s access to Scripture .See the CE’s article on “Scripture,” in the section headed “Attitude of the Church toward the reading of Scripture in the vernacular,” point 3.

It wasn’t as if laypeople were being generally encouraged to read Scripture. The general policy was to discourage it, unless it could be ascertained that an individual would benefit from it. In other words, it was seen as something to be undertaken only by a very devout, solidly orthodox, well-formed layperson under close pastoral supervision.

Quesnel was saying that it was a general right and obligation. I certainly agree about the obligation part. But you’re twisting this into a situation where the poor laity are not wanting to read Scripture and Quesnel is trying to “force” them. And that’s just silly.

If they cannot choose to not read it, wouldn’t that be forcing them to read it?

As the CE article shows, the post-Tridentine legislation didn’t leave the decision with the layperson, but with the confessor and/or bishop.

Quesnel’s point is that reading Scripture is important for everyone’s spiritual health.

It’s like a situation where doctors are saying, “don’t exercise because you might pull a muscle,” and a more sensible doctor says, “that’s no reason to let yourself off exercising.” That doctor isn’t “forcing” anyone–he’s counteracting the excessive caution of the other doctors and thus urging people to do something that is generally important for maintaining health.

In your eyes, is there something wrong with someone who admits that the gospel is over their head, and are content to follow Jesus by going to church every Sunday, hearing the gospel preached and explained to them, but they personally do not read scripture?

Yes, particularly given the brevity of the Scripture lessons at Mass, and particularly if the person only goes on Sunday as you are implying. If huge gobs of Scripture were read and commented on in detail as in the early Church, it would be a different matter. (And don’t give me that line about the whole Bible being read at Mass–it isn’t, and this has been demonstrated a number of times on this forum.)

I am not claiming that such a person would be in mortal sin and couldn’t be saved, but they would not have a very healthy spiritual life. This is one of the reasons why so many Catholics have a weak spirituality. Protestants read the Bible assiduously (or used to–I’m not sure they do any more) but without the guidance of the Church. Catholics, even now, frequently think that they really don’t need to read it themselves. This separation of the practice of Scripture reading from its proper context within Tradition is, in my opinion, one of the cleverest works of Satan.

Also, it should be noted that far less Scripture was read at Mass in the 17th century than now. And I’m not at all sure that the readings were repeated in the vernacular as they were in the immediate pre-Vatican-II era. In short, I am not falling into the trap of saying that only literate people can have a healthy spiritual life. There are ways to ensure that illiterate people get robust doses of Scripture. But the 17th-century Catholic Church wasn’t doing that. And when a person can read and chooses not to study Scripture, they’re being as reckless with their spiritual health as a person who never exercises is with their physical health.

So am I. I also have known people who have never read scripture (they were illiterate), who would put to shame many a person who is well versed in the bible. Their faith, charity, and piety was something I can only hope and pray to one day attain.

Indeed. But the point at issue between Quesnel and the Pope was not about the illiterate. It was about whether the “sacred obscurity” of Scripture is a reason not to read it. And given how often this had been cited by Church authorities as a reason not to allow the laity to read Scripture freely, it is not convincing for you to argue that the reluctance came purely from the laity and the Pope was defending their freedom. He was defending a status quo in which the laity were only allowed to read Scripture in certain circumstances and under close supervision.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but your problem here is that the Catholic Church says that some “bad actions” might be “good actions”.

Not at all. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church says anything of the sort. You say it. I have already shown that you contradict the Catholic Church outright on the question of whether acts can be good or bad in themselves.

Insofar as I have issues with the Catholic Church on this account, it’s because the Church’s strong claims and authoritarian structures lead many sincere people, like you, down this disastrous road. But it’s probably unfair to blame the Church for your views. . . . it’s just that these views seem to crop up so often among very zealous Catholics.

To put it in perspective, lets use a smaller example. Killing animals is often a bad action.

But it isn’t intrinsically bad.

Then comes the Bird Flu, and suddenly everyone backs up China’s decision to kill all those birds. “It is mass genocide of a species, but it is for a greater good”, we reason. The crazy genocidal guy suddenly is “right”, because everyone now agrees with him.

Actually I don’t.

I certainly wouldn’t support it if they were really wiping out a whole species (I don’t think they did that).

This is a complete straw man.

This is, basically, what the Church is doing in regards to all these “you can be a monster” situations. Generally speaking, burning heretics is incredibly unnecessary. Even humanly killing them is hardly acceptable. But the Church’s position is to simply leave a space open for discussion, IN CASE the Heretics Flu hit China and we have to make such a harsh decision.

No. This is your position. And it’s an immoral one.

The Church should not in any way advocate or promote the killing of people simply for denying Church teaching (which is what heresy is–it is not, as many folks have mistakenly argued on this thread, a form of treason, and was never confused with treason that I know of, though it was once described by a Pope as “treason against Christ,” which is not the same thing).

No matter how bad the “flu,” the use of the death penalty to fight it is always intrinsically evil.

(can you imagine, in a few years, what the world will say about war against ISIS? Either “the Church didn’t do anything to help!” or “the Church endorsed violence!”…)

I am not very concerned about what “the world will say.” I’m concerned about what is true.

That doesn’t make the teaching wrong - it was just badly used.

What is an example of it being rightly used?

 

[Contarini]

Then how you suggest we find out what is right, if people reach different conclusions through reason? If even the Bible can be interpreted in different ways?

First of all, there is no magic bullet–no surefire way. We need a lot of humility and a lot of patience with each other.

But I entirely agree that the Church’s authority is central. I’m just taking issue with your claim that we have no other way to discern moral truth, so that we should accept whatever the Church says on moral issues even if it violates basic moral intuitions.

I mean, even murder is open to debate. Take some Brazilian indigenous groups, for example. They kill “defective” newborns by placing them in holes underground. It’s moral to them. If they were to reason this, they would probably reach the conclusion that “defective people bring burden to whole tribe, making everyone weak” and that is a great reason to commit infanticide. They do not believe in the Sanctity of Life (Divinely revealed), and they do not believe in the Commandments (thou shall not kill - also DR).

Right. And the Church comes along and says, “this is murder.” But the basic principle that you shouldn’t kill people is already there–it’s just that people find ways to let themselves off the hook when it is convenient to kill certain kinds of people.

That’s why it’s so pernicious, so downright demonic, when the Church itself becomes an advocate for these kinds of loopholes. At that point the salt has indeed lost its savor.

Most of the problems now plaguing Western Christendom are the result of the Church endorsing violence. If the Church had consistently been a voice of mercy and humanity, secularism would have little appeal today.

Or, as I have sometimes put it in Tolkien terms (not that I claim Tolkien would like my application): Gandalf put on the Ring, and Saruman cut it from his finger. Now Gandalf is wandering the world with nine fingers trying to fight Saruman, and no one trusts him because they think he just wants the Ring back (a view Saruman, with his persuasive Voice, is very interested in encouraging).

However, I am inclined to believe that the Bible contains all we need to define morality

I do not think that this is an orthodox Catholic position. Or at least, not if you are speaking in formal and not just material terms. (I.e. all morality may well be “contained” in the Bible, but the Bible is certainly not the only resource we need.)

To the highlighted: then, what protects my moral reasoning from my own fallible judgement? Without an infallible Church left by Christ to guide me, how can I ever be sure that I have reached the right reasoning? (because, if I don’t, then I’ll be sinning without knowing)

Trust the Church or don’t trust the Church; either way I am going to be subjected to my ever present fallibility.

Right. That’s the starting point–to recognize that.

Of course the infallible Church is a great gift. In my opinion the main purpose is not to give us certainty as individuals but to allow for unity without compromising truth. But of course it’s very important for us as individuals too.

I am not arguing against the infallibility of the Church or our need of it. I am arguing that we know the Church to be true and authoritative because it confirms and extends and corrects what we already know to be true. There are points of conflict, sure. And those are places where our interpretation and application of basic principles is at issue. (You have brought up contraception, and that’s an obvious example.)

My argument is not that we don’t need the Church or should ignore the Church, but that people whose consciences require them to disagree with current Church policies and stances may in fact be right, just as a person who condemned the execution of heretics in the sixteenth century would have been right.

See for instance Stan Goff, subject of this very obnoxious review in the NCR. The review actually gave me a lot more sympathy with the nasty stuff people here say about the NCR. The reviewer seems really puzzled as to why Goff would join the Catholic Church. I’m FB friends with Goff, though I’ve never met him personally. And when I brought this up, he posted a beautiful passage from his most recent book about how God works through the brokenness of the Church and we are called to be faithful to the Church even if we disagree with some of what it is doing.

Now I am nowhere near as sure that he is that the Church is wrong about women’s ordination, and I’m inclined to think it isn’t wrong bout sexual morality. But I respect Stan immensely–he is clearly a faithful person who has had a genuine conversion and truly loves the Church. And Stan’s attitude is exactly what was needed in the sixteenth century on points like the persecution of heretics–and exactly the attitude the Protestant Reformers did not adopt.

And again: I do question the Church. However, I first give preference to her judgement, and try to understand it, instead of relying on MY judgement and leaving Her. In other words, my first reaction is to trust her and doubt me, instead of doubting her and trusting me.

I entirely agree with this approach, and so your analogy fails as a criticism of my position.

But you have seemed to be arguing something much stronger–the analogy would be if your spouse were to say, “hey, honey, I’ve met this other attractive dude, and I want to try polyamory–if you really love me you will trust me that I’m not being unfaithful, because if I’m doing it then it can’t really be adultery even if it’s adultery by your flawed definition.”

If you aren’t arguing the equivalent of that, then I’m not sure we actually disagree.

Edwin