On burning heretics

[sw85]

You are seriously saying it would be ok to legislate for the execution of Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons? I hope you raise this in RCIA.

Those people are not heretics but schismatics or apostates, depending on how you look at it; quite a difference.

I am certainly saying that a devoutly Catholic people would have every right to demand that society be instituted in such a way as to reflect their values; that this would necessarily and logically permit the criminalization of heresy; and that society has the right to protect itself from heretics using the level of force necessary to do so, including, if absolutely necessary, violent force.

There is really nothing remarkable about that.

Killing people for what they believe is always and everywhere wrong.

Possibly so, but I for one don’t endorse that. I certainly do endorse the criminalization of heresy – which is a matter of deed and not merely of belief.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That would explain the thriving communities of Albigensians in France.

Actually Cathari were forbidden by their own rules from engaging in sex so all of them were converts and thus apostates. Additionally before the Albigensian Crusade the Pope sought to peacefully resolving it sending a legate who was promptly murdered by the Count of Toulouse. The Pope’s hands were then forced and the battle cry was sounded.

Of course! They should be tortured to the utmost by being burned alive and their remains consumed by dogs.

Seriously, the answer (I hope) is no.

who said anything about burning them alive? You hang them then burn them

What gave me the impression you could burn some heretics
Exsurge Domine:

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

 

[markomalley]

Those people are not heretics but schismatics or apostates, depending on how you look at it; quite a difference.

I am certainly saying that a devoutly Catholic people would have every right to demand that society be instituted in such a way as to reflect their values; that this would necessarily and logically permit the criminalization of heresy; and that society has the right to protect itself from heretics using the level of force necessary to do so, including, if absolutely necessary, violent force.

There is really nothing remarkable about that.

Possibly so, but I for one don’t endorse that. I certainly do endorse the criminalization of heresy – which is a matter of deed and not merely of belief.

You are wrong on a couple of major points.

First, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, etc., are not heretics, schismatics, or apostates. Those are all terms that are defined in the Code of Canon Law. Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, etc., are not subject to Canon Law:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

The law is divided into three portions: divine law (for example, the 10 commandments), ecclesiastical law (for example, the code of canon law), and civil law (for example, the basic law of the Vatican City State). Ecclesiastical Law, such as Can. 11, above, only bind Catholics (unless that law is also found in the divine law or in civil law…for example, abortion is a violation of both the divine law – 5th commandment – and ecclesiastical law – Can 1398, as well as, in some jurisdictions, civil law).

I will grant that heresy, apostasy, and schism are also identified in the Scriptures, but the penalty for that is up to God, not up to man.

As for civil law, that is up to the civil authorities to determine. But before acting in your capacity as a lay person to advocate for civil penalties that could impact the thoughts of non-Catholics, I would encourage you to read the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae very, very carefully.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

If you have a hard time agreeing with what it says, you may wish to recall that it is part of the Extraordinary Magesterium and, thus, you have certain obligations regarding it:

Can. 749 §2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively…

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

And, as mentioned above,

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;

(no smiley at the bottom of this post)

 

[markomalley]

Actually Cathari were forbidden by their own rules from engaging in sex so all of them were converts and thus apostates. Additionally before the Albigensian Crusade the Pope sought to peacefully resolving it sending a legate who was promptly murdered by the Count of Toulouse. The Pope’s hands were then forced and the battle cry was sounded.

who said anything about burning them alive? You hang them then burn them

What gave me the impression you could burn some heretics

You realize that the above citation called for the burning of Luther’s works, not the burning of Luther, right?

 

[Nate13]

Does anyone have a list of the heresies with descriptions that actually resulted in the Church putting people to death?

The few heresies that were actually prosecuted in this way to my understanding were done because the heretics were a clear threat that would have lead to the destruction of society and civilization.

For example I believe I remember a heresy that basically said that as long as someone could go and knowingly commit whatever sins they wanted to with the foreknowledge that right before they died they would “repent”. Essentially anarchism.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

You realize that the above citation called for the burning of Luther’s works, not the burning of Luther, right?

Sorry that’s what I get for going to be at five in the morning.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Hopefully this time I got it right

 

[markomalley]

Sorry that’s what I get for going to be at five in the morning.

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Hopefully this time I got it right

Big issue here:

the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.

The ones who did the burning were the civil authorities, not the Church. The Church has only ever been able to pronounce spiritual and ecclesiastical penalties, never civil penalties like the above.

The other point is that it is doubtful that these kind of penalties happened outside of European-dominated areas. So it might be as much a reflection of medieval European culture as that of the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Also from Dignitatis Humanae:
4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.
…
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
And from the Vatican website (see here):
5.3. The Use of Force in the Service of Truth

To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors.

 

[RCIA4]

I don’t believe so, no.

I do believe that a devoutly Catholic society would have a right to criminalize heresy, and the right to protect itself from criminals, up to and including the death penalty if there were no other way to do so.

But burning is simply grossly inhumane, gratuitous, and vile. If the goal is to protect society than the means should be commensurate – at worst a quick death by noose, firing squad, or lethal injection.

The Pope has now condemned capital punishment as more harm than good… And most Catholics are inclined to agree with him… lol

 

[Catholicpotato]

What is the point of such a question? What is the agenda behind it? What is the rub?

Something is fishy…

 

[themeginthemoon]

I find that to be a disgusting question. Sounds too much like mob justice to me.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I find the burning of heretics to be the ultimate hypocritical gesture imaginable. Back in the days of the Roman Empire, Christians were martyred by the Roman authorities (think of Nero having Christians used as human torches to light up his palace gardens); fifteen hundred years later, the Christians suddenly stooped to the level of their persecutors.

That and death by fire is one of the nastiest ways to die. If the fumes don’t knock you unconscious, you’re left screaming in pain as the flames eat into your flesh. Ugh. :: Shudders::

 

[RCIA4]

What is the point of such a question? What is the agenda behind it? What is the rub?

Something is fishy…

Catholicpotato we should not demean others who come asking questions… It isn’t charitable!

In Catholic grade school my teacher Sister Najira once said that “No question is silly or stupid.”

Taking that philosophy I will ask you to not demean the OP no matter the type of question

 

[Catholicpotato]

Catholicpotato we should not demean others who come asking questions… It isn’t charitable!

In Catholic grade school my teacher Sister Najira once said that “No question is silly or stupid.”

Taking that philosophy I will ask you to not demean the OP no matter the type of question

Hang around long enough and you will understand…
Is the Church sexist?
Why do Catholics hate gays?
Is it right for the Church to have so much money?
How much did your indulgence cost?
Is the Church going to kill all the Muslims again?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Sometimes the questions are legitimate. And if that is the case I am sorry but usually there is an agenda, and this smells like an agenda…

 

[John21652]

Catholicpotato we should not demean others who come asking questions… It isn’t charitable!

Saying that one smells an agenda is not demeaning anyone.

In Catholic grade school my teacher Sister Najira once said that “No question is silly or stupid.”

So, can I ask, “is it morally right to chop down a tree with a banana”?

Taking that philosophy I will ask you to not demean the OP no matter the type of question

Catholicpotato didn’t.

 

[RCIA4]

One problem John… Catholicpotato is a man. LOL

 

[George_Stegmeir]

In studying history, one cannot apply modern standards of morality to actions of the past.
Today, heresy and apostasy are not considered heinous crimes, yet in “days of yore” they were considered as crimes of state on a par with treason and rebellion. The thinking of the time was that the apostate or heretic would bring G*d’s wrath down on the community or nation to punish them for their toleration of gross sin.
In medieval times, burning at the stake was a far more merciful means of execution than the usual drawing and quartering, in which ones abdomen was cut open and the innards removed while the convict was still alive. Following this, the body was cut ito 4 pieces to be exhibited at the four cardinal points of the city or town, With the head exhibited on a pole in the marketplace or in the center of the town. All of this was done to warn the populace that this is what would happen to them if they stepped out of line.
Beheading was the most merciful means of execution and reserved for those of noble birth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s suppose that we have a group of people who have decided that humanity is ‘no good’ and so they deliberately unleash the Bubonic Plague, smallpox, anthrax, etc. in various places throughout the world.

They KNOW what they are doing. They in fact target places with the most ‘helpless’ --nursing homes, schools, more isolated areas and areas with the greatest number of people who will be infected. They are absolutely convinced that what they are doing is both ‘right’ and ‘just’. They ‘notch’ their belts, so to speak, and try to ‘win’ the daily ‘head count’ of those they have infected and/or killed.

They are ‘free’ to speak of what they are doing and to, in fact, try to convince others to join them in their killing. In some places, nobody is permitted to even disagree with them because, by ‘law’, their ‘point of view’ must be given absolutely as much ‘respect’ as the idea that killing is wrong.

In other places, they are allowed to speak but afterward, various groups or speakers try to refute their teachings, hoping that they will keep people from joining this group . . .but, of course, any person is still permitted to join these killers ‘if they freely choose to do so.’

In some places, these people are not allowed to speak, or even to come into the country, but ‘bootleg’ tapes are passed around and illegal ‘runnings’ are common, and there are no consequences if one is found breaking the law about this.

In some places, these people are sought, are arrested, and even jailed. However, from jail they are not only protected from harm, they are in fact ‘given’ more material goods than half of the country’s citizens, are permitted to engage in speeches, carry on with phone and internet and mail messages, etc., to keep the ‘killing’ going. Their stores of chemicals are ‘protected’ and they are free to set up people ‘outside’ to keep their work going.

And in some places, after due process of law, these people are found guilty of murder. They are given the opportunity to ‘pay their debt’ through voluntarily surrendering their murder weapons and agreeing to repudiate their evil teachings. however, if they obstinately refuse to stop the killing, if they refuse to abide by the law, and if there is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY to STOP the murders, even by trying to keep these people in solitary confinement, because they have so corrupted themselves and others that they will ALWAYS, as long as they live, supply the weapons and proclaim how it is a moral imperative to cause little children to suffer agonizing death. . .then the lawful government may, to SAFEGUARD its citizens, RELUCTANTLY, and only after EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE ‘trial’ of attempts to stop the murders without having to execute the murderers themselves. . . the government MAY, to protect the innocent lives being recklessly cut short by UNREPENTENT people. . .have to impose the death penalty on these murderers. That is the authority of the individual government and a decision it would not make lightly.

But if you were living in a society in which you would have no guarantee that the children you bore, loved and cared for, would not by the WHIM of some person be plunged into a tortuous and agonizing death for NO REASON, with NO ‘explanation’, no recompense, no ‘care’, because the ‘rights’ of the murderers to live AND MURDER FREELY were felt to be more ‘important’ than the life of any one individual SIMPLY TO LIVE. . .you might, just might, think that if there were NO way of stopping someone who was determined to murder over and over and over without ever having to ‘pay the price’, except for having the murderer himself (if there were NO other way, whatsoever, and again, through due process of LAW as set forth by the legal government) have to suffer. . . might NOT be the worst possible thing for society.

And this, mind you, is posited on ‘physical’ death, which is a ‘temporary’ thing.

IMAGINE, if you will, that the murderers above didn’t stop short at just killing the body (bad enough). . .but managed to kill the SOULS of hundreds, thousands, millions of people. . .would you stand by and not try to stop them? and if there were only ONE way to do so (again, after trying EVERY POSSIBLE WAY, and of course going through DUE LEGAL PROCESS, this being the responsibility of the LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY and its right to protect its citizens), would you deny them their legal right to determine what to do?

I personally would not seek to harm another soul. IF however an anthrax-wielding person was threatening to kill the children at a local school, and I was part of the local police force, and I confronted the person, begged them to stop, and that person refused to listen and was advancing on a playground full of children, I would HATE to fire my weapon, I would give the person every possible chance, I would shoot to disable rather than to kill. . .but if the person kept on even after being shot trying to harm the children I would --reluctantly–keep on trying to stop that person, even if the only way he stopped was because he was finally dead.

And I don’t think that would make me a murderer. Do you?

 

[Debora123]

Is it morally permissible to burn heretics who refuse to repent and are willfully spreading heresy?

Ummmm…

Should I even respond to this???

 

[sw85]

You are wrong on a couple of major points.

First, Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, etc., are not heretics, schismatics, or apostates. Those are all terms that are defined in the Code of Canon Law. Anglicans, Baptists, Mormons, etc., are not subject to Canon Law:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

…

I will grant that heresy, apostasy, and schism are also identified in the Scriptures, but the penalty for that is up to God, not up to man.

Conceded; it would be more appropriate to say that Protestant denominations as an organic movement are apostatical, even if the individual members of them are not.

In any event, I am not endorsing suppression of Protestants merely for being Protestants.

As for civil law, that is up to the civil authorities to determine. But before acting in your capacity as a lay person to advocate for civil penalties that could impact the thoughts of non-Catholics, I would encourage you to read the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae very, very carefully.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

If you have a hard time agreeing with what it says, you may wish to recall that it is part of the Extraordinary Magesterium and, thus, you have certain obligations regarding it:

Can. 749 §2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively…
​

(trimmed due to character limitations --SW)

I think you are misapprehending my position, or the nature of Vatican II’s teachings re: religious liberty, or both.

What I am endorsing is the right of governments to defend the Catholic faith against public attack, undermining, or impeachment. Nothing in Vatican II contradicts this right. All it establishes is the right of non-Catholic faithful to practice theologically inoffensive worship, so long as it accords with the natural law, free of coercion. This certainly seems to be the consensus in mainstream theological circles; coherent articulations and defenses of this consensus have been provided by a number of theologians.

The “gist” of Vatican II’s statement on religious liberty is that while there is no right to falsehood, the state is limited in its right to suppress falsehood.

Concordantly, I am not talking about forcibly converting people on pain of death. Nor am I talking about mandating that certain beliefs be given assent as a matter of public policy. I am endorsing only the right of the state to suppress those heresies which are aggressively advertised and which threaten eternal souls. Again, this is not theologically controversial and it has been the policy of the Church for millennia, throughout its holiest and most devout times. They should do so using no more lethal means than the end requires, but the end is sufficiently grave that, if absolutely necessary, imprisonment and/or execution are not off the table.

It is certainly the case in the present age that it would probably never be necessary to go as far as execution. Nevertheless, as a moral principle, it is not, is never, and has never been off the table.

The Pope has now condemned capital punishment as more harm than good… And most Catholics are inclined to agree with him… lol

To my knowledge it is not yet taught that Catholics must give full assent of faith to the claim that the death penalty is always and everywhere illicit. Nor can it, without calling into question its entire legitimacy.

The present Catechism still teaches that the death penalty is licit recourse in cases in which societies have no other options to defend themselves against the predation of criminals. A good example would be the powerful drug lord or mob boss who continues to issue orders to kill people from prison. It DOES teach that in the present age it is rarely ever necessary to go to the extent of execution in order to do so – but that is NOT a change in its historical moral teachings.​