J
Just_Lurking
Guest
I have to agree with Hokomai: I am scared by people who believe that it is acceptable to use violent or even lethal force against people whose only “crime” is publicly preaching doctrines that you disagree with.
- Status
H
Hadrianus
Guest
To understand the use of capital punishment against heretics in former ages we must first understand the context.
Nearly everyone down to the end of the 17nth Century believed that religion really mattered and that false belief would send people to hell for all eternity. This is the essential point. Catholics and Protestants both believed this very sincerely. Unless we understand this first, it is simply impossible to analyze the actions of Mediaeval and Renaissance people.
Because this belief was so strongly held individuals were quite willing to die for it. Neither those condemning the heretic nor the heretic himself considered the matter a question of human rights. What they did believe was that it was a life or death struggle for what was necessary for salvation, and this is the reason for which Catholics, Cathars, Protestants et al, sought the death of those they considered to be spreading religious error.
The idea that someone could sincerely hold an unorthodox opinion in good faith is fairly recent, actually. The change came about when religious pluralism became inevitable after Europe had split into different forms of Christianity and people were for the first time born and raised with different beliefs. Protestants and Catholics alike came to agree that no one could be blamed for being raised in a different religion. Hence the kind of restricted toleration given to the Jews in Mediaeval Europe became gradually extended to Catholics and Protestants in their respective countries Over time all remaining restrictions on belief were abolished.
It is useless now to debate the issue of executing heretics because we cannot judge the actions of people in earlier times by criteria they themselves would not have understood.
Nearly everyone down to the end of the 17nth Century believed that religion really mattered and that false belief would send people to hell for all eternity. This is the essential point. Catholics and Protestants both believed this very sincerely. Unless we understand this first, it is simply impossible to analyze the actions of Mediaeval and Renaissance people.
Because this belief was so strongly held individuals were quite willing to die for it. Neither those condemning the heretic nor the heretic himself considered the matter a question of human rights. What they did believe was that it was a life or death struggle for what was necessary for salvation, and this is the reason for which Catholics, Cathars, Protestants et al, sought the death of those they considered to be spreading religious error.
The idea that someone could sincerely hold an unorthodox opinion in good faith is fairly recent, actually. The change came about when religious pluralism became inevitable after Europe had split into different forms of Christianity and people were for the first time born and raised with different beliefs. Protestants and Catholics alike came to agree that no one could be blamed for being raised in a different religion. Hence the kind of restricted toleration given to the Jews in Mediaeval Europe became gradually extended to Catholics and Protestants in their respective countries Over time all remaining restrictions on belief were abolished.
It is useless now to debate the issue of executing heretics because we cannot judge the actions of people in earlier times by criteria they themselves would not have understood.
S
sw85
Guest
You should be more scared of the people preaching falsehood, who would damn your soul and mine to Hell alike if they got their way.
This stuff matters. Moral teaching matters. Theological precision matters. Heresy is always and everywhere an assault against the order of being, a rebellion against God, born either of malice or of ignorance. No right to conscience can protect it.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
In Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull ‘Exsurge Domine’, he states the opinion that “33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” is an error, if I am reading it correctly.
V
Vico
Guest
And even earlier, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910:
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. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS).
Wilhelm, J. (1910). Heresy. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 31, 2011 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
meltzerboy
New member
I agree one should be worried about people preaching falsehood, but only in the sense that their preaching may lead to discriminatory behavior as well as violence. However, if we choose to censor everyone who preaches what we consider heresy, then we will need to institute a thought police state, which may also have the effect of censoring our own preaching, which others regard as heretical.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Understand the circumstances. Now, I don’t know how it could ever be permissible, along with the death penalty in the Western world. Here is something I found:
For more info, go to: davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm
S
sw85
Guest
We’re not talking about policing thought but policing actions – which we already do (and the West does it in the service of evil, such as firing or fining people for speaking out against gay “marriage” and the like).
I do not care if others find Catholicism heretical. Those people are wrong. I defend Catholicism because it’s true, not because the state lets me. (And by the way, Catholics are ALREADY persecuted everywhere – sometimes violently, sometimes through legal warfare. What you are advocating is nothing short of unilateral disarmament). If others decide to try to censor me I will continue to speak out and nothing short of martyrdom would shut me up.
I
Ian_Ward
Guest
No. If you want to go to hell then burn heretics. Did Jesus burn any heretics? Follow Jesus and no one else. WWJD?
H
Hadrianus
Guest
To come back to my earlier point in post 43, and develop it further, I would add that in a society which professed only one faith, those who deviated from it were thought to be acting through malice. In any case, neither the authorities nor the heretics themselves believed in Freedom of Thought. Had the heretics gained power they would have persecuted the Catholics. This is the simple reality.
In principle it was agreed that NonChristians could not be heretics, and thus the Jews were tolerated; they were not always treated very well, but in principle they had a right to continue their own customs and way of life because forcible conversion was viewed as wrong. This did not apply to Christians because there was only one faith, and no one was born into a different belief. It was assumed that heresy was a willful choice. That’s actually what the Greek hairesein means. To choose.
In such a society authority believed it was not only right but a duty to stop heretics, lest they subvert Catholicism entirely, which of course, they would have done if they could have.
When Protestantism came to power, Catholicism was immediately outlawed on the same principle. The Reformers felt that they possessed the truth which they believed the Church had corrupted and they acted accordingly.
With time and after hideous wars, both sides came to accept the view that it would be wrong to force someone to renounce a sincerely held belief in which they were born and raised.
On the metaphysical level no one can have an objective right to profess something which is false, but equally, no one can be forced to make an assent to something they do not believe to be true.
In principle it was agreed that NonChristians could not be heretics, and thus the Jews were tolerated; they were not always treated very well, but in principle they had a right to continue their own customs and way of life because forcible conversion was viewed as wrong. This did not apply to Christians because there was only one faith, and no one was born into a different belief. It was assumed that heresy was a willful choice. That’s actually what the Greek hairesein means. To choose.
In such a society authority believed it was not only right but a duty to stop heretics, lest they subvert Catholicism entirely, which of course, they would have done if they could have.
When Protestantism came to power, Catholicism was immediately outlawed on the same principle. The Reformers felt that they possessed the truth which they believed the Church had corrupted and they acted accordingly.
With time and after hideous wars, both sides came to accept the view that it would be wrong to force someone to renounce a sincerely held belief in which they were born and raised.
On the metaphysical level no one can have an objective right to profess something which is false, but equally, no one can be forced to make an assent to something they do not believe to be true.
M
Matthew_Amodeo
Guest
I cannot comment as to weather we could or should burn them, but it would be nice to have less of them.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I think I might hold heretical beliefs. I’m not 100% certain, but there’s a possibility.
I’m kinda confused as to how I can continue interacting with this board. I think half of you might have just threatened to murder me.
I’m kinda confused as to how I can continue interacting with this board. I think half of you might have just threatened to murder me.
S
sw85
Guest
OK, well, let’s establish a few things.I think I might hold heretical beliefs. I’m not 100% certain, but there’s a possibility.
I’m kinda confused as to how I can continue interacting with this board. I think half of you might have just threatened to murder me.
What some of us have said is that the state has a right (i.e., it has a duty and therefore the just capacity to act accordingly) to suppress the public expression of heresies using whatever force is necessary for them to do so – including lethal force as an absolute last resort.
This is quite different from saying “I’m going to kill everyone who disagrees with me.” No one here is saying that. You are simply being silly if you can’t recognize the distinction.
Now where the state has, as a matter of duty, the capacity to enact justice and protect the moral consensus of society, any punishments they administer are not themselves crimes. Imprisoning such a person would not be kidnapping; executing them would not be murder. Keep things in perspective.
Finally, heresy strictly speaking, being a sin, requires both knowledge and intent. Therefore merely grappling with an issue is not sufficient to qualify as heresy. You must have not only the KNOWLEDGE that you are speaking contrary to Church teachings but also the INTENT to speak BECAUSE it is contrary to Church teachings – because you wish to undermine the magisterium of the Church. Historically, heretics were invited to explain themselves and, where necessary, repent of their errors. Only the most obstinate of rebels were subject to punishment.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Well, let’s leave my politics out of this because that would open a whole new can of worms that you don’t want to deal with.
I don’t want to be silly. What is the distinction?
You want me to keep in perspective the fact that when you kill me, it won’t “count” as murder?
Ok, so, let me see if I understand you.
- I say something *not knowing *that the Church disagrees with it = O.K.
- I say something knowing that the Church disagrees with it = I must say I’m sorry or you will kill me.
However, I think that, considering the fact that we’re talking about killing people (yours truly included), it probably would be prudent to get a full explanation in.
And think that any poster here who fears that he/she might be a heretic has every right to inquire over the conditions under which you will have them killed. I say that because it is a serious matter to take a human life, in my view (I realize that the Church and State that you are thinking about may disagree somewhat, but respectfully disagree.)
Thanks.
Oh, by the way, all my comments are completely serious. Feel free to call me stupid if you feel that I deserve it for my questions, but I am asking everything genuinely. Thank you again.
S
sw85
Guest
Nothing I said in the part you quoted there even remotely related to politics but to moral right and moral duty.
Unless your politics are totalitarian, in which case we have nothing further to discuss.
You literally don’t understand the distinction between “It is proper for the state to do X” and “I intend to do X”?
I don’t mean to sound incredulous, I just don’t see how anyone can conflate the two short of anything but deliberate blockheadedness.
It is proper for the state to execute criminals under certain circumstances, for instance mob bosses who continue to issue orders to kill people from prison. This does not mean it is OK for ME PERSONALLY to go out and shoot mob bosses. Justice is enacted by the state.
I want you to use the appropriate words here instead of playing word games. “Murder” is illegitimate killing. The execution of a criminal by legitimate authority, when such is necessary to protect society, is not “murder” – it is “justice.”You want me to keep in perspective the fact that when you kill me, it won’t “count” as murder?
Not OK, just not a (mortal) sin.
Let us take several examples.
Joe is abandoned on an island as a baby and is raised to maturity by a she-wolf. He has no further contact with humans. He therefore never learns, for instance, that masturbation is wrong – so his culpability for masturbation is radically diminished, i.e., to the point of definitely ceasing to be a mortal sin.
Jane is raised in civilization but not by Catholics. She has heard some arguments before that masturbation is wrong but thinks they don’t apply to her, disagrees with them on principle, etc. Her culpability for masturbation is probably reduced but nowhere near as much as in the case of Joe. (Joe = invincible ignorance. Jane = culpable ignorance).
Now let’s transcend the ignorant. Jim is raised by Catholics but, since he was given post-Vatican II catechesis, was never given any explanation why masturbation was wrong – merely told that it was wrong. Disillusioned, he tells his teacher he won’t follow a silly irrational old teaching.
He is invited to explain himself before the priest. The priest gives him a long lecture on the philosophical and theological basis of the natural law, explaining in full the logical conditions of the moral prohibition on masturbation and the severity of the consequences. If Jim repents now, no harm no foul: he rebelled against a teaching based on a kind of ignorance.
But let us suppose Jim, out of stubbornness or malice, continues to announce, loudly and publicly, that the teaching makes no sense and is therefore not binding on Catholics. His increase in knowledge has made him MORE culpable, as has his refusal of an opportunity to repent.
Take it a step further. He starts handing out pamphlets, giving public speeches, attacking the Church’s teaching. People begin listening to him, no doubt in part because natural law is boring and Joe’s slogans are much catchier. He is compounding his error with the sin of scandal. The priest says to him, “You are leading souls to Hell. Stop this now. Keep your errors to yourself in the future.” Jim tells him to go pound sand.
The police get involved; Jim is arrested. Imprisoning him solves nothing: he continues to write essays, newspaper articles, etc., from prison. He is moved to solitary confinement, but somehow, his word keeps getting out (perhaps he is dictating to a sympathetic guard). Now, at last, the state is justified in executing him, provided it does so out of a genuine concern for the thousands or millions of souls led astray by his error.
Such is the nature of heresy: it is an aggressive and public scandal, committed with full knowledge and full consent of its error, which has the potential to destroy souls. The matter is grave indeed, and for this reason the state is naturally justified in going quite far to suppress it. Merely disagreeing in private with a Church teaching is one thing – disagreeing and dissenting in private behavior another – aggressively and publicly undermining the Church’s teaching authority something new entirely. This latter one takes on a very public element, and the matter is, as I said, very grave.
The matter I would go so far as to say is MORE SERIOUS than murder. Murder destroys mortal bodies. Heresy destroys immortal souls.
Well, as I have no idea what it is concerning which you think you are a heretic, I have no qualm with you.
I will say you have absolutely zero right to speak out against the magisterium of the Church. None whatsoever. For a right is merely the inverse of duty: the “can” to duty’s “ought.” And you ought to adhere your will to the truth as revealed by the Church which God established and which He protects from error.
Since you have no right to aggressively and unrepentantly propound errors, you have no business complaining that others do not respect your doing so.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Heretics people who were never Catholic can not be heretics so I assume you are talking about cafeteria Catholics. If you are in fact talking about Cafeteria Catholics then the proper solution is to educate and teach them, burning a heretic is an absolute last resort
Sounds more like a poorly catechized Catholic to me.I think I might hold heretical beliefs. I’m not 100% certain, but there’s a possibility.
I’m kinda confused as to how I can continue interacting with this board. I think half of you might have just threatened to murder me.
I’m basically talking about malicious heretics, ones who know what they are doing is wrong and they persist in their iniquities. I don’t believe unintentional ignorance has ever been punished.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
You have said that you want me and others like me dead, for not falling in line fully with Church teaching. Therefore, I believe that our relationship here has been irrevocably destroyed. I cannot continue to have this discussion while you persist in expressing your desire to see me executed.
I simply pray that this desire is not universal within the Church, because I’m already having enough problems with the teachings as it is.
I am struggling with the idea that, on the one hand, I can be surrounded by people who tell me that they are modeling the love of Jesus Christ and, on the other hand, saying that I must submit to all of their claims (evidence or not) or else they will have me killed. The more I frequent CAF, the further I feel from the Church.
As a consequence, I have decided to leave both CAF and the Church for the time being. I hope to find a community where I can seek God’s truth without fear. Right now that is simply not possible in the Church or at CAF.
Farewell.
Dakota Roberts:
I still have doubts. Questions that no one can answer. Now that I realize that people would see me dead and buried for my doubts and disappointment that no answers have been provided to quell those doubts…
I simply can take no more.
Sadly, I will probably be disowned. But I can’t stand this stuff anymore. When it gets to the point of executing people, I have had enough. Goodbye.
I simply pray that this desire is not universal within the Church, because I’m already having enough problems with the teachings as it is.
I am struggling with the idea that, on the one hand, I can be surrounded by people who tell me that they are modeling the love of Jesus Christ and, on the other hand, saying that I must submit to all of their claims (evidence or not) or else they will have me killed. The more I frequent CAF, the further I feel from the Church.
As a consequence, I have decided to leave both CAF and the Church for the time being. I hope to find a community where I can seek God’s truth without fear. Right now that is simply not possible in the Church or at CAF.
Farewell.
Dakota Roberts:
I was born into a Catholic family. Baptized. Confirmed. Attended Catholic middle school. Attended Catholic high school. Graduated from a Catholic university. Have a religious in the family. Worked for my parish for five years.
I still have doubts. Questions that no one can answer. Now that I realize that people would see me dead and buried for my doubts and disappointment that no answers have been provided to quell those doubts…
I simply can take no more.
Sadly, I will probably be disowned. But I can’t stand this stuff anymore. When it gets to the point of executing people, I have had enough. Goodbye.
S
severus68
Guest
The bolding is mine. You have no right to pass of your view that it is right for a Church run state to execute someone for publicly spreading heresy, as Christian. The Church does not say so and it is certainly not what the teachings of Christ is about.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Who the Hell is talking about killing you? We are having a purely theoretical conversation, besides even if this was a serious conversation you wouldn’t even qualify as you aren’t exactly running around preaching heresy
S
severus68
Guest
I hope you are not serious. The topic itself is provocative. Most Catholics whether on CAF or not do not feel the way a few fanatics feel. They just happen to be the most vocal. These few speak as if they were extremist Muslims. I too am Catholic born and bred, was in a Catholic school for the major part of my education. Catholics are not asked to memorise the Cathechism, memorise some verses from the Bible and then shut up forever. Many saints had doubts, struggled with their faith.
Christ taught that the greatest commandment is love, that is often forgotten on CAF.
- Status