On burning heretics

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I think that when discussing the burning (or even the general dispatching of) heretics, we must refer to Saint Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Pius IX, as this argument splinters off into many different arguments, one of which is the separation of Church and state and if they should be intertwined or not. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I think it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who taught that it was better that someone is killed than having them lead souls to Hell. If this is what he said, I might be inclined to agree with him.

Saint Thomas preached that when you had an infected arm, you sever it before it infects the rest of your body. Or rather if a spark is not properly put out, the whole forest may burn. Now, following Saint Thomas’ logic, heresy is CHOOSING. So naturally, with that “choice” there are consequences. Saint Thomas makes a VERY good case (per usual) in Article III of Question XI.

Now, Saint Thomas also argued (in the above link) for reciving the heretic back into the Church. Saint Thomas does not argue for killing heretics immediately, no. He instead calls for heretics to be admonished once, twice, and then dealt with on the third time. Which, in my opinion, seems reasonable. That being said, the heretic does not lose the gift of Heaven when being put to death without knowing he is a heretic. He is told he is a heretic and properly instructed. When dealing with a heretic we must not just look to the salvation of HIS soul, but also those that he leads into heresy and those that are scandalized by his actions. This is the same now as it was then.

Now, to Blessed Pius IX. Pius IX offered a syllabus of condemned errors (similar to Exurge Domini). In that aforementioned syllabus, the separation of Church and State is CONDEMNED as an error.

I must also bring to this discussion the following thread from this forum that dealt with the same issue. I see a few names from there that are participating here as well.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Roy5]

Wow! It blows my mind that there are thinking Christians - Catholics or others - who would actually defend killing ‘heretics’. I want to be kind, but what a wildly outrageous view for any sane person to hold in our democracy today. Such well-intentioned (?) folks obviously reject the Constitution and ought to find another residence, perhaps in Saudi Arabia where heresy is dealt with quite firmly…

No, my mistake. On second thought, they would have serious trouble there because they then would be the heretics! Gosh, I can't think of any Christian country anywhere that executes heretics. Tough luck! 

So much for freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly and of the press, all guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. Must be the fault of America's evil Founding Fathers. As I recall, 55 of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence were really bad heretics - wicked Protestants! Off with their heads, starting with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock and the rest of them!

 Please! Move out of the medieval world into our remarkable democracy.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Wow! It blows my mind that there are thinking Christians - Catholics or others - who would actually defend killing ‘heretics’. I want to be kind, but what a wildly outrageous view for any sane person to hold in our democracy today. Such well-intentioned (?) folks obviously reject the Constitution and ought to find another residence, perhaps in Saudi Arabia where heresy is dealt with quite firmly…

Firstly, let me make myself clear. I don’t defend the killing of heretics. I defend Saint Thomas Aquinas (among others) and his (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter. I was just contributing to the discussion, I apologize that it made you so shocked, and I hope, that I wasn’t a scandal.

I do not reject the Constitution (though I would much rather the articles of confederation, but that is just my opinion and is irrelevent to this thread).

No, my mistake. On second thought, they would have serious trouble there because they then would be the heretics! Gosh, I can't think of any Christian country anywhere that executes heretics. Tough luck!

I am not calling for countries to execute heretics. I am more discussing the evils of heresy, its affects in history, and the response of the Church and Aquinas’ response especially. In other words, since there is, really, no Christian States left, it would be odd to imagine it happening. Quite odd.

So much for freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly and of the press, all guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. Must be the fault of America's evil Founding Fathers. As I recall, 55 of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence were really bad heretics - wicked Protestants! Off with their heads, starting with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock and the rest of them!

For this, I defer to Pius IX’s Encyclical Quanta Cura, an encyclical often cited in the Syllabus of Errors. Quanta Cura deals heavily with the notion of separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[porthos11]

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

No.

They should be shot instead.

 

[Roy5]

** Gosh! I must be a notorious heretic**. I find the “Syllabus of Errors” scandalous, antipathetic toward democracy which it so sharply condemns. Thank God those evil Protestant ‘heretics’ aren’t that familiar with it and/or don’t take it seriously, else anti-Catholicism would be far more rampant. And all those Catholics who reject it - what are they? Heretics, apostates, maybe just schismatics?

**Sorry to take issue, but Pius IX is not among my favorites.** Perhaps a nice, well-meaning, pius  man (as his chosen name suggests), but he belonged in the 13th and not the 19th century. My favorite is John XXIII. We need another Pope like him who understands that we no longer live in a medieval society where superstition ran rampant, where theocratic control was widespread, and where most folks were illiterate. American Catholics today are well-educated, democratic folks who enjoy thinking for themselves, even when it may conflict with some dubious traditions. As but one example, when are priests going to be permitted to be normal men and have the option to marry and have families? Is there any higher calling than being a loving husband and father? What an inspiration that could be, as well as attract many healthy candidates to the priesthood.

** As to understanding Aquinas’ logic, I think it is clear.** To protect the ‘true faith’ all heretics should be exterminated. I wrote an undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas and what a shock when I came across his solution to heresy. Obviously, he was a brilliant and systematic thinker and prodigious writer for his time, but severely blinded by religious bigotry and arrogance. His solution to heresy transformed me overnight from one of his earnest admirers (why I chose to write about him) to one who felt the necessity to pick and choose from among his ideas. It became a major disappointment during my college years.

** Let us make religion a bridge instead of a barrier**. I often have had to ask: has organized religion been a blessing or a bane (including Catholicism)? When one reviews history it can seem like a difficult question to answer. I wonder how Christ would answer it. We ave strayed so far from the Sermon on the Mount, protecting our religious tribe often showing far less concern with truly mirroring the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

** Gosh! I must be a notorious heretic**. I find the “Syllabus of Errors” scandalous, antipathetic toward democracy which it so sharply condemns. Thank God those evil Protestant ‘heretics’ aren’t that familiar with it and/or don’t take it seriously, else anti-Catholicism would be far more rampant. And all those Catholics who reject it - what are they? Heretics, apostates, maybe just schismatics?

Firstly, I’ll have to ask that you stop the sarcasm. It isn’t contributing anything to the discussion. Secondly, I don’t think you qualify as a heretic as you aren’t a Catholic (are you?). I’m not sure what the people who reject the syllabus would be, but I would classify them as heretics for lack of a better term. I hope someone else can way in and come up with a better term for them than I can.

**Sorry to take issue, but Pius IX is not among my favorites.** Perhaps a nice, well-meaning, pius  man (as his chosen name suggests), but he belonged in the 13th and not the 19th century. My favorite is John XXIII. We need another Pope like him who understands that we no longer live in a medieval society where superstition ran rampant, where theocratic control was widespread, and where most folks were illiterate. American Catholics today are well-educated, democratic folks who enjoy thinking for themselves, even when it may conflict with some dubious traditions. As but one example, when are priests going to be permitted to be normal men and have the option to marry and have families? Is there any higher calling than being a loving husband and father? What an inspiration that could be, as well as attract many healthy candidates to the priesthood.

I admire John XXIII as well. And John XXIII greatly admired Pius IX which is no coincidence as Blessed John Paul II opted to beatify them both on the same day. I don’t see why Pius IX belonged in the 13th century. I suppose, since I’m a supporter of His Holiness, that I do as well? Also your comment about superstition confuses me. The reason it confuses me is that superstition is warned against in the Catechism:

** As to understanding Aquinas’ logic, I think it is clear.** To protect the ‘true faith’ all heretics should be exterminated. I wrote an undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas and what a shock when I came across his solution to heresy. Obviously, he was a brilliant and systematic thinker and prodigious writer for his time, but severely blinded by religious bigotry and arrogance. His solution to heresy transformed me overnight from one of his earnest admirers (why I chose to write about him) to one who felt the necessity to pick and choose from among his ideas. It became a major disappointment during my college years.

I love Aquinas and am studying him now (though I am still in high school - admitted). His “solution” to heresy was not formed out of religious bigotry and arrogance, I don’t think. I think it was true and quite logical in that he would allow a CATHOLIC STATE to do what they will. I again implore you to read the link I included in my first post concerning his teachings on the subject. I also don’t think he ever wished for the extermination of all heretics. I ask you to show me where he intended that because I haven’t found where he says that.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[TrueLight]

Was the crime only that they decided to use the death penalty to deal with the heretics or that they did anything to stop them at all? I can agree that the death penalty, especially burning at the stake was wrong, but I’m pretty confident that if there was a heresy that was spreading like wildfire and threatened the existence of society, the government would move against it and start locking people up.

Then one might say that Christianity was a heresy that pagan Rome felt it had to get rid of. So there was nothing wrong with killing all those Christians.

 

[Roy5]

Bl Pope Pius IX

Hm! Still in high school? You tackle some mighty heavy stuff, and for that I congratulate you. I'm sure you want me to be honest, and I do hope that If you become a priest (is that your intention?) you will side with those within the Church who want to make it more relevant to the world of today. I have spent many years following the Church and, as my posts probably show, I have been very disappointed with many trends. 

You ask me if I am a Catholic. I come from a mixed heritage - French-Canadian and 'old Yankee' (early settlers in MA, 1639). My Mom's Yankee family was Protestant, originally Huguenot refugees who fled Belgium for England in the mid-1500s when they were about to be accused of heresy. Dad's family tree includes the first Catholic Archbishop of Quebec. From my elementary school days I was intensely interested in religion and quite committed to good relations between Catholicism and Protestantism. 

 As a result I take strong issue with any form of Catholicism or Protestantism which is bigoted and arrogant. Most Catholics and Protestants among my friends are open-minded and open-hearted who regard one another as fellow Christians, which is my attitude. Years ago I recall how some well-informed Protestant relatives were well aware of the 'Syllabus of Errors" and viewed it was a ferocious attack upon the style of democracy we have in the USA. Fortunately, most Catholics today who know of it (few seem to) disown it as against the true spirit of Catholicism. That's how I regard it. You make Pius IX and John XXIII out to be kindred spirits. I regard them as representative of opposite forces - one reactionary, the other progressive. Obviously, I favor the progressive. 

 I will hope and pray that you will adopt a more ecumenical spirit that should typify Christians whatever their religious affiliation. We are spiritual brothers and sisters, and I personally reject any other notion. I have deep appreciation for Catholicism, but also for Protestantism and those courageous early Americans who fled to the USA for religious freedom (including some of my ancestors). The idea that they were some sort of heretics is offensive, false, and unAmerican. Like my Catholic ancestors they also sought to follow Christ faithfully and often at great cost.

God bless his children of every creed. No exceptions.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Hm! Still in high school? You tackle some mighty heavy stuff, and for that I congratulate you. I'm sure you want me to be honest, and I do hope that If you become a priest (is that your intention?) you will side with those within the Church who want to make it more relevant to the world of today. I have spent many years following the Church and, as my posts probably show, I have been very disappointed with many trends.

I will not side with “those in the church who want to…” fill in the rest. I want to side with THE CHURCH. Period. My intention is to be a Priest and I will humbly submit myself to whatever the Church may teach. Yes, I do want to Church to be relevent. But I also hold that the Church shouldn’t bend to society, but that society should bend for the Church. Because when it comes down to it, the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit while society is the creation of man. That may sound a bit awkward, forgive me.

You ask me if I am a Catholic. I come from a mixed heritage - French-Canadian and 'old Yankee' (early settlers in MA, 1639). My Mom's Yankee family was Protestant, originally Huguenot refugees who fled Belgium for England in the mid-1500s when they were about to be accused of heresy. Dad's family tree includes the first Catholic Archbishop of Quebec. From my elementary school days I was intensely interested in religion and quite committed to good relations between Catholicism and Protestantism.

My background is very similar. My mother is protestant and her family settled MA early on as well, while my father is catholic and his family is of Nova Scotia (though it can be traced back to Normandy).

 As a result I take strong issue with any form of Catholicism or Protestantism which is bigoted and arrogant. Most Catholics and Protestants among my friends are open-minded and open-hearted who regard one another as fellow Christians, which is my attitude. Years ago I recall how some well-informed Protestant relatives were well aware of the 'Syllabus of Errors" and viewed it was a ferocious attack upon the style of democracy we have in the USA. Fortunately, most Catholics today who know of it (few seem to) disown it as against the true spirit of Catholicism. That's how I regard it. You make Pius IX and John XXIII out to be kindred spirits. I regard them as representative of opposite forces - one reactionary, the other progressive. Obviously, I favor the progressive.

When it comes down to “bigoted and arrogant” that is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t find Aquinas, Pius IX, or any others that we have discussed here as bigoted or arrogant. (Actually, Pius IX was a bit arrogant. He had a ring made for him that had the profile of HIS face on it…)

The Syllabus of Errors really isn’t up for interpretation, I don’t think. But if I had to choose my loyalties between the Church or the USA, I would immediately and without hesitation choose the Church. And regardless of if people disown it, it remains. Disowning it as against the “true spirit” of Catholicism is arrogant. It isn’t their decision to make such an accusation.

Pius IX and John XXIII have quite a few similarities, and I’m not sure if your thoughts of good Pope John are how His Holiness truly was. You may be more inclined to liking Paul VI more than John XXIII. John XXIIII and Pius IX both convened Vatican Councils. John XXIII really wasn’t that “progressive” as you make him out to be. Why do you think so?

 I will hope and pray that you will adopt a more ecumenical spirit that should typify Christians whatever their religious affiliation. We are spiritual brothers and sisters, and I personally reject any other notion. I have deep appreciation for Catholicism, but also for Protestantism and those courageous early Americans who fled to the USA for religious freedom (including some of my ancestors). The idea that they were some sort of heretics is offensive, false, and unAmerican. Like my Catholic

ancestors they also sought to follow Christ faithfully and often at great cost.

I wouldn’t say they were heretics as they weren’t really Catholics, they were protestants. As to saying I adopt unAmerican beliefs - okay. Please see Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae which is Leo XIII’s response to “Americanism”.

God bless his children of every creed. No exceptions.

Amen!

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[sw85]

Wow! It blows my mind that there are thinking Christians - Catholics or others - who would actually defend killing ‘heretics’. I want to be kind, but what a wildly outrageous view for any sane person to hold in our democracy today. Such well-intentioned (?) folks obviously reject the Constitution and ought to find another residence, perhaps in Saudi Arabia where heresy is dealt with quite firmly…

Seriously, what about the argument is even remotely controversial? Catholic moral teaching does not exclude recourse to execution for serious crimes such as murder; heresy is a MORE SERIOUS crime than murder (murder destroys bodies, heresy destroys eternal souls); hence it is reasonable to treat heresy as a crime on par with murder, and to punish it appropriately.

Sputtering outrage is NOT an argument.

So much for freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly and of the press, all guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. Must be the fault of America’s evil Founding Fathers. As I recall, 55 of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence were really bad heretics - wicked Protestants! Off with their heads, starting with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock and the rest of them!

So much indeed! There is no natural right to speak error, to utter falsehood, or to seek to damn souls to Hell. Any state which says there is is DEFICIENT – which is PRECISELY what I would expect of a nation founded on the treasonous rebellion of a bunch of deists, Protestants, and Freemasons.

Please! Move out of the medieval world into our remarkable democracy.

“Our remarkable democracy” murders a million-some-odd babies a year just so people can continue to indulge their obscene lusts without consequence. To Hell with it.

It is a violently deficient social order for a wicked and sinful people in a degenerate age. What about it is worth preserving? Seriously, I’d like to know what you think is so “remarkable” about it that you can pardon an ongoing mass-slaughter on the order of eight times the ACTUAL HOLOCAUST!

Ooooh, what? Cause it graciously permits you to go to church without (too much) harassment from the state? Then just admit your true religion is COMFORT.

Then one might say that Christianity was a heresy that pagan Rome felt it had to get rid of. So there was nothing wrong with killing all those Christians.

Why is heresy a bad thing? Because it is a falsehood.

Is Christianity false? No? Then it is not heresy – and treating is such is an evil.

 

[Birdpreacher]

…heresy is a MORE SERIOUS crime than murder (murder destroys bodies, heresy destroys eternal souls); hence it is reasonable to treat heresy as a crime on par with murder, and to punish it appropriately.

If I had to pick a cell mate in prison I would take the heretic over the murderer.

If you want to protect yourself from heresey you need only go to Bible Study on mondays after adoration. A little instruction from the clergy will clear the misinformation up. As for murder…

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

If I had to pick a cell mate in prison I would take the heretic over the murderer.

If you want to protect yourself from heresey you need only go to Bible Study on mondays after adoration. A little instruction from the clergy will clear the misinformation up. As for murder…

Regardless, heresy remains more serious. Because, I reiterate what SW said, murder kills the body, heresy kills the soul. Thus, its more serious and more grave. I don’t think heresy is so easily solved. You put too much certainty in the clergy that is giving the information. Unfortunately, some of the heretics are within our own clergy. Sad, but true. If it was that true, there would be no heretics. But there were many and ARE many. Heresy is harder to beat than that.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[slywakka250]

I’m having a hard time understanding the concept of a “heretic”

Does this mean that everyone who advocates positions which are not in line with the Church should be removed from society by means of execution or prison??

 

[Vladd]

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

I thought that already happened in the inquisition , am I wrong?

 

[Tenofovir]

Just to clarify, I have argued that the state has the right to execute heretics as a last resort, not to burn them. Even in execution, the methods must be proportionate. Lethal injection is fine by me.

Check the Catechism, #2267:

*2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68*

I am not advocating anything beyond this: simply saying in that the (extremely rare) instances in which all lesser judicial methods fail to protect society from aggressive heresies, capital punishment is in order.

Again, just to clarify, I don’t endorse burning anyone alive. That’s gross.

You do have some good points. Plus you post on Ed Feser’s Blog which makes you a worthy poster of note. I still think we should be merciful in all but the most dire of situations. I would have trouble coming up with them in the modern sense though. We should reason with heretics and expose them when they cannot be reasoned with. The truth has a habit of coming out and if some people are weak and easily swayed by arguments of charlatans - the Good God will judge them appropriately for He is Just and Merciful and knows all. If some poor fool buys Dawkin’s garbage, God I’m sure will not punish the man for his foolishness. (I realise this is not an example of heresy though as Dawkins is not Catholic, etc).

And even heretics can be useful as trials or tests of faith. Sometimes we need to be shaken in our complacency to realise what the important things in life really are.

What do you guys think of these quotes of Bl. John Paul II by Christusrex.org about Bush’s war against Iraq in 2003. I think they may show a degree of relevance to the topic at hand.

Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for POPE JOHN PAUL II: “HE WHO CHOOSES WAR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IN FRONT OF GOD!” - “He who decides that all pacific means provided by the international law are exhausted, assumes a grave responsibility in front of God, in front of his own conscience and in front of history!” - V.I.S., Città del Vaticano - 18 March 2003
POPE JOHN PAUL II: “MAI PIÙ LA GUERRA - NEVER AGAIN WAR” - “I say to all of you: we still have time to negociate and there is still time for peace. It is never too late to come to an agreement and to continue to negotiate.” - V.I.S., Città del Vaticano - 16 March 2003
POPE JOHN PAUL II: “THE WAR IS SATAN” - “The choice between Peace and War in the context of the current international situation is also the choice between Good and Evil which calls all Christians, now in the Lent Season, to reject Satan’s temptations, the same way Jesus rejected them in the desert.” - V.I.S., Città del Vaticano - 9 March 2003

christusrex.org/www1/icons/pope-war.html

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I’m having a hard time understanding the concept of a “heretic”

Does this mean that everyone who advocates positions which are not in line with the Church should be removed from society by means of execution or prison??

Not so. A heretic is not just someone who “advocates positions which are not in line with the Church”. A heretic must first be a Catholic and must make the CHOICE to differ from Catholic teaching. However, be weary. I was not advocating (nor was anyone as I saw) for killing any and all people who dissent from the teachings of the Church. I deferred to Aquinas and Pius IX. Aquinas called for the CIVIL punishment of a heretic as the State sees fit only AFTER he (the heretic) has been admonished twice. Then on the thrice time if the heretic does not recant, he can be dealt with appropriately.

Vladd:

I thought that already happened in the inquisition , am I wrong?

Well the Inquisition must be discussed delicately. There were many Inquisitions. The Goa Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, Roman Inquisition, etc. Which are you referring to? Earlier in this thread someone said that the Inquisition (as ran by the Church) was less inclined to torture than a civil court.

Also, what if the Inquisition did do it? Heresy is still around.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Tenofovir]

Not so. A heretic is not just someone who “advocates positions which are not in line with the Church”. A heretic must first be a Catholic and must make the CHOICE to differ from Catholic teaching. However, be weary. I was not advocating (nor was anyone as I saw) for killing any and all people who dissent from the teachings of the Church. I deferred to Aquinas and Pius IX. Aquinas called for the CIVIL punishment of a heretic as the State sees fit only AFTER he (the heretic) has been admonished twice. Then on the thrice time if the heretic does not recant, he can be dealt with appropriately.

~ Pius :knight1:

Forgive me for interjecting. Surely the results of heresy - whether they be real heresy (what you describe above) or pseudo-heresy (non Catholic preaching incorrect things) (forgive the use of this word) are both equally bad in that they can both lead people astray. Undoubtedly, we could argue that a Catholic should not listen to a non-Catholic and is already sinning (or in error) but if he is of weak mind or easy to persuade through some condition, both can end with people’s souls being put at risk.

 

[sw85]

If I had to pick a cell mate in prison I would take the heretic over the murderer.

If you want to protect yourself from heresey you need only go to Bible Study on mondays after adoration. A little instruction from the clergy will clear the misinformation up. As for murder…

That doesn’t much relate to what I said.

I’m having a hard time understanding the concept of a “heretic”

Does this mean that everyone who advocates positions which are not in line with the Church should be removed from society by means of execution or prison??

A heretic is any Catholic who aggressively and publicly undermines one or more dogmas of the Church, with full knowledge that they are speaking contrary to Church teaching.

So no, we are not talking about people who dissent from teachings in private but who adhere to the teachings anyway, or even those people who ask questions to learn about a teaching in a spirit of goodwill, but those who knowingly persist in propagating condemned teachings and who refuse all invitations to repent of their errors.

You do have some good points. Plus you post on Ed Feser’s Blog which makes you a worthy poster of note. I still think we should be merciful in all but the most dire of situations. I would have trouble coming up with them in the modern sense though. We should reason with heretics and expose them when they cannot be reasoned with. The truth has a habit of coming out and if some people are weak and easily swayed by arguments of charlatans - the Good God will judge them appropriately for He is Just and Merciful and knows all. If some poor fool buys Dawkin’s garbage, God I’m sure will not punish the man for his foolishness. (I realise this is not an example of heresy though as Dawkins is not Catholic, etc).

Just curious but how do you know I post at Dr. Feser’s blog? I do so under a (different) pseudonym. Have I previously linked here to some comment I made there?

I agree that even under my standard it would rarely ever be necessary to execute a heretic. I’m simply saying that as a matter of moral principle the state does have recourse to it if all lesser methods fail.

I guess I should also clarify that what I am advocating is broader application than antiheresy laws. Catholics should indeed be forbidden from heresy, but even non-Catholics should not be permitted to aggressively undermine the moral consensus of the Church.

I wish I could agree that, as you say,“the truth has a habit of coming out” – I think the last several centuries of Western history definitively disprove that. The democratic age especially has been a race to the intellectual bottom.

Re: Pope JP2 and his spokesmen, I am in full agreement. But their objection to the war was not that war is innately evil (the analagous argument being made here by some people, that punishing heretics is ALWAYS bad) but that it was not done as a last resort. There are conceivable circumstances under which REFUSING to go to war is not commendable but mere damnable cowardice. Likewise, there are conceivable circumstances under which refusing to silence a heretic would be not mercy but silent complicity in evil.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Forgive me for interjecting. Surely the results of heresy - whether they be real heresy (what you describe above) or pseudo-heresy (non Catholic preaching incorrect things) (forgive the use of this word) are both equally bad in that they can both lead people astray. Undoubtedly, we could argue that a Catholic should not listen to a non-Catholic and is already sinning (or in error) but if he is of weak mind or easy to persuade through some condition, both can end with people’s souls being put at risk.

I’m not sure how to respond to this, to be honest. I suppose I agree that a Catholic cannot be torn from the faith because of the teachings of a non-Catholic. Is that what your saying? If so, I agree.

Admittedly, I’m slightly confused.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[karaleigh]

The state has the right, if such a thing is a civil law, but it seems that today it would do more harm than good if heresy were a civil law with such a penalty.

“The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.””

Something to read:
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

Thanks for the info.